referral of proposed action · 2016. 7. 29. · 001 referral of proposed action june 2016 page 3 of...

001 Referral of proposed action June 2016 of 16

Referral of proposed action What is a referral?

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) provides for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance (NES). Under the EPBC Act, a

person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on any of the matters of NES without approval from the Australian Government Environment Minister or the Minister’s

delegate. (Further references to ‘the Minister’ in this form include references to the Minister’s delegate.) To

obtain approval from the Environment Minister, a proposed action should be referred. The purpose of a referral is to obtain a decision on whether your proposed action will need formal assessment and approval

under the EPBC Act.

Your referral will be the principal basis for the Minister’s decision as to whether approval is necessary and, if

so, the type of assessment that will be undertaken. These decisions are made within 20 business days, provided sufficient information is provided in the referral.

Who can make a referral?

Referrals may be made by or on behalf of a person proposing to take an action, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency, a state or territory government, or agency, provided that the relevant government or

agency has administrative responsibilities relating to the action.

When do I need to make a referral?

A referral must be made for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the following matters

protected by Part 3 of the EPBC Act:

World Heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A)

National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C)

Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)

Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)

Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)

Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A)

Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A)

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C)

A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections

24D and 24E)

The environment, if the action involves Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A), including:

o actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment of Commonwealth land (even if taken outside Commonwealth land);

o actions taken on Commonwealth land that may have a significant impact on the environment

generally;

The environment, if the action is taken by the Commonwealth (section 28)

Commonwealth Heritage places outside the Australian jurisdiction (sections 27B and 27C)

You may still make a referral if you believe your action is not going to have a significant impact, or if you are

unsure. This will provide a greater level of certainty that Commonwealth assessment requirements have been met.

To help you decide whether or not your proposed action requires approval (and therefore, if you should make

a referral), the following guidance is available from the Department’s website:

the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental

Significance. Additional sectoral guidelines are also available.


the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon,

Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies.

the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining

developments—Impacts on water resources.

the interactive map tool (enter a location to obtain a report on what matters of NES may occur in that

location).

Can I refer part of a larger action?

In certain circumstances, the Minister may not accept a referral for an action that is a component of a larger action and may request the person proposing to take the action to refer the larger action

for consideration under the EPBC Act (Section 74A, EPBC Act). If you wish to make a referral for a

staged or component referral, read ‘Fact Sheet 6 Staged Developments/Split Referrals’ and contact the Referrals Gateway (1800 803 772).

Do I need a permit?

Some activities may also require a permit under other sections of the EPBC Act or another law of the

Commonwealth. Information is available on the Department’s web site.

Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

If your action is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park it may require permission under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If a permission is required, referral of the action under the EPBC Act is deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act (see section 37AB, GBRMP Act). This referral will be

forwarded to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) for the Authority to commence its permit processes as required under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. If a permission is not

required under the GBRMP Act, no approval under the EPBC Act is required (see section 43, EPBC Act). The Authority can provide advice on relevant permission requirements applying to activities in the Marine Park.

The Authority is responsible for assessing applications for permissions under the GBRMP Act, GBRMP

Regulations and Zoning Plan. Where assessment and approval is also required under the EPBC Act, a single integrated assessment for the purposes of both Acts will apply in most cases. Further information on

environmental approval requirements applying to actions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is available from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ or by contacting GBRMPA's Environmental Assessment and Management Section

on (07) 4750 0700.

The Authority may require a permit application assessment fee to be paid in relation to the assessment of applications for permissions required under the GBRMP Act, even if the permission is made as a referral under

the EPBC Act. Further information on this is available from the Authority:

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

2-68 Flinders Street PO Box 1379

Townsville QLD 4810 AUSTRALIA

Phone: + 61 7 4750 0700 Fax: + 61 7 4772 6093

www.gbrmpa.gov.au

What information do I need to provide?

Completing all parts of this form will ensure that you submit the required information and will also assist the Department to process your referral efficiently. If a section of the referral

document is not applicable to your proposal enter N/A.

You can complete your referral by entering your information into this Word file.

Instructions

Instructions are provided in blue text throughout the form.

Attachments/supporting information

The referral form should contain sufficient information to provide an adequate basis for a decision on the likely impacts of the proposed action. You should also provide supporting documentation, such as environmental

reports or surveys, as attachments.


Coloured maps, figures or photographs to help explain the project and its location should also be submitted

with your referral. Aerial photographs, in particular, can provide a useful perspective and context. Figures

should be good quality as they may be scanned and viewed electronically as black and white documents. Maps should be of a scale that clearly shows the location of the proposed action and any environmental aspects of

interest.

Please ensure any attachments are below three megabytes (3mb) as they will be published on the

Department’s website for public comment. To minimise file size, enclose maps and figures as

separate files if necessary. If unsure, contact the Referrals Gateway (email address below) for advice. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay processing of your referral.

Note: the Minister may decide not to publish information that the Minister is satisfied is commercial-in-confidence.

How do I pay for my referral?

From 1 October 2014 the Australian Government commenced cost recovery arrangements for environmental assessments and some strategic assessments under the EPBC Act. If an action is referred on or after 1 October

2014, then cost recovery will apply to both the referral and any assessment activities undertaken. Further information regarding cost recovery can be found on the Department’s website at:

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/cost-recovery-cris

Payment of the referral fee can be made using one of the following methods:

EFT Payments can be made to:

BSB: 092-009

Bank Account No. 115859

Amount: $7352

Account Name: Department of the Environment.

Bank: Reserve Bank of Australia

Bank Address: 20-22 London Circuit Canberra ACT 2601

Description: The reference number provided (see note below)

Cheque - Payable to “Department of the Environment”. Include the reference number provided

(see note below), and if posted, address:

The Referrals Gateway

Environment Assessment Branch

Department of the Environment

GPO Box 787

Canberra ACT 2601

Credit Card

Please contact the Collector of Public Money (CPM) directly (call (02) 6274 2930 or 6274 20260

and provide the reference number (see note below).

Note: in order to receive a reference number, submit your referral and the Referrals Gateway will

email you the reference number.

How do I submit a referral?

Referrals may be submitted by mail or email.

Mail to:

Referrals Gateway Environment Assessment Branch

Department of Environment GPO Box 787

CANBERRA ACT 2601



If submitting via mail, electronic copies of documentation (on CD/DVD or by email) are required.

Email to: [email protected]

Clearly mark the email as a ‘Referral under the EPBC Act’.

Attach the referral as a Microsoft Word file and, if possible, a PDF file.

Follow up with a mailed hardcopy including copies of any attachments or supporting reports.

What happens next?

Following receipt of a valid referral (containing all required information) you will be advised of the next steps in the process, and the referral and attachments will be published on the Department’s web site for public

comment.

The Department will write to you within 20 business days to advise you of the outcome of your referral and whether or not formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is required. There are a number of

possible decisions regarding your referral:

The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NOT NEED approval

No further consideration is required under the environmental assessment provisions of the EPBC Act and the action can proceed (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements).

The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact IF undertaken in a particular

manner

The action can proceed if undertaken in a particular manner (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or

local government requirements). The particular manner in which you must carry out the action will be identified as part of the final decision. You must report your compliance with the particular manner to the

Department.

The proposed action is LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NEED approval

If the action is likely to have a significant impact a decision will be made that it is a controlled action. The

particular matters upon which the action may have a significant impact (such as World Heritage values or threatened species) are known as the controlling provisions.

The controlled action is subject to a public assessment process before a final decision can be made about whether to approve it. The assessment approach will usually be decided at the same time as the controlled

action decision. (Further information about the levels of assessment and basis for deciding the approach are

available on the Department’s web site.)

The proposed action would have UNACCEPTABLE impacts and CANNOT proceed

The Minister may decide, on the basis of the information in the referral, that a referred action would have clearly unacceptable impacts on a protected matter and cannot proceed.

Compliance audits

If a decision is made to approve a project, the Department may audit it at any time to ensure that it is completed in accordance with the approval decision or the information provided in the referral. If the project

changes, such that the likelihood of significant impacts could vary, you should write to the Department to advise of the changes. If your project is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a decision is made to

approve it, the Authority may also audit it. (See “Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,” p.2, for

more details).

For more information

call the Department of the Environment Community Information Unit on 1800 803 772 or

visit the web site http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc

All the information you need to make a referral, including documents referenced in this form, can be accessed from the above web site.

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc


Referral of proposed action

Project title: Former Rum Jungle Mine Rehabilitation Project

1 Summary of proposed action NOTE: You must also attach a map/plan(s) and associated geographic information system (GIS) vector (shapefile) dataset showing the location and approximate boundaries of the area in which the project is to occur. Maps in A4 size are preferred. You must also attach a map(s)/plan(s) showing the location and boundaries of the project area in respect to any features identified in 3.1 & 3.2, as well as the extent of any freehold, leasehold or other tenure identified in 3.3(i).

1.1 Short description Use 2 or 3 sentences to uniquely identify the proposed action and its location.

The proposed action is the rehabilitation of the former Rum Jungle mine site (RJM), including the satellite operations of Mount Burton (MB) and Mount Fitch (MF). A preferred rehabilitation strategy has been developed for the project consistent with the views and beliefs of the traditional Aboriginal owners.

The preferred rehabilitation strategy involves backfilling one of the former mine pits at RJM, with material from the existing waste rock dumps and consolidating the remaining waste rock, and any residual contaminated soil, to a new, purpose-built waste rock dump. In addition the MB waste rock dump will be relocated to the purpose built facility at RJM, whilst the MF waste rock dump will be backfilled into the existing MF pit. Leading practice landform and cover designs will be developed and implemented for the in-filled pit and the new waste rock dump, with cover materials to be sourced from an off-site borrow pit. All covers will be revegetated with native species. Important cultural aspects of the landscape will be taken into account and wherever possible, protected or reinstated.

The project area is located near Batchelor in the Northern Territory, approximately 105 kilometres, by road, south of Darwin. Refer to Figures 1-4.


1.2 Latitude and longitude

Latitude and longitude details are used to accurately map the boundary of the proposed action. If these coordinates are inaccurate or insufficient it may delay the processing of your referral.

Table 1-1 Rum Jungle Mine site project area boundary coordinates

Location Point

Latitude Longitude

Degrees Minutes Seconds Degrees Minutes Seconds

1 -12 58 33.64 131 0 41.65

2 -12 58 41.38 131 1 36.73

3 -12 59 26.99 131 1 36.3

4 -12 59 31.74 131 1 29.78

5 -12 59 31.7 131 1 25.28

6 -12 59 34.8 131 1 25.5

7 -13 0 1.69 131 0 51.55

8 -13 0 1.84 131 0 43.06

9 -12 59 43.12 131 0 9.43

10 -12 59 35.7 130 59 59.46

11 -12 59 27.85 130 59 59.06

12 -12 59 26.95 131 0 2.63

13 -12 59 23.82 131 0 1.84

14 -12 59 24.54 130 59 58.81

15 -12 59 10.18 130 59 57.55

16 -12 59 10.03 130 59 54.28

17 -12 58 39.43 130 59 54.42

18 -12 58 39.43 131 0 4.86

19 -12 58 37.09 131 0 4.86


Latitude and longitude


Table 1-2 Mt Fitch project area coordinates

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 57 0.25 130 57 3.89

Table 1-3 Mt Burton project area coordinates

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 58 44.17 130 57 56.71

Table 1-4 FRLT Borrow Area project area boundary coordinates. Borrow pits are within boundary.

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 58 39.84 131 4 57.64

2 -12 58 39.81 131 5 0.99

3 -12 58 33.32 131 5 0.94

4 -12 58 33.51 131 5 34.05

5 -12 58 23.89 131 5 33.97

6 -12 58 23.34 131 5 54.03

7 -12 59 44.36 131 5 53.85

8 -12 59 44.28 131 5 11.4

9 -12 58 52.43 131 5 10.97

10 -12 58 52.32 131 4 57.75


Table 1-5 Coordinates for Borrow Pit Haul Road

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 58 44.98 131 1 36.51

2 -12 58 48.32 131 1 39.71

3 -12 58 49.15 131 1 43.44

4 -12 58 48.53 131 1 45.85

5 -12 58 14.4 131 2 31.56

6 -12 58 12.02 131 2 34.56

7 -12 58 0.76 131 2 45.33

8 -12 57 56.18 131 2 53.11

9 -12 57 53.29 131 2 58.22

10 -12 57 52.45 131 3 1.67

11 -12 57 52.69 131 3 5.21

12 -12 57 53.62 131 3 7.8

13 -12 57 59.42 131 3 15.46

14 -12 58 2.27 131 3 18.02

15 -12 58 5.57 131 3 19.93

16 -12 58 11.35 131 3 21.7

17 -12 58 19.26 131 3 23.83

18 -12 58 22.34 131 3 25.77

19 -12 58 24.43 131 3 28.34

20 -12 58 25.73 131 3 31.8

21 -12 58 25.86 131 3 35.13

22 -12 58 24.91 131 3 41.79

23 -12 58 24.88 131 3 44.71

24 -12 58 25.75 131 3 48.49

25 -12 58 30.28 131 3 58.13

26 -12 58 30.48 131 4 1.87

27 -12 58 29.49 131 4 4.83

28 -12 58 17.01 131 4 18.19

29 -12 58 15.87 131 4 20.67

30 -12 58 15.75 131 4 22.96

31 -12 58 17.25 131 4 34.36

32 -12 58 18.91 131 4 37.86

33 -12 58 21.54 131 4 40.67

34 -12 58 32.56 131 4 48.77

35 -12 58 34.91 131 4 51.26

36 -12 58 39.83 131 4 59.17


Table 1-6 Coordinates for Site Access Road

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -13° 0' 27.33" 131° 0' 10.88"

2 -13° 0' 25.93" 131° 0' 13.10"

3 -13° 0' 23.79" 131° 0' 15.20"

4 -13° 0' 21.55" 131° 0' 17.24"

5 -13° 0' 19.34" 131° 0' 19.21"

6 -13° 0' 16.94" 131° 0' 21.38"

7 -13° 0' 14.32" 131° 0' 23.75"

8 -13° 0' 11.85" 131° 0' 25.99"

9 -13° 0' 9.34" 131° 0' 28.22"

10 -13° 0' 6.85" 131° 0' 30.49"

11 -13° 0' 4.85" 131° 0' 32.27"

12 -13° 0' 2.34" 131° 0' 33.58"

13 -12° 59' 59.83" 131° 0' 33.95"

14 -12° 59' 57.87" 131° 0' 33.71"

15 -12° 59' 56.03" 131° 0' 32.96"

001 Referral of proposed action June 2016 Page 1 of 16

The Interactive Mapping Tool may provide assistance in determining the coordinates for your project area. If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a single pair of latitude and longitude references. If the area

is greater than 5 hectares, provide bounding location points. There should be no more than 50 sets of bounding location coordinate points per proposal area. Bounding location coordinate points should be provided sequentially in either a clockwise or anticlockwise direction. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipeline), provide coordinates for each turning point. Also attach the associated GIS-compliant file that delineates the proposed referral area. If the area is less than 5 hectares, please provide the location as a point layer. If greater than 5 hectares, please provide a polygon layer. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipline) please provide a polyline layer (refer to GIS data supply guidelines at Attachment A).

Do not use AMG coordinates. The coordinate points for Rum Jungle, Mount Fitch, Mount Burton, Finniss River Lands Trust (FRLT) Borrow Area, the Borrow Area Haul Road and the Site Access are listed above in Table 1-1 to Table 1-6. Table 1-1 is of the Main Rum Jungle site which will house all the contaminated material. A single pair of latitude and longitude reference points has also been provided in Tables 1-2 and Table 1-3, for both Mount Fitch and Mount Burton, respectively. Table 1-4 is of the coordinates for the FRLT Borrow Area. Table 1-5 and 1-6 provides coordinate points the Borrow Area Haul Road and Site Access road,

respectively.

GIS shapefiles have been provided for the entire proposed disturbance.


Figure 1 Project location for Rum Jungle Mine site, satellite sites of Mount Burton and Mount Fitch, proposed Borrow Area and accompanying haul roads (note: orange indicates use of existing access roads).


Referral of proposed action What is a referral?

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) provides for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance (NES). Under the EPBC Act, a

person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on any of the matters of NES without approval from the Australian Government Environment Minister or the Minister’s

delegate. (Further references to ‘the Minister’ in this form include references to the Minister’s delegate.) To

obtain approval from the Environment Minister, a proposed action should be referred. The purpose of a referral is to obtain a decision on whether your proposed action will need formal assessment and approval

under the EPBC Act.

Your referral will be the principal basis for the Minister’s decision as to whether approval is necessary and, if

so, the type of assessment that will be undertaken. These decisions are made within 20 business days, provided sufficient information is provided in the referral.

Who can make a referral?

Referrals may be made by or on behalf of a person proposing to take an action, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency, a state or territory government, or agency, provided that the relevant government or

agency has administrative responsibilities relating to the action.

When do I need to make a referral?

A referral must be made for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the following matters

protected by Part 3 of the EPBC Act:

World Heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A)








A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections

24D and 24E)

The environment, if the action involves Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A), including:

o actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment of Commonwealth land (even if taken outside Commonwealth land);

o actions taken on Commonwealth land that may have a significant impact on the environment

generally;

The environment, if the action is taken by the Commonwealth (section 28)

Commonwealth Heritage places outside the Australian jurisdiction (sections 27B and 27C)

You may still make a referral if you believe your action is not going to have a significant impact, or if you are

unsure. This will provide a greater level of certainty that Commonwealth assessment requirements have been met.

To help you decide whether or not your proposed action requires approval (and therefore, if you should make

a referral), the following guidance is available from the Department’s website:

the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental

Significance. Additional sectoral guidelines are also available.


the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon,

Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies.

the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining

developments—Impacts on water resources.

the interactive map tool (enter a location to obtain a report on what matters of NES may occur in that

location).

Can I refer part of a larger action?

In certain circumstances, the Minister may not accept a referral for an action that is a component of a larger action and may request the person proposing to take the action to refer the larger action

for consideration under the EPBC Act (Section 74A, EPBC Act). If you wish to make a referral for a

staged or component referral, read ‘Fact Sheet 6 Staged Developments/Split Referrals’ and contact the Referrals Gateway (1800 803 772).

Do I need a permit?

Some activities may also require a permit under other sections of the EPBC Act or another law of the

Commonwealth. Information is available on the Department’s web site.

Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

If your action is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park it may require permission under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If a permission is required, referral of the action under the EPBC Act is deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act (see section 37AB, GBRMP Act). This referral will be

forwarded to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) for the Authority to commence its permit processes as required under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. If a permission is not

required under the GBRMP Act, no approval under the EPBC Act is required (see section 43, EPBC Act). The Authority can provide advice on relevant permission requirements applying to activities in the Marine Park.

The Authority is responsible for assessing applications for permissions under the GBRMP Act, GBRMP

Regulations and Zoning Plan. Where assessment and approval is also required under the EPBC Act, a single integrated assessment for the purposes of both Acts will apply in most cases. Further information on

environmental approval requirements applying to actions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is available from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ or by contacting GBRMPA's Environmental Assessment and Management Section

on (07) 4750 0700.

The Authority may require a permit application assessment fee to be paid in relation to the assessment of applications for permissions required under the GBRMP Act, even if the permission is made as a referral under

the EPBC Act. Further information on this is available from the Authority:

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

2-68 Flinders Street PO Box 1379

Townsville QLD 4810 AUSTRALIA

Phone: + 61 7 4750 0700 Fax: + 61 7 4772 6093

www.gbrmpa.gov.au

What information do I need to provide?

Completing all parts of this form will ensure that you submit the required information and will also assist the Department to process your referral efficiently. If a section of the referral

document is not applicable to your proposal enter N/A.

You can complete your referral by entering your information into this Word file.

Instructions

Instructions are provided in blue text throughout the form.

Attachments/supporting information

The referral form should contain sufficient information to provide an adequate basis for a decision on the likely impacts of the proposed action. You should also provide supporting documentation, such as environmental

reports or surveys, as attachments.


Coloured maps, figures or photographs to help explain the project and its location should also be submitted

with your referral. Aerial photographs, in particular, can provide a useful perspective and context. Figures

should be good quality as they may be scanned and viewed electronically as black and white documents. Maps should be of a scale that clearly shows the location of the proposed action and any environmental aspects of

interest.

Please ensure any attachments are below three megabytes (3mb) as they will be published on the

Department’s website for public comment. To minimise file size, enclose maps and figures as

separate files if necessary. If unsure, contact the Referrals Gateway (email address below) for advice. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay processing of your referral.

Note: the Minister may decide not to publish information that the Minister is satisfied is commercial-in-confidence.

How do I pay for my referral?

From 1 October 2014 the Australian Government commenced cost recovery arrangements for environmental assessments and some strategic assessments under the EPBC Act. If an action is referred on or after 1 October

2014, then cost recovery will apply to both the referral and any assessment activities undertaken. Further information regarding cost recovery can be found on the Department’s website at:


Payment of the referral fee can be made using one of the following methods:

EFT Payments can be made to:

BSB: 092-009

Bank Account No. 115859

Amount: $7352

Account Name: Department of the Environment.

Bank: Reserve Bank of Australia

Bank Address: 20-22 London Circuit Canberra ACT 2601

Description: The reference number provided (see note below)

Cheque - Payable to “Department of the Environment”. Include the reference number provided

(see note below), and if posted, address:

The Referrals Gateway

Environment Assessment Branch

Department of the Environment

GPO Box 787

Canberra ACT 2601

Credit Card

Please contact the Collector of Public Money (CPM) directly (call (02) 6274 2930 or 6274 20260

and provide the reference number (see note below).

Note: in order to receive a reference number, submit your referral and the Referrals Gateway will

email you the reference number.

How do I submit a referral?

Referrals may be submitted by mail or email.

Mail to:

Referrals Gateway Environment Assessment Branch

Department of Environment GPO Box 787

CANBERRA ACT 2601



If submitting via mail, electronic copies of documentation (on CD/DVD or by email) are required.

Email to: [email protected]

Clearly mark the email as a ‘Referral under the EPBC Act’.

Attach the referral as a Microsoft Word file and, if possible, a PDF file.

Follow up with a mailed hardcopy including copies of any attachments or supporting reports.

What happens next?

Following receipt of a valid referral (containing all required information) you will be advised of the next steps in the process, and the referral and attachments will be published on the Department’s web site for public

comment.

The Department will write to you within 20 business days to advise you of the outcome of your referral and whether or not formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is required. There are a number of

possible decisions regarding your referral:

The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NOT NEED approval

No further consideration is required under the environmental assessment provisions of the EPBC Act and the action can proceed (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements).

The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact IF undertaken in a particular

manner

The action can proceed if undertaken in a particular manner (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or

local government requirements). The particular manner in which you must carry out the action will be identified as part of the final decision. You must report your compliance with the particular manner to the

Department.

The proposed action is LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NEED approval

If the action is likely to have a significant impact a decision will be made that it is a controlled action. The

particular matters upon which the action may have a significant impact (such as World Heritage values or threatened species) are known as the controlling provisions.

The controlled action is subject to a public assessment process before a final decision can be made about whether to approve it. The assessment approach will usually be decided at the same time as the controlled

action decision. (Further information about the levels of assessment and basis for deciding the approach are

available on the Department’s web site.)

The proposed action would have UNACCEPTABLE impacts and CANNOT proceed

The Minister may decide, on the basis of the information in the referral, that a referred action would have clearly unacceptable impacts on a protected matter and cannot proceed.

Compliance audits

If a decision is made to approve a project, the Department may audit it at any time to ensure that it is completed in accordance with the approval decision or the information provided in the referral. If the project

changes, such that the likelihood of significant impacts could vary, you should write to the Department to advise of the changes. If your project is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a decision is made to

approve it, the Authority may also audit it. (See “Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,” p.2, for

more details).

For more information

call the Department of the Environment Community Information Unit on 1800 803 772 or

visit the web site http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc

All the information you need to make a referral, including documents referenced in this form, can be accessed from the above web site.

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc


Referral of proposed action

Project title: Former Rum Jungle Mine Rehabilitation Project

1 Summary of proposed action NOTE: You must also attach a map/plan(s) and associated geographic information system (GIS) vector (shapefile) dataset showing the location and approximate boundaries of the area in which the project is to occur. Maps in A4 size are preferred. You must also attach a map(s)/plan(s) showing the location and boundaries of the project area in respect to any features identified in 3.1 & 3.2, as well as the extent of any freehold, leasehold or other tenure identified in 3.3(i).

1.1 Short description Use 2 or 3 sentences to uniquely identify the proposed action and its location.

The proposed action is the rehabilitation of the former Rum Jungle mine site (RJM), including the satellite operations of Mount Burton (MB) and Mount Fitch (MF). A preferred rehabilitation strategy has been developed for the project consistent with the views and beliefs of the traditional Aboriginal owners.

The preferred rehabilitation strategy involves backfilling one of the former mine pits at RJM, with material from the existing waste rock dumps and consolidating the remaining waste rock, and any residual contaminated soil, to a new, purpose-built waste rock dump. In addition the MB waste rock dump will be relocated to the purpose built facility at RJM, whilst the MF waste rock dump will be backfilled into the existing MF pit. Leading practice landform and cover designs will be developed and implemented for the in-filled pit and the new waste rock dump, with cover materials to be sourced from an off-site borrow pit. All covers will be revegetated with native species. Important cultural aspects of the landscape will be taken into account and wherever possible, protected or reinstated.

The project area is located near Batchelor in the Northern Territory, approximately 105 kilometres, by road, south of Darwin. Refer to Figures 1-4.


1.2 Latitude and longitude


Table 1-1 Rum Jungle Mine site project area boundary coordinates

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 58 33.64 131 0 41.65

2 -12 58 41.38 131 1 36.73

3 -12 59 26.99 131 1 36.3

4 -12 59 31.74 131 1 29.78

5 -12 59 31.7 131 1 25.28

6 -12 59 34.8 131 1 25.5

7 -13 0 1.69 131 0 51.55

8 -13 0 1.84 131 0 43.06

9 -12 59 43.12 131 0 9.43

10 -12 59 35.7 130 59 59.46

11 -12 59 27.85 130 59 59.06

12 -12 59 26.95 131 0 2.63

13 -12 59 23.82 131 0 1.84

14 -12 59 24.54 130 59 58.81

15 -12 59 10.18 130 59 57.55

16 -12 59 10.03 130 59 54.28

17 -12 58 39.43 130 59 54.42

18 -12 58 39.43 131 0 4.86

19 -12 58 37.09 131 0 4.86


Latitude and longitude


Table 1-2 Mt Fitch project area coordinates

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 57 0.25 130 57 3.89

Table 1-3 Mt Burton project area coordinates

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 58 44.17 130 57 56.71

Table 1-4 FRLT Borrow Area project area boundary coordinates. Borrow pits are within boundary.

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 58 39.84 131 4 57.64

2 -12 58 39.81 131 5 0.99

3 -12 58 33.32 131 5 0.94

4 -12 58 33.51 131 5 34.05

5 -12 58 23.89 131 5 33.97

6 -12 58 23.34 131 5 54.03

7 -12 59 44.36 131 5 53.85

8 -12 59 44.28 131 5 11.4

9 -12 58 52.43 131 5 10.97

10 -12 58 52.32 131 4 57.75


Table 1-5 Coordinates for Borrow Pit Haul Road

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -12 58 44.98 131 1 36.51

2 -12 58 48.32 131 1 39.71

3 -12 58 49.15 131 1 43.44

4 -12 58 48.53 131 1 45.85

5 -12 58 14.4 131 2 31.56

6 -12 58 12.02 131 2 34.56

7 -12 58 0.76 131 2 45.33

8 -12 57 56.18 131 2 53.11

9 -12 57 53.29 131 2 58.22

10 -12 57 52.45 131 3 1.67

11 -12 57 52.69 131 3 5.21

12 -12 57 53.62 131 3 7.8

13 -12 57 59.42 131 3 15.46

14 -12 58 2.27 131 3 18.02

15 -12 58 5.57 131 3 19.93

16 -12 58 11.35 131 3 21.7

17 -12 58 19.26 131 3 23.83

18 -12 58 22.34 131 3 25.77

19 -12 58 24.43 131 3 28.34

20 -12 58 25.73 131 3 31.8

21 -12 58 25.86 131 3 35.13

22 -12 58 24.91 131 3 41.79

23 -12 58 24.88 131 3 44.71

24 -12 58 25.75 131 3 48.49

25 -12 58 30.28 131 3 58.13

26 -12 58 30.48 131 4 1.87

27 -12 58 29.49 131 4 4.83

28 -12 58 17.01 131 4 18.19

29 -12 58 15.87 131 4 20.67

30 -12 58 15.75 131 4 22.96

31 -12 58 17.25 131 4 34.36

32 -12 58 18.91 131 4 37.86

33 -12 58 21.54 131 4 40.67

34 -12 58 32.56 131 4 48.77

35 -12 58 34.91 131 4 51.26

36 -12 58 39.83 131 4 59.17


Table 1-6 Coordinates for Site Access Road

Location Point

Latitude Longitude


1 -13° 0' 27.33" 131° 0' 10.88"

2 -13° 0' 25.93" 131° 0' 13.10"

3 -13° 0' 23.79" 131° 0' 15.20"

4 -13° 0' 21.55" 131° 0' 17.24"

5 -13° 0' 19.34" 131° 0' 19.21"

6 -13° 0' 16.94" 131° 0' 21.38"

7 -13° 0' 14.32" 131° 0' 23.75"

8 -13° 0' 11.85" 131° 0' 25.99"

9 -13° 0' 9.34" 131° 0' 28.22"

10 -13° 0' 6.85" 131° 0' 30.49"

11 -13° 0' 4.85" 131° 0' 32.27"

12 -13° 0' 2.34" 131° 0' 33.58"

13 -12° 59' 59.83" 131° 0' 33.95"

14 -12° 59' 57.87" 131° 0' 33.71"

15 -12° 59' 56.03" 131° 0' 32.96"


The Interactive Mapping Tool may provide assistance in determining the coordinates for your project area. If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a single pair of latitude and longitude references. If the area

is greater than 5 hectares, provide bounding location points. There should be no more than 50 sets of bounding location coordinate points per proposal area. Bounding location coordinate points should be provided sequentially in either a clockwise or anticlockwise direction. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipeline), provide coordinates for each turning point. Also attach the associated GIS-compliant file that delineates the proposed referral area. If the area is less than 5 hectares, please provide the location as a point layer. If greater than 5 hectares, please provide a polygon layer. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipline) please provide a polyline layer (refer to GIS data supply guidelines at Attachment A).

Do not use AMG coordinates. The coordinate points for Rum Jungle, Mount Fitch, Mount Burton, Finniss River Lands Trust (FRLT) Borrow Area, the Borrow Area Haul Road and the Site Access are listed above in Table 1-1 to Table 1-6. Table 1-1 is of the Main Rum Jungle site which will house all the contaminated material. A single pair of latitude and longitude reference points has also been provided in Tables 1-2 and Table 1-3, for both Mount Fitch and Mount Burton, respectively. Table 1-4 is of the coordinates for the FRLT Borrow Area. Table 1-5 and 1-6 provides coordinate points the Borrow Area Haul Road and Site Access road,

respectively.

GIS shapefiles have been provided for the entire proposed disturbance.


Figure 1 Project location for Rum Jungle Mine site, satellite sites of Mount Burton and Mount Fitch, proposed Borrow Area and accompanying haul roads (note: orange indicates use of existing access roads).

2 Detailed description of proposed action NOTE: It is important that the description is complete and includes all components and activities associated with the action. If certain related components are not intended to be included within the scope of the referral, this should be clearly explained in section 2.7.

2.1 Description of proposed action This should be a detailed description outlining all activities and aspects of the proposed action and should reference figures and/or attachments, as appropriate.

Rum Jungle is a highly disturbed landscape, not only from past mining activities but also from the rehabilitation process in the 1980’s when substantial borrow pits were created in order to create covers on the waste rock dumps and Dysons backfilled pit. The proposed action (rehabilitation of Rum Jungle) aims to address the long-term environmental legacy issues at the Rum Jungle and the satellite sites of Mount Fitch and Mount Burton. The proposed rehabilitation action addresses the rehabilitation objectives which were developed in consultation with stakeholders during the National Partnership Agreement (2009-2013) (Attachment A), see also section 2.4 and 2.6. The rehabilitation objectives aim to create a landscape that:

Is safe for people and wildlife

Is chemically, radiologically and physically stable

Has a significantly reduced contaminant load (associated with AMD) travelling beyond the boundaries of the site

Supports sustainable land uses by traditional Aboriginal owners of the area with few, if any, limitations

Encourages beneficial alternative post-rehabilitation land uses.

The Kungarakan and Warai are recognised as joint traditional owners of the Rum Jungle site. Their objectives for rehabilitation and post-rehabilitation land use are summed up in their vision for the site. As they do not differentiate between environment and culture, their vision is largely drawn from their cultural and social principles:

Kungarakan and Warai desire that Rum Jungle will be returned to a natural, living environment that also provides for a return to traditional ceremony, culture and subsistence use of natural resources. In modern society, this may include development of commercial operations that are managed according to Kungarakan and Warai traditional principles.

The post-mining landform must be returned as close as possible to the landform that existed before mining, with no detrimental impacts on the downstream environment or on the neighbours of Kungarakan and Warai who live downstream. To Kungarakan and Warai, rehabilitation of the physical landscape will allow spiritual healing of the country. The following outcomes are required for their vision and for the healing process to be achieved:

culturally appropriate preservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage

re-establishment of the original landform as far as achieving the best outcomes allows

removing or neutralising pollution sources

removing any risk of radiological hazard

remediating polluted groundwater

stopping surface water from being polluted

restoring flora and fauna species endemic to the site and its immediate surrounds

maximising employment and business opportunities throughout the rehabilitation process.

The rehabilitation is focussed on relocating the most-reactive (AMD forming) waste to the Main pit void, with residual waste (less reactive) being relocated to a new purpose built Waste Rock Dump (WRD) to the north. Approximately thirty percent of the total volume of waste material currently stored on site will be used to refill Main pit, significantly reducing the current above ground waste at Rum Jungle. The northern location was primarily selected for the above-ground WRD as it is positioned away from sacred sites and is not significantly affected by flood. Leading practice cover and landform designs will be developed for the WRD to prevent AMD and all previously disturbed areas will be revegetated with native species.

Specifically, the rehabilitation works will involve:

Dewatering of Main pit during the Wet Season. Surface and groundwater flows and quality will be monitored

closely during dewatering. It is anticipated that contaminated water will be encountered at depth and this water

will be treated through a water treatment system and released during the wet season when the river is flowing to

provide maximum dilution.

Dredging of historic tailings currently located at the base ofMain pit. Tailings will be filter pressed, temporarily

(short-term) stockpiled and consolidated to a new purpose built WRD in the northern location on site.

Waste material from Dyson’s backfilled Pit (to grade), Intermediate WRD and a portion of Main WRD (most

reactive waste) will be relocated to Main pit following de-watering and dredging of tailings.

Residual waste from Main WRD, Dysons WRD and contaminated soils (including from fluvial areas) will be

consolidated to the new WSF.

All waste will be mixed with lime prior to being relocated to either Main pit or the new WSF.

Leading practice cover and landforms designs will be utilised in the construction of covers over the Main pit,

Dysons pit and new WRD. This will comprise of clays, soils and growth mediums and be revegetated with locally

collected native tree species. The design of the Main pit cover will include the reinstatement of East Branch of the

Finniss River to as far as practicable, its pre-mining course.

A seepage collection system will be constructed to collect any seepage encountered beneath the new WSF. This

seepage will be directed to Intermediate pit to be passively treated.

Borrow pits will be excavated to extract necessary material for the cover construction. Borrow pits has been

carefully selected and a Fauna and Flora assessment of the area has been carried out (See Attachment B, Borrow

pit and haul road investigation).

The Mount Burton WRD will be excavated and transported to Rum Jungle for long-term disposal in the WSF at

Rum Jungle.

The small overburden heap at Mount Fitch, located directly south of the pit and some surface disturbance is

evident to the west, will be relocated into the Mount Fitch Pit.

Landform design and revegetation will be undertaken on disturbed areas following rehabilitation works, including

WRD footprint areas, old tailing dam area, old borrow pits, haul roads etc.

Weed and fire management programs will be implemented to assist in the successful establishment of native

vegetation (see Attachment C for Weed Management Plan).

Intermediate pit will remain as a water-filled void for use as a passive water treatment system. Intermediate pit

will act as a flow through system, similar to the current site configuration, to provide annual flushing of the pit

during the Wet Season in order to meet water quality targets..

Important cultural aspects of the landscape will continue to be taken into account and wherever possible, actions

to protect or reinstate them will be incorporated into the final design.

Access tracks will be upgraded to ensure the rehabilitation works are implemented in a safe and timely manner,

this includes construction of haul roads and a bridge to provide all weather access during construction.

The Main pit has a total volume of 3.1 Mm3 below RL 58.5 m (following dredging of tailings), and will be filled to 58.5m RL with PAF-I t and PAF-2 type material below the saturated zone of the pit. The primary sources and volumes of waste rock materials destined for the backfill Main Pit is outlined in Table 2-1.

Volumes of material which will be managed during this rehabilitation project are summarised in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Total Main Pit waste backfill components (O’Kanes, 2016; Detailed Design Report)

Source of Waste to Main Pit Volume (m3)

Main WRD 1,324,180

Intermediate WRD 781,150

Dysons Pit Backfill 511,500

Dysons WRD (Coarse) 150,000

Lime Addition 29,540

Main Pit Ramp 20,570

Total to RL 58.5 2,816,940

The WSF will be located in the northern location (refer to Figure 6). The WSF has been specifically designed to provide a long-term containment of all materials types with the exception of material classed as PAF I waste, which will be relocated

to Main pit. Waste allocated to the WSF includes dewatered tailings from Main Pit, waste from Main, Main North and Dysons WRD, waste from Mount Burton, and contaminated soils from the copper extraction area, Old Tailings Dam area, Old Stockpile area, material from fluvial areas and from miscellaneous salt-affected soils across site (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2: Total Waste to New WSF.

Source of Waste to New WSF Volume (m3)

Main WRD 3,328,090

Main North WRD 151,800

Dysons WRD 1,112,985

Copper Extraction Area 144,000

Old Tailings Area 264,000

Finniss River new excavation 226,600

Pit Levees 144,500

Dried Tailings 574,934

Mt Burton 169,400

Old Stockpile Area 396,000

Drill Rig Site 34,200

Eastern Valley 13,000

Salt affected soils - Dysons 58,500

Salt affected soils - Finniss 65,250

Salt affected soils - West 13,000

Lime addition 15,906

Total 6,712,165

The predicted site layout after the implementation of the preferred rehabilitation strategy is shown in Figure 6. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 below outline the alternatives considered prior to arriving at this preferred strategy.

Figure 6 Predicted Rum Jungle site features after implementation of the preferred rehabilitation strategy.

2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action This should be a detailed description outlining any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action (including not taking

the action) that were considered but are not proposed (note, this is distinct from any proposed alternatives relating to location, time frames, or activities – see section 2.3).

The do nothing scenario, while discussed in the context of rehabilitation planning, was not included in the rehabilitation scenarios for consideration during the technical expert and stakeholder options ranking process (see section 2.3). This is because it does not address the environmental, Commonwealth Government and traditional Aboriginal owner objectives, nor standards for radiological and environmental protection which are relevant to a former mine site. Rum Jungle in its current condition, if left un-rehabilitated, will continue to generate pollution and limit land use/access and provide a source of conflict with traditional Aboriginal owners. The onsite pollution and resulting environmental impacts downstream of Rum Jungle will worsen over time as soil covers further degrade and weathering processes accelerate the rate of acid and metalliferous drainage from waste rock and tailings. Other areas of in situ contamination which were not rehabilitated in the 1980’s will continue to interact with, and contaminate, surface and groundwater. There is no evidence to demonstrate that this contamination will be naturally attenuated or exhausted in the short or long term, so mitigation measures are essential if environmental impacts are to be addressed. If sites are left un-rehabilitated they will inevitably lead to increasing liability over time. As a developed nation, within the Asia-Pacific region there are additional reputational risks for Australia if no action were to be taken. Through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) (formerly AusAID) Australia promotes leading practice mining methods to developing countries via its Leading Practice Sustainable Development in Mining series, so effective rehabilitation and closure of Rum Jungle provides an ideal opportunity for the Commonwealth Government to demonstrate the application of this leading practice knowledge. Implementation and communication of this case study will further elevate the reputation of the Commonwealth Government in the region.

2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action If you have identified that the proposed action includes alternative time frames, locations or activities (in section 1.10) you must complete this section. Describe any alternatives related to the physical location of the action, time frames within which the action is to be taken and alternative methods or activities for undertaking the action. For each alternative location, time frame or activity identified, you must also complete (where relevant) the details in sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7, 3.3 and 4. Please note, if the action that you propose to take is determined to be a controlled action, any alternative locations, time frames or activities that are identified here may be subject to environmental assessment and a decision on whether to approve the alternative.

Five potential rehabilitation scenarios were developed and assessed to evaluate how each scenario addressed the rehabilitation objectives (see Section 2.1). As stated previously, these objectives were developed through consultation with stakeholders, including the two traditional Aboriginal owner groups. The five scenarios evaluated included;

Scenario 1—Re-cover waste rock dumps in situ

This scenario focused on constructing new cover systems over the existing waste landforms and did not involve any major relocation of waste materials. It also included clean-up of contaminated land.

Scenario 2—Backfill Intermediate and Main pits then consolidate remaining waste rock into the Main waste rock dump

This scenario involved backfilling the Main and Intermediate pits and consolidating and re-covering all residual waste rock into the Main waste rock dump. This would substantially reduce the amount of waste rock stored at the surface.

Scenario 3—Backfill the Intermediate and Main pits and consolidate remaining waste rock into Dysons waste rock

dump

This scenario involved backfilling the Main and Intermediate pits and consolidating all remaining waste rock into Dysons waste rock dump and constructing a cover system over the waste rock dump. This approach is similar to Scenario 2; however, in Scenario 3, waste material from the Main waste rock dump is moved and consolidated into the Dysons waste rock dump, which moves the waste away from its close proximity to drainage, however it creates a larger landform to be covered, rehabilitated and managed and is close to culturally sensitive sites.

Scenario 4—Backfill Main and Intermediate pits and consolidate the remaining waste rock to a new facility in the former tailings dam area

The preferred rehabilitation strategy is based on a modification of Scenario 4, as outlined in the Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan, 2013. This involves:

The construction of a new purpose built WSF in an area sited above selected flood levels, on the northern boundary of the Rum Jungle (see Figure 6), and is comprised of excess waste material which cannot be

http://www.innovation.gov.au/resource/Programs/LPSD/Pages/LPSDhandbooks.aspx

https://minerals.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/261493/Rum_Jungle_Conceptual_Rehabilitation_Plan.pdf

https://minerals.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/261493/Rum_Jungle_Conceptual_Rehabilitation_Plan.pdf

accommodated in the Main Pit void; this includes excess materials from Dysons, Main and Main North WRDs, and other site contaminated materials;

Utilise Intermediate Pit as a water detention/dilution reservoir. Main Pit will be dewatered (and backfilled). A

refinement of the rehabilitation strategy (from that outlined in the CRP) is to retain Intermediate Pit in its current open state, rather than dewater and backfill. This is to provide strategic flexibility (storage/treatment capacity) utilising Intermediate Pit as a surface water storage reservoir and long term surface water buffer;

Dewatering Main Pit and if required treating the water to meet applicable discharge requirements;

Backfilling Main Pit with waste rock considered to have the highest potential to produce Acid and Metalliferous

Drainage. The material is to be selectively sourced from Dysons backfilled pit area, Intermediate WRD and Main WRD. Lime will be incorporated into the waste as it is backfilled into the pit;

Construction of a cover system over the Main and Dysons Pit and the new WSF; and

Construction of other features for water treatment, potentially including wetlands or reactive barriers.

Scenario 5—Backfill Main Pit and leave the Intermediate pit as a lake.

This scenario involved backfilling the Main pit, leaving Intermediate pit as a lake and consolidating residual waste rock to the Main waste rock dump. More waste material would remain above ground however the Intermediate pit lake would provide some buffering of water quality under this scenario.

These rehabilitation scenarios are documented in detail in the Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan, (DME, 2013).

2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements Explain the context in which the action is proposed, including any relevant planning framework at the state and/or local government level (e.g. within scope of a management plan, planning initiative or policy framework). Describe any Commonwealth or state legislation or policies under which approvals are required or will be considered against.

As part of the 2009-10 budget, the Commonwealth Government committed over $7 million over a four-year period for the environmental management of Rum Jungle (Commonwealth Government, 2009). In order to manage this commitment, the Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments entered into a four-year National Partnership Agreement

(Attachment A) on the management of the former Rum Jungle mine site (NPA). The objectives of the NPA were to improve site maintenance and environmental monitoring activities and to develop an improved rehabilitation strategy for the site consistent with the views and interests of stakeholders particularly the joint traditional Aboriginal owners of the site – Kungarakan and Warai. The NPA has been driven by the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy (DME), with technical oversight from the Rum Jungle Working Group, comprised of Northern Territory and Commonwealth Government agencies and the Northern Land Council. The NPA was completed on schedule and on budget on 30 June 2013 including the submission of the Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan which was endorsed by the sites traditional Aboriginal owners and accepted by the former Commonwealth Minister for Resources Energy and Tourism and Commonwealth Cabinet. In August 2013 a new Project Agreement (Attachment D) for Stage 2 (due to completed by 30 June 2016) was signed between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Government. The activities under this new agreement include: preparation of a detailed engineering design (including supporting investigations); scheduling arrangements (project management); preparation of detailed procurement packages; stakeholder engagement; and ongoing site monitoring and maintenance. These tasks are necessary to allow for costing the preferred rehabilitation strategy to a satisfactory level of accuracy to support the Commonwealth in its development of a Detailed Business Case to seek funding under the Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process.

In the 2016 Federal budget a further $10.048 million was committed to Rum Jungle in FY2016-17 as part of Stage 2.5. Stage 2.5 is an interim project that ensures continuity in a number of critical areas including environmental monitoring, site maintenance and stakeholder consultation. It provides funds for repairs and maintenance works to the existing cover system at Rum Jungle Creek South, which is another satellite area that is neither part of the Stage 3 agreement nor this referral. The works at Rum Jungle Creek South will provide significant capacity building opportunities for traditional owners and local business which should translate into enhanced opportunities for them to fully participate in the subsequent and far more substantial rehabilitation works at Rum Jungle (Stage 3). In addition, DME will undertake verification works to optimise rehabilitation design and continue to support the Commonwealth in its development of the Detailed Business Case to seek capital works funding for Stage 3 under the Commonwealth’s Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process. The submission of this referral fulfils the requirement of relevant environmental approvals for the Stage 3 implementation works for this project.

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/File/Rum_Jungle_Conceptual_Rehabilitation_Plan.pdf

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/documents/RJ%20NPA.pdf

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/File/Stage%202%20Project%20Agreement.pdf

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/File/Stage%202%20Project%20Agreement.pdf

2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation If you have identified that the proposed action will be or has been subject to a state or territory environmental impact

statement (in section 1.11) you must complete this section. Describe any environmental assessment of the relevant impacts of the project that has been, is being, or will be carried out under state or territory legislation. Specify the type and nature of the assessment, the relevant legislation and the current status of any assessments or approvals. Where possible, provide contact details for the state/territory assessment contact officer.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) will be prepared as part of the Northern Territory environmental impact assessment process, under the Northern Territory Environmental Assessment Act. This document will detail the potential on and off site environmental impacts of the proposed rehabilitation, as well as the proposed management actions and requirements to prevent, minimise or mitigate these impacts. Describe or summarise any public consultation undertaken, or to be undertaken, during the assessment. Attach copies of relevant assessment documentation and outcomes of public consultations (if available).

Refer to section 2.6

2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) Your referral must include a description of any public consultation that has been, or is being, undertaken. Where Indigenous stakeholders are likely to be affected by your proposed action, your referral should describe any consultations undertaken with Indigenous stakeholders. Identify the relevant stakeholders and the status of consultations at the time of the referral. Where appropriate include copies of documents recording the outcomes of any consultations. Since the commencement of the National Partnership Agreement in 2009, significant consultation has been undertaken as part of the rehabilitation planning for Rum Jungle through a Communication Strategy developed by DME (formerly the Department of Resources), refer to Attachment E. Prior to 2009 limited consultation occurred with traditional Aboriginal owners and as a result DME had to invest significant resources in creating relationships and trust with traditional Aboriginal owners which are now very strong. The objectives of the communication strategy are to achieve the outcomes of the NPA (2009) and the more recent PA (2013) by:

Generating and maintaining stakeholder interest, support and ownership towards the project;

Maximising opportunities for community and indigenous involvement in the project;

Increasing awareness and understanding among audiences of the commitment by the Commonwealth and NT Governments to improve the management of the site and develop rehabilitation options in consultation with stakeholders;

Ensuring stakeholders have access to information regarding the rehabilitation project through regular, factual and transparent information exchanges; and

Applying targeted communication methodologies that best suit the intended audience.

Table 2-3 provides a summary of the stakeholders consulted since 2009. The key stakeholder groups consist of the traditional Aboriginal owners of the site, Kungarakan and Warai, and the Rum Jungle Working Group. Since 2009 quarterly meetings have been held with traditional Aboriginal owner groups, the Northern Land Council (NLC), NT DME and Commonwealth Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS). In addition, quarterly meetings have been held with the Rum Jungle Working Group, a committee comprising technical experts tasked with providing oversight to the project and includes NT DME, Commonwealth DIIS, Commonwealth Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (ERISS), NLC and the NT Environment Protection Authority (EPA) (formerly the NT Department of Natural

Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport). In February 2013 several workshops were held with these key stakeholders to rigorously evaluate the five rehabilitation scenarios for Rum Jungle. The outcome of the workshops was the selection of a preferred rehabilitation strategy for the site which best met environmental, technical, cultural and cost considerations at a conceptual level. For further details on the selection of the preferred rehabilitation strategy see section 2.3. The then Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy accepted the Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan in June 2013 endorsing the preferred rehabilitation strategy for the site. NT DME and Commonwealth DIIS will continue to engage with relevant stakeholders during the current Project Agreement. The current preferred strategy is a product of continual refinement, incorporating the outcomes of further investigations, including flood modelling and an engineering design workshop that assed the strategy using a Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA). This current agreed rehabilitation plan has been endorsed by both traditional owner groups of the Kungarakan and Warai.

Table 2-3 Summary of stakeholder consultation to date

Stakeholder Frequency of communication

Matters discussed/context

Current status and stakeholder position

Key Stakeholders Joint Traditional Aboriginal Owners of the site – Kungarakan and Warai

Quarterly meetings Full information

briefings Rehabilitation

Planning Meetings (February 2013)

Other meetings as required (e.g. for specific projects)

Discuss upcoming site investigation projects, environmental monitoring programs, site maintenance activities, rehabilitation options for the site, and explore opportunities for employment. The traditional owners were heavily involved in workshops to select a preferred option from five rehabilitation scenarios for the site.

The Kungarakan and Warai endorsed the preferred rehabilitation strategy identified in the Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan (2013). The strategy best met their needs from a cultural and social perspective. Discussions are continuing with the traditional owners to keep them informed of progress under Stage 2. Commonwealth DIIS has been tasked with building

capacity amongst traditional owners through the Stage 2 project.

Rum Jungle Working Group (RJWG)

Quarterly RJWG meetings and ad-hoc (e.g. reviewing documents outside of meetings)

Provide technical rigour and oversight to the project through expert advice and input, reviewing documents, authoring sections of the rehabilitation plan, and evaluating the rehabilitation options.

The RJWG had significant involvement in both the development and evaluation of rehabilitation options and have endorsed the Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan.

Other stakeholders Traditional Owners in areas downstream of the mine site, along the Finniss River system

Bi-annually Informed of activities occurring at Rum Jungle, conceptual rehabilitation plan, water quality conditions at the site and in areas downstream, aquatic ecosystem health particularly for bush foods and species of cultural significance.

Traditional owners located in downstream areas are concerned about potential water quality impacts, aquatic ecosystem health and spread of aquatic weeds. They are supportive of the rehabilitation project.

Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy

As required Portfolio responsibility for Rum Jungle

In June 2013 the then Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism endorsed the Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan including the preferred rehabilitation strategy.

NT Minister for Mines and Energy

As required Portfolio responsibility for NT Mines and Energy,

oversight of the PA

Minister is well-briefed on the subject and is very

supportive of the project.

Affected landowners downstream (other than the traditional owners identified above)

As required Information on the activities being undertaken as part of rehabilitation planning and the conceptual rehabilitation plan.

Downstream landowners are supportive of the rehabilitation project as it aims to improve water quality conditions in areas downstream of the site.

Rum Jungle Stakeholder Advisory Group

Bi-annually Provide an open forum to discuss the activities being undertaken for rehabilitation planning,

Being a diverse group there are different views regarding Rum Jungle. Most stakeholders are

provide input to the project and to inform its respective stakeholders of the work being undertaken.

concerned about the ongoing contamination from the site but also acknowledge that detailed site characterisation and planning is required to ensure robust rehabilitation works are designed.

Compass Operations Limited (formerly HNC (Australia) Resources Pty Ltd)1

As required Operate the Browns Oxide leases located adjacent to Rum Jungle and have a number of exploration licences around Batchelor including over the Rum Jungle site.

HAR has been well briefed on the activities being undertaken and the rehabilitation strategy proposed.

Coomalie Community Government Council (Batchelor Council)

As required CCGC is the title holder of Rum Jungle Creek South (RJCS). Significant

consultation occurred with the Council regarding a radiological assessment by eriss in 20122 and recent assessment of the RJCS WRD cover system.

Council noted the radiological assessment at Rum Jungle Creek South.

The site continues to be used as a recreational reserve. Council is supportive of the rehabilitation plan for Rum Jungle.

Australian and International Publications and Conference Presentations

Presentations at the Annual Acid and Metalliferous Drainage Conference3

Articles in the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM)4

Presentation and articles at the AusIMM Uranium

Conference5 Presentation at the

Annual BC-MEND ML/ARD Workshop6

DME has invested significant amount of time in preparing material for uranium and mine rehabilitation related publications and has presented at national and international conferences. DME has also lead a number of site visits with conference delegates.

Informed of the rehabilitation planning at Rum Jungle and are supportive of the project.

1. Established to capture any stakeholders that were not previously captured by either the RJWG or Liaison Committee and comprises; DME, DoIS, Amateur Fisherman’s Association of the NT (AFANT), HNC (Australia) Resources Pty Ltd, Rum Jungle Action Group, NT Seafood Council,

Kungarakan and Warai traditional owners, Environment Centre NT, Minerals Council of Australia (NT Branch), Environmental Defenders Office, Northern Land Council, NT EPA, Territory Resource Management Group, Coomalie Community Government Council.

2. Bollhofer, A., Doering, C., Fox, G., Pfitzner, J., & Medley, P. 2012. Assessment of the radiological exposure pathways at Rum Jungle Creek South (Rum Jungle Lake Reserve) – Batchelor. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Darwin, NT.

3. Presentation at the 8th Annual Acid and Metalliferous Drainage Conference, Adelaide, April 2014. 4. Fawcett, M. N. R. and Rider, M. C. 2010. The Rum Jungle Project. AusIMM Bulletin. Issue no. 2, April 2011, pp. 16-19. Laurencont, T. The Rum

Jungle rehabilitation project – a progress report. AusIMM bulletin. Issue no. 2, April 2014, pp 50-52. 5. Fawcett, M. & Waggitt, P. Uranium in the Northern Territory – The History of Rum Jungle 1949 – 2009. Ferguson, P. Wels, C. & Laurencont, T. Evaluation of alternative rehabilitation scenarious for Rum Jungle via a Multiple Accounts Analysis. Laurencont, T. & Rider, M. The Rum Jungle

National Partnership Agreement. Articles and presentations during the AusIMM International Uranium Conference 2013, 11-12 June 2013, Darwin NT.

6. Presentation at the 20th Annual British Columbia (BC) MEND ML/Acid R

2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project If you have identified that the proposed action is a component of a larger action (in section 1.12) you must complete this section. Provide information about the larger action and details of any interdependency between the stages/components and the larger action. You may also provide justification as to why you believe it is reasonable for the referred action to be considered separately from the larger proposal (eg. the referred action is ‘stand-alone’ and viable in its own right, there are separate responsibilities for component actions or approvals have been split in a similar way at the state or local government levels).

The proposed action is not a staged development or a component of a larger project.

3 Description of environment & likely impacts

3.1 Matters of national environmental significance Describe the affected area and the likely impacts of the proposal, emphasising the relevant matters protected by the EPBC Act. Refer to relevant maps as appropriate. The interactive map tool can help determine whether matters of national environmental significance or other matters protected by the EPBC Act are likely to occur in your area of interest. Your assessment of likely impacts should refer to the following resources (available from the Department’s web site): specific values of individual World Heritage properties and National Heritage places and the ecological character of

Ramsar wetlands; profiles of relevant species/communities (where available), that will assist in the identification of whether there is likely

to be a significant impact on them if the proposal proceeds; Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance; and associated sectoral and species policy statements available on the web site, as relevant. Your assessment of likely impacts should consider whether a bioregional plan is relevant to your proposal. The Minister has prepared four marine bioregional plans (MBP) in accordance with section 176. It is likely that the MBP’s will be more

commonly relevant where listed threatened species, listed migratory species or a Commonwealth marine area is considered.

Note that even if your proposal will not be taken in a World Heritage area, Ramsar wetland, Commonwealth marine area, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or on Commonwealth land, it could still impact upon these areas (for example, through downstream impacts). Consideration of likely impacts should include both direct and indirect impacts.

3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties

Description

There are no World Heritage Properties in or near the project area.

Nature and extent of likely impact

Address any impacts on the World Heritage values of any World Heritage property.

There will be no impact on the World Heritage values of any World Heritage Property as a result of the proposed action.

3.1 (b) National Heritage Places

Description

There are no National Heritage Places in or near the project area.


Address any impacts on the National Heritage values of any National Heritage place.

There will be no impact on the National Heritage values of any National Heritage place as a result of the proposed action.

3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)

Description

There are no Wetlands of International Importance in or near the project area.


Address any impacts on the ecological character of any Ramsar wetlands.

There will be no impact on the ecological character of any Ramsar wetlands as a result of the proposed action.

3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities Description

Rum Jungle and site access

According to the EPBC Act Matters of National Environmental Significance search tool 15 listed threatened species potentially

occur at Rum Jungle, these species are shown in Table 3-1, Attachment G and Attachment H. The search included a buffer of 1km around Rum Jungle. No listed threatened ecological communities were identified as potentially occurring at Rum Jungle or within the 1km buffer. The likelihood of the 15 listed threatened species actually occurring at Rum Jungle was determined by Eco Logical (2014) (Attachment I), when only 11 threatened species were identified. This assessment was based on ecological characteristics of the species as determined from threatened species information sheets, field guides, and other published information. The results of the likelihood assessment are provided below in Table 3-1 and Figure 9. FRLT Borrow Area and Haul Road

The EPBC Protected Matters Search revealed 10 birds, 13 terrestrial mammals, three terrestrial reptiles and seven plants species. An assessment of likelihood was made for each of these species based upon their ecology and known distribution and population trends (Table 3-1). This assessment considered the Partridge Pigeon and Black-footed Tree-rat as likely to occur in the project area. An additional nine species were considered to possibly occur in the region. The birds, Red Goshawk, Gouldian Finch, Masked Owl, mammals Fawn Antechinus, Northern Brush Tailed Phascogale and Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat and the plants Acacia praetermissa, Atalaya brevilata, Helicteres macrothrix as possibly occurring in the area. The likelihood of the thirty-three listed threatened species actually occurring at the FRLT Borrow Area and along the haul road was determined by EcOz Environmental Consultants (2016), see Attachment B. This assessment was based on:

An EPBC Protect Matters Search of the Pine Creek bioregion (accessed on 27/5/2016). The project area lies in the Pine Creek Bioregion which covers an area of 28 520 km2. Land types are mainly hilly to rugged ridges with undulating plains. Vegetation communities include eucalypt woodlands, with patches of monsoon forests. A search on the entire bioregion was used as it provides a comprehensive list of matters protected under the EPBC.

A search of the NT Flora and Fauna Atlas Databases for all listed (EPBC and TPWC) threatened species recorded within 10 km of the project area.

Consideration of literature on the distribution and habitat of threatened species identified in the database searches to assess the likelihood of these species occurring in the project area.

An examination of aerial imagery of the project area with vegetation communities delineated at a 1:10,000 scale.

A ground-truthing of vegetation communities and consideration of threatened species habitat was undertaken by a qualified ecologist and botanist between 17 and 18 May 2016. This involved:

o visiting all of the vegetation communities identified from aerial photography, describing the vegetation and making an assessment of habitat quality considering the threatened species that are known or likely to occur in the area

o active searching for threatened flora species in appropriate habitat in the project area. An assessment was then made of the likely impact upon threatened species from the proposed clearing for borrow

and the haul road. Mt Fitch

According to the EPBC Act Matters of National Environmental Significance search tool fifteen listed threatened species potentially occur at Mt Fitch, these species are shown in Table 3-1 and Attachment J. The search included a buffer of 1km around the proposed work area at Mt Fitch. No listed threatened ecological communities were identified as potentially occurring at Mt Fitch or within the 1km buffer.

Mt Burton

According to the EPBC Act Matters of National Environmental Significance search tool sixteen listed threatened species

potentially occur at Mt Burton, these species are shown in Table 3-1 and Attachment K. The search included a buffer of 1km around the proposed work area at Mt Burton. No listed threatened ecological communities were identified as potentially occurring at Mt Burton or within the 1km buffer.

Figure 9 Listed threatened and migratory species records within 10 km of Rum Jungle covering the areas of Mt Burton, Mt Fitch, Haul Road and Borrow Area. (Eco Logical Australia 2014)

Table 3-1. Likelihood Analyses for EPBC Listed Threatened Species within the Rum Jungle project area.

Common Name EPBC Status

EPBC Protected Matters Results#

Likelihood of Occurrence*

Reasoning 1. Rum Jungle Mine**

2. Borrow Pit and Haul Roads

3. Mt Burton

4. Mt Fitch

Birds

Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus

Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within

area

May May May May No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016, EcOz, 2016). Most recent records are from the adjacent Browns

Oxide Site (Tidemann 2002; EMS 2005).

Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae

Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Unlikely May Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016; EcOz, 2016).

Partridge Pigeon (eastern) Geophaps smithii smithii

Vulnerable Species or species habitat

known to occur within area

Known May Unlikely Unlikely Records of this species were obtained during the recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016) and adjacent Browns Oxide surveys

(Tidemann 2002; EMS 2005).

Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis

Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016). No suitable habitat (EcOz, 2016).

Masked Owl (northern) Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli

Vulnerable Species or species habitat

Known to occur within area

Unlikely May Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016).

White-throated Grasswren Amytornis woodwardi

Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No suitable habitat (EcOz, 2016)

Yellow Chat (Alligator River) Epthianura crocea tunneyi


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No suitable habitat (Ecoz, 2016)

Northern Shrike-tit Falcunculus frontatus whitei


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No records in the Coomalie region (EcOz, 2016)

Mammals

Fawn Antechinus Antechinus bellus

Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

May May May May No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016). Most recent records are from the adjacent Browns Oxide Site (EMS 2005).

Brush-tailed Rabbit-rat, Brush-tailed Tree-rat Conilurus penicillatus


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016).

Outside current known range (EcOz, 2016).

Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016). Most recent records are from the adjacent Browns Oxide Site (EMS 2005). Broad-scale declines of this species have been documented across the entire top end (Brathwaite & Griffiths 1994), especially in conjunction with the introduction of the Cane Toad (Rhinella marinus) (Woinarski et al. 2010).

Presumed regionally extinct (EcOz, 2016).

Arnhem Leaf-nosed Bat Hipposideros (diadema) inornata


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No suitable roosting habitat (EcOz, 2016).

Ghost bat Macroderma gigas



Black-footed Tree-rat Mesembriomys gouldii gouldii


May May May May No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016). Most recent records are from the adjacent Browns Oxide Site (EMS 2005). Evidence sited during recent fauna survey (EcOz, 2016).

Golden-backed Tree-rat Mesembriomys macrurus


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Presumed regionally extinct (EcOz, 2016).

Northern Hopping-Mouse Notomys aquilo


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Outside known range (EcOz, 2016).

Narbalek (Top End) Petrogale concinna canescens

Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016). No suitable habitat (EcOz, 2016).

Northern Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale pirata

Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016). Most recent records are from the adjacent Browns

Oxide Site (EMS 2005).

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus

Critically Endangered

Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Unlikely May Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016).

Water Mouse (False Water-rat) Xeromys myoides


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No suitable habitat (EcOz, 2016).

Arnhem Rock-rat Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area


Reptiles

Plains Death Adder, Acanthophis hawkei

Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area


No suitable habitat (EcOz, 2016).

Arnhem land Skink, Bellatorias obiri



Gulf snapping

turtle, Elseya lavarackorum

Endangered Species or

species habitat may occur within area


Yellow snouted gecko, Lucasium occultum



Fish

Freshwater

Sawfish, Pristis pristis

Vulnerable Species or

species habitat likely to occur within area

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent

fauna surveys (Hydrobiology 2014; 2015).

Plants

Helicteres macrothrix (also known as Helicteres sp. Glenluckie Creek)


Unlikely May Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Hydrobiology 2013; Ecological 2014).

Acacia praetermissa


Unlikely May Unlikely Unlikely No evidence found during recent Flora report (EcoLogical, 2014; EcOz, 2016))

Atalaya brevialata Critically Endangered

Species or species habitat may occur within area

Unlikely May Unlikely Unlikely No evidence found during recent Flora report (EcoLogical, 2014; EcOz, 2016))

Eleocharis retroflexa


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No evidence found during recent Flora report (EcoLogical, 2014; EcOz, 2016))

Goodenia quadrifida

Vulnerable Species or

species habitat may occur within area


Brennan’s native Hibiscus, Hibiscus brennanii



Trigger plant, Stylidium ensatum



# According to the EPBC Act Matters of National Environmental Significance search tool. *Likelihood of occurrence within Rum Jungle. Definitions: ‘Known’ = the species has been recorded within the lease within recent fauna surveys. ‘May’ = the species has been recorded historically, or good habitat exists for the species. ‘Unlikely’ = a very low to low probability that a species uses the lease. The species may or may not occur locally or regionally, however based on the known habitat requirements of the species, and habitat available within the site, the site is considered unlikely to be suitable or marginal at best. Based on the known habitat requirements of the species, the lease lacks the required habitat. **Includes general site access.


Address any impacts on the members of any listened threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or any

threatened ecological community, or their habitat.

The majority of the disturbance undertaken as part of the proposed action at Rum Jungle mine will occur in areas previously disturbed by historic mining activities and subsequent rehabilitation efforts. The likely impact resulting from the proposed action on listed threatened species will be limited to animal behaviour and confined to the disturbance footprint of the proposed action. As for the FRLT Borrow Area the significant threat identified to populations of threatened species is the proposed construction of the section of the haul road between the existing track and the proposed borrow pit. In particular this area is considered likely to support a population of the endangered Black-footed Tree-rat. EcOz highlighted this during in the threatened species likelihood analysis (EcOz, 2016), this has led to the realignment of this section of haul road mitigating against this impact. The threat to other species possibly in the area not considered significant at a population level as the disturbance will be of a relatively small scale in regionally common habitat that in the project area is heavily infested with Gamba Grass.

An important population criteria assessment was conducted for all ‘may’ or ‘likely’ occurrences (Table 3-2 to Table 3-12) and an assessment of significant impacts on critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable species is shown in Table 3-13 to Table 3-22. The assessment was based on available data and undertaken in accordance with the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, Significant Impact Criteria. The proposed action is unlikely to have significant impact on any critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable species. For more information on threatened species refer to the Department of Land Resource Management information sheets.

Table 3-2. Important Population Criteria for Red Goshawks.

Importance Criteria Response

• key source populations either for breeding or dispersal

Unlikely – The Red Goshawks if still present are not considered to be key source populations. It is assumed the key source population is probably within Litchfield National Park. The Tiwi Island population is considered to be the most important population in the Northern Territory (Woinarksi 2006; Garnett et al. 2011).

• populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or

Unlikely – The Red Goshawks if present are not considered to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity as the key source population is probably within Litchfield National Park. The Tiwi Island population is considered to be the most important population in the Northern Territory (Woinarksi 2006; Garnett et al. 2011).

• populations that are near the limit of the species range.

Unlikely – The Red Goshawks if present would be well within the known current range.

Table 1-3. Important Population Criteria for Partridge Pigeons



Unlikely – The Partridge Pigeons present are not considered to be key source populations. It is assumed they key source population is probably within Litchfield National Park. The Tiwi Island and Kakadu National Park populations have been considered to be important populations (Woinarski 2004).


Unlikely – The Partridge Pigeons present are not considered to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity as the key source population is probably within Litchfield National Park. The Tiwi Island and Kakadu National Park populations have been considered to be important populations (Woinarski 2004).


Unlikely – The Partridge Pigeons present are well within the known current range.

Table 2-4. Important Population Criteria for Gouldian Finch



Unlikely – The Gouldian Finch was not observed during fauna surveys. The largest known population is in the Yinberrie Hills (about 40 km north of Katherine), estimated to support 150 to 250 birds (O’Malley, 2006).


Unlikely – The Gouldian Finch population is not considered to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity as the key local source population is probably within Kakadu National Park, which is estimated to support 50-150 adult birds (O’Malley, 2006).


Unlikely – The Gouldian Finch at present is well within the known current range.

Table 3-5. Important Population Criteria for Masked Owl (Northern)



Unlikely – The Masked Owls (Northern) if present are not considered to be a key source population. Occurs mainly in eucalypt tall open forests (especially those dominated by Eucalyptus miniata and E. tetrodonta) located to the north of the borrow area, but also roosts in monsoon rainforests, and forages in more open vegetation types, including grasslands (Woinarski & Ward 2006).


Unlikely – The masked owl population if present are not considered to be necessary to maintain genetic diversity of the species, as the key source population is probably within Kakadu National Park, where they have been reported (Woinarski & Ward 2006).


Unlikely – The masked owl (northern) at present is well within its known current range.

Table 3-6. Important Population Criteria for Fawn Antechinus



Unlikely – The Fawn Antechinus if present are not considered to be key source populations. It is assumed that the closest key source population is probably within Litchfield National Park. There is no currently listed important population of this species (Young 2012).


Unlikely – The Fawn Antechinus if present are not considered to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity as the key source population is probably within Litchfield National Park. There is no currently listed important population of this species (Young 2012).


Unlikely – The Fawn Antechinus if present would be well within the known current range

Table 3-7. Important Population Criteria for Black-footed Tree-rat



Unlikely – The Black-footed Tree-rat if present are not considered to be key source populations. Occurs in the Top End of the NT, the Kimberley in Western Australia and Cape York Peninsula south to Townsville in Queensland (Hill 2012). Black-footed Tree-rat has remained relatively abundant in the Darwin rural area (Price et al. 2005).


Unlikely – The Black-footed Tree-rat population is not considered to be necessary for maintain genetic diversity as

the key source population is probably within Kakadu National Park (Woinarski 2004).


Unlikely – The Black-footed Tree-rat if present would be within the known current range

Table 3-8. Important Population Criteria for Northern Brush tailed Phascogale



Unlikely – The Northern Brush tailed Phascogale if present are not considered to be key source populations. Although very few records exist, it is assumed that the closest key source population is probably within Litchfield and Kakadu National Parks. It has only been recorded in Kakadu, Coburg Peninsula and the Tiwi Islands throughout the last 10 years (Woinarski, et.al, 2012).


Unlikely – The Northern Brush tailed Phascogale if present are not considered to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity as the key source population is probably within Kakadu National Park.


Unlikely – The Northern Brush tailed Phascogale if present would be well within the known current range

Table 3-9. Important Population Criteria for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat



Unlikely – The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat if present are not considered to be a key source population. It is widely distributed from India through south-eastern Asia to the Solomon Islands including north-eastern Queensland and the Northern Territory. It is assumed that the nearest key source population, which is also the only confirmed record of the species in the NT, is in Kakadu National Park (Thomson 1991; Woinarski & Milne 2002).


Unlikely – The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat if present, are not considered to be necessary to maintain genetic diversity as the key source population is most likely within Kakadu National Park, where the only confirmed record of the species in the exists for the NT (Thomson 1991; Woinarski & Milne 2002).


Unlikely – The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat if present would be well within the known current range

Table 3-10. Important Population Criteria for Helicteres macrothrix



Unlikely – Helicteres macrothrix if present are not considered to be key source populations. It is assumed that the closest key source population is at Glenluckie Creek and Lake Bennet which has a population of at least 200,000 plants spread over an area of 10 hectares. Other significant populations occur near Mt Bundey. (Cowie et al. 2012; Holtze 2004). There is a high degree of confidence that this species is restricted to its current general area (Cowie et al. 2012). This species was not recorded during targeted searches (EcOz, 2016).


Unlikely – Helicteres macrothrix if present are not considered to be necessary to maintain genetic diversity, as the key source population is probably Glenluckie Creek and Lake Bennet. This species has a fragmented yet restricted distribution (Cowie et al. 2012).


Unlikely – The Helicteres macrothrix if present would be well within the known current range.

Table 3-11. Important Population Criteria for Acacia praetermissa



Unlikely – Acacia praetermissa if present are not considered to be a key source population. It is assumed that the closest key source population is probably near Emerald Springs and Hayes Creek (Dunlop et al. 1995)


Unlikely – Acacia praetermissa if present are not considered to be necessary to maintain genetic diversity, as the key source population is likely near Emerald Springs and Hayes Creek (Dunlop et al. 1995).


Unlikely –Acacia praetermissa if present would be at the edge of the current range. It is known from restricted areas further south and was not recorded during targeted surveys (EcOz, 2016).

Table 3-12. Important Population Criteria for Atalaya brevialata



Unlikely – Atalaya brevialata if present are not considered to be a key source population. It is assumed that the closest key source population is probably along the Elizabeth River at Virginia and its tributary Amys Creek just to the south of Darwin, N.T. (Cowie 2014)


Unlikely – Atalaya brevialata if present is not considered to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity. The species is endemic to the Northern Territory and is known from five places near the Elizabeth River at Virginia and its tributary Amys Creek just to the south of Darwin, N.T. (Cowie 2014)


Unlikely – Atalaya brevialata if present would be on the edge of the known current range

Table 3-13. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed disturbance in relation to Red Goshawks at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area and associated haul road.

Impact Criteria Response

• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species

Unlikely – The Red Goshawks if present are not considered an important population. The Tiwi Island population is considered to be the most important population in the Northern Territory (Woinarksi 2006; Garnett et al. 2011).

• Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population

Unlikely – The Red Goshawks if present are not considered an important population. The Tiwi Island population is considered to be the most important population in the Northern Territory (Woinarksi 2006; Garnett et al. 2011).

• Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

Unlikely – The Red Goshawks if present are not considered an important population. The Tiwi Island population is considered to be the most important population in the Northern Territory (Woinarksi 2006; Garnett et al. 2011). The entire proposed waste rock dump, mine site, borrow pit and haul road is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May –The proposed work will remove 267.7 ha of habitat, which will eventually be rehabilitated back to free draining landforms with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population Unlikely – The Red Goshawks if present are not considered an important population. The Tiwi Island population is considered to be the most important population in the Northern Territory (Woinarksi 2006; Garnett et al. 2011).

• Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species

is likely to decline

Unlikely – Assuming a predicted area of occupancy of 29,000,000 ha (Garnett et al. 2011), the removal of 267.7 ha

of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.

• Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

Unlikely – The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of invasive species as feral cats are already present in the area.

• Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or

Unlikely – There is currently no known diseases that are affecting this species. It is unlikely the proposed action will result in the introduction of a new disease.

• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, changed fire regime, and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-14. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed disturbance in relation to Gouldian Finch at the borrow area and associated haul road.



Unlikely –The Gouldian Finch was not observed during fauna surveys. The Gouldian Finch if present are not considered an important population. The important population is in the Yinberrie Hills (about 40 km north of Katherine), estimated to support 150 to 250 birds (O’Malley, 2006).


Unlikely – The Gouldian Finch if present are not considered an important population. The most important population in the Territory is in the Yinberrie Hills (about 40 km north of Katherine), estimated to support 150 to 250 birds (O’Malley, 2006).


Unlikely – The Gouldian Finch if present are not considered an important population. The most important population in the

Territory is in the Yinberrie Hills (about 40 km north of Katherine), estimated to support 150 to 250 birds (O’Malley, 2006). The entire proposed, borrow pit and haul road is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types and low open woodland, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May – The haul road and borrow pit will potentially remove 163.3 ha of habitat, the borrow area will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population Unlikely – The Gouldian Finch if present are not considered an important population. The most important population in the Territory is in the Yinberrie Hills (about 40 km north of Katherine), estimated to support 150 to 250 birds (O’Malley, 2006).

• Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

Unlikely – The Gouldian Finch can be found across the tropical Savannah of northern Australia with the most important population found in the Yinberrie Hills (about 40 km north of Katherine) (O’Malley, 2006). The removal of 163.3 ha of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.




Unlikely – Given the nature of the works in the area, it is unlikely that it will lead to the introduction of a new disease that will affect the species, let alone one that will cause the species as a whole to decline in number.

• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, changed fire regime, and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-15. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed disturbance in relation to Partridge Pigeons at both the Rum Jungle Mine site borrow area and associated haul road.



Unlikely – The Partridge Pigeons present are not considered an important population. The Tiwi Island and Kakadu National Park populations have been considered to be important populations (Woinarski 2004).


Unlikely – The Partridge Pigeons present are not considered an important population. The Tiwi Island and Kakadu National Park populations have been considered to be important populations (Woinarski 2004).


Unlikely – The Partridge Pigeons present are not considered an important population. The Tiwi Island and Kakadu National Park populations have been considered to be important populations (Woinarski 2004). The entire proposed waste rock dump, mine site, borrow pit and haul road is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May – The proposed work will remove 267.7 ha of habitat, which will be rehabilitated with a similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population Unlikely – The Partridge Pigeons present are not considered an important population. The Tiwi Island and Kakadu National Park populations have been considered to be important populations (Woinarski 2004).


Unlikely – Assuming a predicted area of occupancy of 600000 ha (Garnett et al. 2011), the removal of 267.7 ha of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. Disturbances will be rehabilitated to a similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.

The borrow area showed no evidence of fine scale burning favoured by the species and gamba grass was prevalent in the borrow pit area.




Unlikely – There is currently no known diseases that are

affecting this species. It is unlikely the proposed action will result in the introduction of a new disease.

• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, i.e. cats and changed fire regime, and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-16. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed disturbance in relation to Masked Owl (Northern) at the borrow area and associated haul road.



Unlikely – The Masked Owls (Northern) if present are not considered an important population. The nearest important population is probably within Kakadu National Park, where they have been reported (Woinarski & Ward 2006).


Unlikely – The Masked Owls (Northern) if present are not considered an important population. The nearest important population is probably within Kakadu National Park, where they have been reported (Woinarski & Ward 2006).


Unlikely – The Masked Owls (Northern) if present are not considered an important population. The nearest important population is probably within Kakadu National Park, where they have been reported (Woinarski & Ward 2006).The proposed haul road and borrow area is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May – The haul road and borrow pit will remove 163.3 ha of habitat (i.e. Eucalyptus miniata woodland/open forest), which will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population Unlikely – The Masked Owls (Northern) if present are not considered an important population. The nearest important population is probably within Kakadu National Park, where they have been reported (Woinarski & Ward 2006).

• Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the

availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

Unlikely – The removal of 163.3 ha of available habitat will

slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.





• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, changed fire regime, and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. A national recovery plan for the mainland masked owl, has recently been established (Woinarski 2004). The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with this or any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-17. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed disturbance in relation to Fawn Antechinus at the Rum Jungle Mine Site, borrow area and associated haul road.



Unlikely – The Fawn Antechinus if present are not considered an important population. There is no currently listed important population of this species (Young 2012).


The Fawn Antechinus if present are not considered an important population. There is no currently listed important population of this species (Young 2012).


Unlikely – The Fawn Antechinus if present are not considered an important population. There is no currently listed important population of this species (Young 2012). The entire proposed waste rock dump, mine site, borrow pit and

haul road is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May – The waste rock dump will remove 32.2 ha of available Fawn Antechinus habitat that will not be rehabilitated to available habitat for this species (i.e. Open Eucalypt Forest). The haul road and borrow pit will remove 163.3 ha of habitat, which will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population Unlikely – The Fawn Antechinus if present are not considered an important population. There is no currently listed important population of this species (Young 2012).


Unlikely – Assuming a predicted area of occupancy of 48,800 ha (Woinarski et al. 2014), the removal of 195.5 ha of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.





• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, i.e. cats and changed fire

regime, and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-18. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed Borrow pit in relation to Black-footed Tree-rat at the borrow area and associated haul road.


• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Unlikely – The Black-Footed Tree-Rats if present are not considered an important population. The proposed work will avoid an area of open forest to the north of the Borrow haul road. Black-footed Tree-rat has remained relatively abundant in the Darwin rural area (Price et al. 2005).

• Reduce the area of occupancy of the species

Unlikely – The Black-Footed Tree-Rats if present are not considered an important population. This species is found in tropical woodlands and open forests (Hill, 2012)

• Fragment an existing population into two or more populations

Unlikely – The Black-Footed Tree-Rats if present are not considered an important population. The entire proposed waste rock dump, mine site, borrow pit and haul road is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two. The proposed haul road leading to the borrow area has been re-aligned to avoid fragmenting the open Eucalypt woodland where this species is likely to reside.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May –The haul road and borrow pit will remove 163.3 ha of habitat, which will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Unlikely – The Black-Footed Tree-Rats if present are not considered an important population.


Unlikely – Assuming a predicted area of occupancy of 60,400 ha (Woinarski et al. 2011), the removal of 163.3 ha of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.

• Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species habitat




• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, i.e. cats and changed fire regime, and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-19. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed Borrow pit in relation to Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat at the borrow area and associated haul road.


• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Unlikely – The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat if present are not considered an important population. It is widely distributed from India through south-eastern Asia to the Solomon Islands including north-eastern Queensland and the Northern Territory, with the confirmed record of the species in the NT, being in the floodplain area of Kakadu National Park (McKean et al. 1981, Thomson 1991; Woinarski & Milne 2002).


Unlikely – The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat if present are not considered an important population. The important population is likely to live in nearby Kakadu National Park, where the only sightings in the NT have been recorded (McKean et al. 1981, Thomson 1991; Woinarski & Milne 2002).


Unlikely – The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat if present are not considered an important population. The entire proposed borrow pit and haul road is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two. The proposed haul road leading to the borrow area has been re-aligned to avoid fragmenting the open Eucalypt woodland where this species may reside.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May –The borrow pit will remove 163.3 ha of potentially suitable habitat, which will eventually be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Unlikely – The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat if present are not

considered an important population.


Unlikely – Disturbance will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.




Unlikely – Currently the impact of diseases on the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat is unknown (Schulz & Thomson 2007). It is unlikely the proposed action will result in the introduction of a new disease.

• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, i.e. competition for hollows and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere

with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-20. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed Borrow pit in relation to Helictres macrothrix at the borrow area and associated haul road.


• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Unlikely – Helictres macrothrix if present are not considered an important population. The proposed work will avoid an area of open forest to the north of the Borrow haul road.


Unlikely – Helictres macrothrix if present is not considered an important population. It is assumed that the closest key source population is at Glenluckie Creek and Lake Bennet which has a population of at least 200,000 plants spread over an area of 10 hectares (Cowie et al. 2012; Holtze 2004).


Unlikely – Helictres macrothrix if present is not considered an important population. The entire proposed borrow pit is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May –The borrow pit will remove 163.3 ha of habitat, which will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Unlikely – Helictres macrothrix if present are not considered an important population.


Unlikely – Assuming a predicted area of occupancy of 91,500ha (Cowie, I., R. Kerrigan & B. Stuckey (2012), the removal of 163.3 ha of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.


Unlikely – The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of invasive species as Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus) are already present in the area (EcOz, 2016).



• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Invasive weed species such as Gamba and Mission grasses have altered fire regimes severely impacting this species (Cowie et al. 2012). Threatening process, i.e. land clearing and changed fire regime, and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-21. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed disturbance in relation to Acacia praetermissa at the borrow area and associated haul road.



Unlikely – Acacia praetermissa if present are not considered an important population. The nearest important population is probably near Emerald Springs and Hayes Creek (Dunlop et al. 1995)


Unlikely – Acacia praetermissa if present are not considered an important population. The nearest important population is probably near Emerald Springs and Hayes Creek (Dunlop et al. 1995)


Unlikely – Acacia praetermissa if present are not considered an important population. The nearest important population is probably near Emerald Springs and Hayes Creek (Dunlop et al. 1995). Acacia praetermissa was not recorded during targeted searches (EcOz, 2016). Acacia praetermissa is known from 17 collections and is not considered severely fragmented (DoE, 2016). The entire proposed borrow pit is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May –The haul road and borrow pit will remove 163.3 ha of habitat, which will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population Unlikely – Acacia praetermissa if present are not considered an important population. The nearest important population is likely near Emerald Springs and Hayes Creek (Dunlop et al. 1995).


Unlikely – Assuming a predicted area of occupancy of 5200 ha (DoE, 2016), the removal of 163.3 ha of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.


Unlikely – The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of invasive species, one of the major threats, Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus), already exists in the area.



• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, changed fire regime, and vegetation distrubance are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-22. Significant Impact Criteria for Proposed disturbance in relation to Atalaya brevialata at the borrow area and associated haul road.



Unlikely – Atalaya brevialata if present is not considered an important population. The species is known from only five places near the Elizabeth River at Virginia and its tributary Amys Creek just to the south of Darwin, N.T. (Cowie 2014).


Unlikely – Atalaya brevialata if present are not considered an important population. The species is known from only five places near the Elizabeth River at Virginia and its tributary Amys Creek just to the south of Darwin, N.T. (Cowie 2014).


Unlikely – Atalaya brevialata if present are not considered an important population. The species is known from only five places near the Elizabeth River at Virginia and its tributary Amys Creek just to the south of Darwin, N.T. (Cowie 2014).The entire proposed borrow pit and haul road is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest types, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species May –The haul road and borrow pit will remove 163.3 ha of suitable habitat, including low open woodland and open forest, which will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population Unlikely – Atalaya brevialata if present is not considered an important population. The species is known from only five places near the Elizabeth River at Virginia and its tributary Amys Creek just to the south of Darwin, N.T. (Cowie 2014).

• Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the

availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

Unlikely – The geographic distribution of Atalaya brevialata appears to be very restricted, with an estimated extent of occurrence of 760 ha (DoE, 2013), occurring in approximately 13 subpopulations in five locations (NT DNREAS, 2013). It is unlikely the proposed works will lead to further declines in this species.


Unlikely – The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of invasive species as gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus) and other invasive weeds are already present in the area.



• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, development for housing and other urban uses, changed fire regime, and vegetation change are already happening throughout the species range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

3.1 (e) Listed migratory species

Description

Prior to designing the rehabilitation planning, an EPBC Protected Matter Search showed that that sixteen EPBC Listed Migratory species could potentially occur in the proposed areas (Error! Reference source not found.). The Department of Mines and Energy reviewed existing fauna and flora records from the NT Fauna and Flora Atlas and commissioned the following terrestrial fauna surveys in order to investigate the possibility of EPBC listed threatened species on site and downstream of the mine;

Flora and fauna surveys of the former Rum Jungle mine site (Ecological 2014) Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey (EcOz 2014) Aquatic Reptile Survey of the Finniss River (EcOz 2014) Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey 2014 (Hydrobiology (2014) Rum Jungle Impact Assessment Survey (Hydrobiology 2015) Threatened Monitor Lizard and Bat Survey of the Finniss River (EcOz 2015) Partridge Pigeon Survey of the proposed waste rock dump at the former Rum Jungle Mine (Department of Mines

and Energy 2016)

Borrow Area and Haul Road Survey (EcOz, 2016) From this information a likelihood analysis was determined based on ecological characteristics of the species from migratory listed species information sheets, field guides, and other published information. These analyses showed that three listed migratory bird species are currently Known to inhabit the Rum Jungle Site. One listed migratory bird May possibly still occur. All other species highlighted in the EPBC Protected matters search are considered Unlikely to occur based on current survey findings, habitat preferences, and observed document declines.

Table 3-23 Listed migratory species potentially occurring at Rum Jungle and results of the likelihood assessment

Common Name

EPBC Status

EPBC Protected Matters Results#

Likelihood of Occurrence*

Reasoning 1. Rum Jungle Mine**

2. Borrow Pit and Haul Roads

3. Mt Burton

4. Mt Fitch

Migratory Marine Birds

Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus

Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur

within area

Known May May May Records of this species were obtained during the recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014)

Australian Painted Snipe


Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely. No evidence of this species found during surveys; no suitable habitat.

Migratory Marine Species

Salt-water Crocodile Crocodylus porosus

Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur

within area

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely. Not recorded from previous targeted surveys (EcOz, 2014b);

Freshwater Sawfish, Pristis pristis

Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys.

Migratory Terrestrial Species

Red-rumped Swallow Cecropis daurica

Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area


Oriental Cuckoo Cuculus optatus



Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica



Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus


Known Known Known Known Records of this species were obtained during the recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2014a; 2015; DME 2016).

Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea



Yellow Wagtail Motacila flava

Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur within area


Rufouse Fantail Rhipidura rufifrons

Migratory Species or species habitat known to occur within area


Migratory Wetland Species

Oriental Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus orientalis



Great Egret Ardea alba

Migratory Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Known May Unlikely May Records of this species were obtained during the fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2014a).

Cattle Egret Ardea ibis


May May Unlikely May No evidence of this species found during recent fauna surveys (Ecological 2014; EcOz 2015; DME 2016). Most recent records are from the adjacent Browns Oxide Site (EMS 2005).

Oriental Plover, Charadrius veredus



Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum



Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Migratory Species or species habitat known to occur within area


# According to the EPBC Act Matters of National Environmental Significance search tool. *Likelihood of occurrence within Rum Jungle. Definitions: ‘Known’ = = the species has been recorded within the lease within recent fauna surveys. ‘May’ = the species has been recorded historically, or good habitat exists for the species. ‘Unlikely’ = a very low to low probability that a species uses the lease. The species may or may not occur locally or regionally, however based on the known habitat requirements of

the species, and habitat available within the site, the site is considered unlikely to be suitable or marginal at best. Based on the known habitat requirements of the species, the lease lacks the required habitat. **Includes general site access.


Address any impacts on the members of any listed migratory species, or their habitat.

The activities do not block or disturb any migration routes or access to roosting areas, feeding grounds or breeding grounds. The impact to migratory species is expected to be limited to passing infrequent individuals who may alter their path to avoid the disturbance. There is no expected impact upon their habitat for feeding or breeding.

Table 3-24. Important Habitat Criteria for Fork-tailed Swift at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area, associated haul roads, Mt Fitch and Mt Burton


• habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species, and/or

Unlikely – The habitat within this project is unlikely to support an ecologically significant proportion of the population as this species is widespread across all of Australia. In the Northern Territory this species is widespread with scattered records throughout the North (DOE 2016a).

• habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages, and/or

Unlikely – The habitat that is present and will be cleared is not considered to be important habitats as Fork-tailed Swifts do not breed in Australia; therefore there is no habitat present that is of critical importance to this species.

• habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species range, and/or

Unlikely – The habitats that will be cleared are well within the Fork-tailed Swifts known current range.

• habitat within an area where the species is declining.

Unlikely – The habitats that will be cleared are not considered important as there are currently no significant threats to the Fork-tailed Swift in Australia (DOE 2016a).

Table 3-25. Important Habitat Criteria for Salt-water Crocodile at the Rum Jungle Mine site.



Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are utilised occasionally within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species.


Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages.


Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are at the limit of the species ranges as the Saltwater Crocodile occurs throughout Northern Australia.

•habitat within an area where the species is declining.

Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are at in an area where the species is declining.

Table 3-26. Important Habitat Criteria for Rainbow Bee Eater at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area, associated haul roads, Mt Fitch and Mt Burton



Unlikely – The habitat that will be cleared and is utilised by Rainbow Bee Eaters is not important in the support of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of these species as it is wide ranging throughout Australia, especially in the tropical north (DOE 2016b).


Unlikely – The habitat that will be cleared and is utilised by Rainbow Bee Eaters is not of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages at it is wide ranging throughout Australia, especially in the tropical north (DOE 2016b).


Unlikely – The habitat that will be cleared and is utilised by Rainbow Bee Eaters is well within the

known range of the species.


Unlikely - The habitats that will be cleared are not considered important as there are currently no significant threats to the Rainbow Bee Eater in Australia (DOE 2016b).

Table 3-27. Important Habitat Criteria for Great Egret at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area and associated haul road, and Mt Fitch



Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are utilised occasionally within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species




Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are at the limit of the species ranges as the Great Egret occurs throughout Australia (DOE 2016c).


Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are at in an area where the species is declining as there are no documented declines in the Northern Territory (DOE 2016c).

Table 3-28. Important Habitat Criteria for Cattle Egret at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area and associated haul road and Mt Fitch.



Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are utilised occasionally within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species




Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are at the limit of the species ranges as the Great Egret occurs throughout Australia (DOE 2016d).


Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are at in an area where the species is declining as there are no documented declines in the Northern Territory (DOE 2016d).

Table 3-29. Significant Impact Criteria for the proposed work at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area, associated haul roads, Mt Fitch and Mt Burton in relation to the Fork-tailed Swift


• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Unlikely – The Fork-tailed Swift if present is not considered an important population. In the Northern Territory this species is widespread with scattered records throughout the North (DOE 2016a).


Unlikely – The Fork-tailed Swift if present is not considered an important population. In the Northern Territory this species is widespread with scattered records throughout the North (DOE 2016a).


Unlikely – The Fork-tailed Swift if present are not considered an important population. The habitat that is present and will be cleared is not considered to be important habitats as Fork-tailed Swifts do not breed in Australia; thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species Unlikely – The proposed work will remove 102.1 ha of habitat, which will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, as there are currently no significant threats to the Fork-tailed Swift in Australia (DOE 2016a).

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Unlikely – The Fork-tailed Swift if present are not considered an important population.


Unlikely – The habitat that is present and will be cleared is not considered to be important habitats as Fork-tailed Swifts do not breed in Australia; therefore there is no habitat present that is of critical importance

to this species. The removal of 102.1 ha of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.





• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-30. Significant Impact Criteria for the proposed disturbance at the Rum Jungle Mine site in relation to the Salt-water Crocodile


• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Unlikely – In the unlikely event salt-water crocodiles exist in the area of concern, it is not considered an important population in this area as they are widespread across Northern Australia.


Unlikely – Salt-water Crocodiles were not found in the East Branch Finniss River despite targeted surveys. Aside from the Finniss River the species is also found in other rivers of the Northern Territory, including Mary, Adelaide, Daly, Moyle, Victoria/Baines, Wildman, West Alligator, East Alligator, South Alligator, Liverpool, Blyth, Glyde, Habgood, Baralminar/Gobalpa, Goromuru, Cato

and Peter John Rivers (Fukuda et al. 2007).


Unlikely – Salt-water Crocodiles were not found in the East Branch Finniss River despite targeted surveys.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species Unlikely – Salt-water Crocodiles were not found in the East Branch Finniss River despite targeted surveys. The proposed action will not disturb the East Branch Finniss River channel and thus have no impact on the species habitat.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Unlikely – The Salt-water Crocodile if present are not considered an important population.


Unlikely – The Salt-water crocodile is found from Rockhampton in Queensland (Miller 1993; Taplin 1987) throughout coastal Northern Territory (McNamara & Wyre 1993; Webb et al. 1987) to King Sound (near Broome) in Western Australia (Burbidge 1987; McNamara & Wyre 1993), as well as occurring through India, South-East Asia, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea (Groombridge 1987; Ross 1998).


Unlikely – The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of invasive species as buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) (Webb et al. 1984, 1987) are already present in the area.


Unlikely – There is currently no known diseases that are causing this species to decline. It is unlikely the proposed action will result in the introduction of a new disease.

• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening processes, i.e. Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) increasing drainage and reducing vegetation and general habitat destruction, mortality in fishing nets and habitat destruction are already present or occurring throughout the species range (Taplin, 1987 and Webb et al. 1984, 1987). The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-31. Significant Impact Criteria for the proposed disturbance at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area, associated haul roads, Mt Fitch and Mt Burton in relation to the Rainbow Bee Eater.


• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Unlikely – The Rainbow Bee Eater present are not considered an important population. The proposed work will avoid an area of open forest to the north of the Borrow haul road.

• Reduce the area of occupancy of the species Unlikely – The Rainbow Bee Eater present are not considered an important population. The habitat that will be cleared and is utilised by Rainbow Bee Eaters is not of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages at it is wide ranging throughout Australia, especially in the tropical north (DOE 2016b).


Unlikely – The Rainbow Bee Eater in the proposed disturbance area are not considered an important population. The entire proposed disturbance area is surrounded by open Eucalypt forest and woodland types, thus the population cannot be split into two.

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species Unlikely –The total disturbance will potentially remove 267.7 ha of habitat, which will be rehabilitated back to a free draining landform with similar vegetative composition to the surrounding area. It is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Unlikely – The Rainbow Bee Eater present are not considered an important population.


Unlikely – it is estimated that the global extent of occurrence for the rainbow been eater covers an area up to 2,000,000 ha (BirdLife International 2016; del Hoyo et al. 2001). The removal of 267.7 ha of available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.


Unlikely – The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of invasive species as cane toads (Bufo marinus) are already present in the area.


Unlikely –It is unlikely the proposed action will result in the introduction of a new disease.

• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, i.e. presence of cane toads, which reduce the breeding success through feeding on nestlings or occupying nesting burrows is already prevalent within the species northern range. The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-32. Significant Impact Criteria for the disturbance at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area, associated haul roads and Mt Fitch in relation to the Great Egret.


• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Unlikely – The Great Egret are not considered an important population. There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are utilised occasionally within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species.


Unlikely – The Great Egret are not considered an important population. This species occurs in all states and territories of mainland Australia and in Tasmania (DoE, 2016e).


Unlikely – The great Egret if present are not considered an important population. The Great Egret are not considered susceptible to fragmentation as they are highly mobile (R.P. Jaensch 2008, pers. comm.).

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages. The project is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Unlikely – The Great Egret present are not considered an important population.


Unlikely – Assuming a predicted area of occupancy of 408 400 km2 (DoE, 2016e), the removal of 126.4 ha of potential available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.


Unlikely – The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of new invasive species, exotic plants, that could potentially impact this species are already present in the area.



• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, i.e. alteration of water flows, drainage or clearing of wetland, salinization, burning of wetland area and invasion of exotic plants or fish species are already happening throughout the species range (Kushlan & Hancock 2005; R.P. Jaensch 2008, pers. comm.). The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

Table 3-33. Significant Impact Criteria for the proposed disturbance at the Rum Jungle Mine site, borrow area, associated haul roads and Mt Fitch in relation to the Cattle Egret.


• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population Unlikely – The Cattle Egret if present are not considered an important population. There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are utilised occasionally within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species.


Unlikely – The Cattle Egret if present are not considered an important population. This species is found in tropical and temperate grasslands, wooded lands and terrestrial wetlands (DoE, 2016f).


Unlikely – The Cattle Egret if present are not considered an important population. The Great Egret are not considered susceptible to fragmentation as they are considered highly mobile, occupying a large global range (DoE, 2016f).

• Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species Unlikely – There are no important habitats that will be cleared that are of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages. The project is not expected to adversely affect the survival of species as a whole, but will affect the individuals whose home range may be in parts of the clearing.

• Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population Unlikely – The Cattle Egret if present are not considered an important population.


Unlikely – The Cattle Egret has a huge area of occupancy, found throughout most of the world (DoE, 2016f), the removal of 126.4 ha of potential available habitat will slightly decrease the availability of habitat at the present time. It is unlikely this will lead to further declines in this species.





• Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Unlikely – Threatening process, i.e. cats and loss of breeding habitat are already happening throughout the species range (Birdlife International 2009e). The proposed action is unlikely to interfere with any recovery effort for this species.

3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area (If the action is in the Commonwealth marine area, complete 3.2(c) instead. This section is for actions taken outside the

Commonwealth marine area that may have impacts on that area.)

Description

There are no Commonwealth marine areas in or near the project area.


Address any impacts on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth marine area.

There will be no impact on any part of the environment in a Commonwealth marine area as a result of the proposed action.

3.1 (g) Commonwealth land (If the action is on Commonwealth land, complete 3.2(d) instead. This section is for actions taken outside Commonwealth land that may have impacts on that land.)

Description

If the action will affect Commonwealth land also describe the more general environment. The Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies provides further details on the type of information needed. If applicable, identify any potential impacts from actions taken outside the Australian jurisdiction on the environment in a Commonwealth Heritage Place overseas.

The action is not expected to have any impact on Commonwealth Land. There are no known areas of Commonwealth land adjacent to or immediately downstream of the site.


Address any impacts on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth land. Your assessment of impacts should refer to the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies and specifically address impacts on: ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; natural and physical resources; the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas;

the heritage values of places; and the social, economic and cultural aspects of the above things.

3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Description

The project area is not in or near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.


Address any impacts on any part of the environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Note: If your action occurs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park you may also require permission under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If so, section 37AB of the GBRMP Act provides that your referral under the EPBC Act is deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act and Regulations for necessary permissions and a single integrated process will generally apply. Further information is available at www.gbrmpa.gov.au

There will be no impact on any part of the environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as a result of the proposed action.

3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development

Description

If the action is a coal seam gas development or large coal mining development that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources, the draft Policy Statement Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments—Impacts on water resources provides further details on the type of information needed.

The proposed action is not a coal seam gas development or large coal mining development.


Address any impacts on water resources. Your assessment of impacts should refer to the draft Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments—Impacts on water resources.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/

3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

You must describe the nature and extent of likely impacts (both direct & indirect) on the whole environment if your project: is a nuclear action; will be taken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency; will be taken in a Commonwealth marine area; will be taken on Commonwealth land; or will be taken in the Great Barrier Reef marine Park. Your assessment of impacts should refer to the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies and specifically address impacts on: ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; natural and physical resources; the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas; the heritage values of places; and the social, economic and cultural aspects of the above things.

3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action? No

Yes (provide details below)

If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

By its definition under Section 22(1)(f) of the EPBC Act the proposed rehabilitation of Rum Jungle is a nuclear action. Unlike development projects of new mine sites, the proposal to rehabilitate Rum Jungle and its satellite sites is intended to provide an outcome for the environment which would produce a substantial improvement on its current state. The values which must be protected include;

sensitive indigenous cultural heritage sites (this already occurs through the DME and Warai and Kungarakan induction processes)

the East Branch Finniss River water quality to mitigate further contamination – water management, cover design, new landform design, sediment control, and revegetation as part of remediation works

terrestrial ecosystems disturbed by further vegetation clearance and soil removal as part of extraction of construction materials for covers and foundations, and

radiological safety for people working on the site - radiation management plan.

Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities Currently the aquatic ecosystems on the mine site and downstream are impacted by AMD in the form of seepage from Rum Jungle mine waste rock dumps (WRD). The environmental impacts and values are documented in the following reports:

Groundwater studies (Attachment L)

Surface water quality and contaminant load assessment (Attachment M)

Environmental values (phase 1 and phase 2) (Attachment N)

Impact assessment (Attachment O)

Aquatic Ecosystem Survey (Attachment P)

LDWQO Construction Phase Sensitivity Analysis Memo (Attachment Q)

The aquatic ecosystem survey undertaken by Hydrobiology (2015a) found little evidence of an impact from the mine on aquatic biota within the Finniss River (downstream of the East Branch Finniss River), but did record strong evidence that the mine continues to impact the aquatic ecosystem within the East Branch Finniss River itself.

Key findings from the impact assessment include:

o Water quality data showed a clear indication of increased metal concentrations in the isolated pools in the East Branch reaches of the mine site during the dry season, which were then flushed down the system after the first flows of the season. Generally, each river zone was found to have individual exceedances of the WQOs for a number of parameters, against default WQOs, including some tributaries outside the mine. Sediment quality data also showed some exceedances of ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG) for certain parameters

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/File/Phase3-stage2-report-183003-2.pdf

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/File/Phase3-stage3-report-183003-3.pdf

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/File/13-007-NTG01_EnvValues_V2_0_Final.pdf

http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/File/13-007-NTG01_Monitoring_V1_Final.pdf

(notably Cu, Ni, Pb, As, Cd and Zn) for certain river zones. Overall, there was a trend of elevated metal concentrations in the mine area that declined downstream. Refer Attachment O Impact

Assessment (Hydrobiology 2015b). o There does not appear to have been any relationship between possible mine site drainage and the

distribution of terrestrial vertebrates downstream of the mine. o The riparian fauna and bush tucker survey showed a significant difference in Riparian Condition Index

between the Finniss River and the East Branch, for both wet and dry season data, but there was no difference in species richness.

o Analysis of radionuclides in fish, mussel and plant tissues showed that none of the patterns of radionuclide activity concentrations in fish and mussel tissues were consistent with a substantial source from the Rum Jungle mine area.

o No indication of elevated bioaccumulation in specimens in the Finniss River downstream of the East Branch, and also no indication of increased bioaccumulation downstream of the abandoned Mount Burton mine (Attachment O).

The findings of the impact assessment (Hydrobiology, 2015b) and aquatic ecosystem survey (Hydrobiology, 2015a) completed in 2015 enabled Hydrobiology to refine the default WQOs, based on ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000), to locally-derived water quality objectives (LDWQOs) for post-rehabilitation monitoring.

Rehabilitation activities proposed by the action may result in short-term impacts on the aquatic ecosystem on the mine site and downstream relative to current biodiversity. A construction phase sensitivity analysis was undertaken by Hydrobiology (2015c) noting that as the East Branch is intermittent, most recruitment to sites on that tributary is driven by upstream movement or aerial recruitment from the perennial waters of the main Finniss River. Therefore, a temporary reduction in biodiversity during construction at a site due to deterioration of water quality would be rapidly recovered if, as expected, water quality improves when construction stops, and should be able to recover to the targeted levels of biodiversity if the overall LDWQOs are achieved post rehabilitation (Hydrobiology, 2015c). The sensitivity analysis provides guidance on acceptable increases in the concentration of key parameters impacting the downstream aquatic ecosystem. These concentrations will form LDWQOs for the rehabilitation/action (Table 3-34). Table 3-34 Recommended LDWQOs based on field data and biological responses at key monitoring sites

Recommended WQO (All taxa)

River Zone Sites

Cu Zn Ni Co Al Fe Mn EC SO4 Mg

µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µS/cm mg/L mg/L

2 EB@G_Dys 60.2 210.5 130.4 89 236 300 759 2985 1192 86.6

2 EB@GS200 60.2 210.5 130.4 89 236 300 795 2985 1192 86.6

3 EB@GS327 27.5 180 43.1 25.9 150 300 443 2985 997 86.6

3 EB@GS097 27.5 180 43.1 25.9 150 300 443 2985 997 86.6

4 EBusFR 7.86 180 32.5 3.6 117 300 228 427 761 33.2

6 FR@GS204 3.4 26.1 20 2.8 117 300 140 190.7 594 33.2

During rehabilitation the waste material contained in WRDs on site, as well as other contaminated material, will be re-located to a new purpose-built waste storage facility (WSF) in order to reduce the impacts from AMD. During the waste removal, there is the potential for poorer quality water and sediment loads to enter the aquatic ecosystem. Mitigation measures will be put in place to avoid this from occurring (refer Section 4), including all waste movement activities to occur during the dry season. Overall the rehabilitation at Rum Jungle will result in a reduction in AMD and restoration of the former mine site. Without the rehabilitation action the mine site would continue to impact on aquatic ecosystem (Hydrobiology, 2015).

Terrestrial ecosystem impacts are proposed as part of the rehabilitation action. The key areas for vegetation clearing include approximately 32.2 hectares for the new WSF, 36.4 ha for the access and haul roads, and 102.1 ha for the proposed borrow area located off-site 8km east of the Rum Jungle Site. Majority of remaining works will occur within previously disturbed areas. Mitigation measures are described in Section 4, including the need to minimise the destruction of native, weed free, ecosystems on the mine site.

Natural and physical resources The environmental and traditional land/water use values of the East Branch and Finniss River downstream were investigated as part of the impact assessment (Hydrobiology, 2013a). The health of the river, its ability to flow freely, the abundance and wellbeing of Totem and other culturally and spiritually significant organisms and traditional foods are all particularly important to the traditional owners. The water resources of the Finniss River catchment, not supply a significant population with water, however, the presence of contamination does limit future development potential should this water become more significant to the NT economy and regional land uses. There may be a requirement to utilise some of the existing roads around Batchelor. The construction of new access and haul roads will be required onto the site, within the RJM site and out to the new borrow area. Borrow materials, in the form of soil material, for growth medium and clay lining required for the construction of the new WSF are proposed to be sourced from the FRLT Borrow Area, which covers an area of 324 ha and is located 8km east of the Rum Jungle site and immediately west of the Woodcutters Mine site. An investigation into the suitability of these materials is now complete (SLR, 2016). Qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas The proposed rehabilitation is not likely to have any impact on the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas. Rum Jungle is located within the Coomalie Shire. The Shire has a population of approximately 1200 people, including the townships of Batchelor and Adelaide River (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012) and covers approximately 1650 square kilometres (Coomalie Community Government Council, 2012) as shown in Figure 10. The history of mining and current active exploration activities at Rum Jungle are indicators of the site’s significance for minerals and mining. The area was originally quarried by traditional Aboriginal owners for stone and ochre (Hazelbane, pers. comm. 2012). Section 2968 has been explored for minerals more or less continually since European presence in the area.

Figure 10: Location of Rum Jungle mine in Coomalie Shire, NT

Heritage values of places The existence of this former mine within sensitive Warai and Kungarakan areas, remains a significant source of distress for the traditional Aboriginal land owners. Sacred sites and sites considered culturally sensitive by the Kungarakan and Warai are detailed in the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) certificate (Attachment R). These sites are well understood and addressed during site inductions. Refer to section 3.3 (h), section 3.3 (i) and Attachment S.

Two of the sacred sites identified in the AAPA certificate are currently impacted by previous mining activities and rehabilitation works are proposed for these sites in order to clean up the impact. The rehabilitation works proposed for the sacred sites are seen as desirable by the traditional Aboriginal land owners.

The first sacred site is the Main pit, where the original East Branch once flowed. The proposed rehabilitation will involve dewatering, backfilling and covering the Main pit, and re-instating the East Branch through the cover system. The second sacred site is a large site located in the south-east corner at Rum Jungle. The site includes part of Fitch Creek which has been heavily impacted by seepage from the Main WRD, salts are expressed in the creek each dry season when the creek ceases to flow. The clean-up of these salts is proposed as part of the rehabilitation.

Mitigation measures will be put in place to ensure no unnecessary disturbance will occur at these sacred sites, all works will be focused on re-instating the areas as close to their original state as possible. The rehabilitation of the

sacred sites will aid the healing of the area for the traditional Aboriginal land owners. Refer Table 4-1. Eighteen heritage features, six aboriginal archaeological sites and eleven isolated artefacts were found at Rum Jungle during the heritage survey undertaken in 2011 (Earthsea, 2011). The 18 heritage features come from three different site occupation eras; the World War II era, the period of the mine’s operation and post mine operation. See Attachment S for further information. The proposed rehabilitation will impact the historic mining infrastructure that remains at Rum Jungle, this includes the sheds, concrete slabs, water tank, drill rig etc. Remaining heritage features, aboriginal archaeological sites or artefacts and isolated artefacts will be avoided where possible, or appropriately removed and stored during rehabilitation.

The removal of some heritage features is unlikely to affect the significance or value that Rum Jungle holds for the traditional Aboriginal land owners. Social, economic and cultural aspects of the above things From a human health impact perspective radiological studies have been carried out. A recent radiological assessment

at Rum Jungle identified the radiological impacts from the site (Bollhöfer et. al, 2008). This study was undertaken to define the potential impacts on workers and to understand site variability. Workers will need to access the site for implementing any rehabilitation activities and for monitoring and maintenance works. If workers access the site during the day for 2000 hours per year per worker, the total dose is calculated as 0.3 mSv, and no extra precautions need to be taken for access. However, if activities such as drilling and digging are undertaken onsite, the radiation management plan for the site would need to incorporate monitoring various exposure pathways, especially dust pathways. During 2014, waste characterisation investigations were undertaken involving extensive excavations (digging) into the three existing WRDs at Rum Jungle. A radiation monitoring program was employed during the implementation of this work to monitor the radiation exposure and dust inhalation of workers, and determine the requirements for future rehabilitation work. The program involved monitoring:

Gamma area survey Personal gamma exposure Long-lived alpha particles in dust Radon daughters (short-lived alpha) in air

Alpha surface contamination on vehicles Respirable dust

The maximum radiation dose received by workers was assessed as negligible. Future works, with the same controls in place, would not require the same level of radiation monitoring. Any future works will require personal respirable dust sampling to monitor silica exposures (Radiation Advice and Solutions, 2015). The rehabilitation activities proposed are aimed at addressing the range of contamination impacts, including radiological sources. A ‘Radiation Management Plan’ has been prepared and will be implemented as part of the environmental management system, and include monitoring the radiation exposure of workers, as well as environmental monitoring of areas offsite, as part of the Stage 3 implementation.

3.2 (b)

Is the proposed action to be taken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency?

No


If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a Commonwealth marine area?

No


If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))

3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on Commonwealth land?

No


If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))

The tenure designation of Rum Jungle is Section 2968 Hundred of Goyder, held as vacant Northern Territory Crown Land. Although the tenure of the land is NT title, Rum Jungle is subject to the Finniss River Land Claim (Land Claim No. 39), lodged on 20 July 1979 under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (NT) 1976 (Cth). In 1981 the Aboriginal Land Commissioner recommended its grant to the Kungarakan and Warai people, however the then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs reserved his decision in relation to the grant due to the environmental status of the land. It is important to note that the mining and milling operations at Rum Jungle that occurred from 1954 to 1971 were conducted on land which in 1952 was declared a prohibited area by Commonwealth Minister the of State for Defence under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952. The mining and milling activities themselves were undertaken by a third-party contractor under a contract with the Commonwealth pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (Cth 1952) (uranium is a prescribed substance under this Act). Despite the current status of the land being Vacant NT Crown Land, the previous history of tenure and related unresolved Land Claim matters cannot be overlooked. If Rum Jungle is granted to traditional Aboriginal owners as freehold land, Commonwealth and Northern Territory legislation will continue to apply to the land, including in relation to the management and use of the land. The Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments may wish to continue to access Rum Jungle for the purpose of further rehabilitation. Where, on the vesting of land in a Land Trust, the land is being used or occupied by the Crown, the Crown is entitled to continue that occupation or use for such period as required (s 14 of the ALRA). Section 19 of the ALRA additionally providers that a Land Trust may grant an estate or interest in Aboriginal land vested in it to a third party, such as the Commonwealth of the Northern Territory. Therefore, if Rum Jungle were granted as Aboriginal land, the relevant Land Trust could grant a lease or other interest to government to facilitate further access to the land by government for the purpose of ongoing rehabilitation of the land. Under such an arrangement, the site could be returned to its traditional Aboriginal owners and cooperatively managed with government. The lease arrangement would clearly define each party’s rights and responsibilities.

3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

No


If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))

3.3 Other important features of the environment Provide a description of the project area and the affected area, including information about the following features (where

relevant to the project area and/or affected area, and to the extent not otherwise addressed above). If at Section 2.3 you identified any alternative locations, time frames or activities for your proposed action, you must complete each of the details below (where relevant) for each alternative identified.

3.3 (a) Flora and fauna

Flora and fauna is an important consideration for rehabilitation planning as the presence of any endangered or protected species can influence the way in which rehabilitation is implemented and the environmental assessment processes needed before rehabilitation works can start.

Eco Logical Australia conducted a flora and fauna survey at Rum Jungle in September 2014, refer to Attachment I. A summary of the preliminary results from the survey are detailed below (Eco Logical Australia 2014).

An initial Flora and Fauna investigation covering the Borrow Area and haul road has also been completed by EcOz Environmental Consultants, (Attachment B). In addition, runoff impacts on aquatic biota and Terrestrial fauna have also been considered downstream of the Mt Burton site (Attachment M and Attachment O). Although a ground assessment of both the Mt Burton and Mt Fitch stockpiles has not been completed, the proposed earthworks to dispose potential AMD generating waste from both these areas and rehabilitate the sites will improve their ecological value in the long term.

Flora

The EcoLogical (2014) flora survey employed a combination of approaches including:

A. Targeted searches for listed threatened species

B. Vegetation community mapping

C. Vegetation condition mapping

No EPBC listed threatened flora or ecological communities were identified at Rum Jungle or the Borrow Area during both surveys. However, Cycas armstrongii is known to occur at Rum Jungle and is listed as vulnerable under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Targeted searches were undertaken for C. armstrongii and it was found to be widespread and abundant in the woodland vegetation communities at Rum Jungle.

None of the vegetation communities have special botanical significance or declared conservation status. However, vine forests and riparian zones have a relatively limited distribution in the Top End and support a distinctive flora of ecological significance.

The vegetation at Rum Jungle was mapped during the survey, comprising 26 vegetation map units (Figure 9), in addition three ‘other’ map units were assigned for those areas without vegetation or with cultural restrictions. Vegetation map units were based on species composition, stand structure and associated habitat.

The largest vegetation map unit surveyed was Eucalyptus tetrodonta (Stringybark), E. miniata (Darwin Woollybutt) open woodland and the second largest was Andropogon gayanus (Gamba Grass) grassland to closed grassland.

Figure 9. Map of vegetation communities for Rum Jungle (EcoLogical Australia, 2014).

The vegetation condition of the mapped areas was determined. Of this area the majority was rated as ‘I Residual’ and consisted largely of undisturbed native woodlands. The second largest vegetation condition rating was ‘IIb Modified’ (intact, but regeneration capacity limited/at risk due to Gamba Grass and other weed invasions) followed closely by IV Replaced – adventive’ (native vegetation replacement with species alien to the locality e.g. past mine revegetation now overgrown by Gamba Grass). Areas with replaced vegetation condition ratings all experienced high level of disturbances in the past by mining and rehabilitation activities.

The survey identified 28 non-native plant species, including 13 listed as Class B weeds. These included, Gamba Grass and Mimosa pigra, which are listed as class B weeds for the Rum Jungle region but are listed as class A weeds outside of their respective management zones (Table 3-4). Three of the recorded weed species, Gamba Grass, Mimosa and Olive Hymenachne, are listed as Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) by the Australian Weeds Committee (2012). Five of the recorded weeds species, Gamba Grass (Andropogon gayanus), Para Grass (Urochloa mutica), Olive Hymenachne (Hymenachne amplexicaulis), Mission Grass (Pennisetum polystachion) and Annual Mission Grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) are associated with a listed Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act (Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2009) and are subject to a threat abatement plan (DSEWPaC 2012).

Borrow Area

The EcOz Environmental Consultants (2016), survey identified five vegetation communities within the borrow area (Figure 10). The value of most of this area to threatened species has been diminished by dense infestation with Gamba Grass. Without active management it seems likely that most of this area will in time be converted to grassland. The area to the north of the borrow pit through which the haul road passes supports tall Eucalypt open forest dominated by Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Eucalyptus miniata. This forest is in good condition with a well-developed mid-storey and only isolated patches of Gamba Grass.

The vegetation along the remainder of the haul road route is common in the region and widening of the existing track is not considered likely to impact on the population of threatened species.

Figure 10. Map of vegetation communities in the proposed borrow area.

Weed Management

A weed survey was undertaken by Wildman Land Management in November/December 2010 and April 2011. The survey found that the Rum Jungle site is extensively infested with exotic and weed species with at least 22 weed species currently known to occur on the site. The Borrow area report (EcOz, 2016), also notes that the existing vegetation communities within the FRLT Borrow Area, are compromised by widespread and dense infestation of Gamba Grass (Andropogon gayanus).

A 5 Year Weed Management Plan (Attachment C) was developed for Rum Jungle based upon the history and the present status of weed infestations and the surrounding region. Understanding the growth cycle, dispersal and colonisation mechanisms of weeds and efficient methods of disrupting these are key elements of the Plan. The biological context these infestations occur in, such as native vegetation, landscape processes and land use specific to Rum Jungle are also important. The current 5-year weed management, due to lapse on 30 June, will need to be renewed for the next 5 years and incorporate some of the new disturbances associated with the Rum Jungle rehabilitation and propose suitable actions to address them during and post-rehabilitation.

Table 3-35. Declared weed species recorded at Rum Jungle

Declared weed class, NT (Weed Management Act 2001)

Declared Weed Species Weed of National Significance

A – to be eradicated or B – growth and spread to be controlled (within respective management zones)

Gamba Grass Andropogon gayanus

Yes

Mimosa Mimosa pigra

Yes

B - Growth and spread to be controlled Coffee Bush Leucaena leucocephala

Grader Grass Themeda quadrivalvis

Hyptis Hyptis suaveolens

Mission Grass Cenchrus polystachios

Neem Azadirachta indica

Olive Hymenachne Hymenachne amplexicaulis

Yes

Paddy's Lucern Sida rhombifolia

Sicklepod Senna obtusifolia

Snakeweed Stachytarpheta spp.

Spinyhead Sida Sida acuta

Para Grass Urochloa mutica

Vegetation communities at Rum Jungle can be broadly divided into areas either disturbed or largely undisturbed by previous mining activities. An assessment of revegetated sites on the lease shows that Gamba Grass was present or dominated the majority of those revegetated sites. Of the revegetated areas already surveyed, the overburden batters were typically dominated by Gamba Grass. Interestingly, some revegetated areas such as the top of the overburden heaps and the old tailings dam were dominated or co-dominated by native grasses such as Heteropogon contortus and Bothriochloa bladhii.

Numerous threatening processes are of potential relevance to the region including:

invasion of northern Australia by Gamba Grass (Andropogon gayanus) and other introduced grasses land clearance predation by feral cats predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by Cane Toads (Bufo marinus).

Fauna

Listed threatened fauna species are detailed in section 3.1 (d) and 3.1 (e).

A total of 126 species were recorded during the Rum Jungle field survey comprising 12 native amphibian species, 77 bird species, 14 native mammal species (including two bat calls that were not definitively identified), 19 reptile species and four introduced species. (Refer to Attachment I). Threatened and migratory species recorded during this survey included:

Eastern Great Egret (EPBC Migratory)

Fork-tailed Swift (EPBC Migratory)

Partridge Pigeon (Eastern) (EPBC and TPWC Vulnerable)

Rainbow Bee-eater (EPBC Migratory)

White-bellied Sea-eagle (EPBC Migratory)

Mertens' Water Monitor (TPWC Vulnerable)

Twenty of the species that were recorded had not been recorded at Rum Jungle in previous surveys. The fauna assemblage recorded during this survey, and previous surveys of Rum Jungle, is characteristic of that expected of a north Australian

savanna habitat.

The survey results provide an indication of the species that occur on the site. However, information available about the vegetation and landscape features of the site allow an evaluation of the distribution and quality of resources used by a range of fauna for food, shelter and water. This provides a de facto measure of the ‘value’ of parts of the site, and allows the evaluation of the suitability of the site for species that were not recorded during the survey. The topographic complexity of Rum Jungle, the variety of vegetation communities, and the good condition of most of the undisturbed areas combine to provide a variety of plant species in good condition providing food and shelter for fauna. The site also contains year-round water sources. The undisturbed areas of Rum Jungle have a broad variety of native vegetation communities and the condition of much of this area is rated ‘I Residual’. These areas are likely to provide a range of food sources and shelter for fauna species. Rehabilitated areas, in contrast, consist primarily of pasture grasses; while these may be suitable for granivorous species, they largely occur in monoculture and provide shelter or food for a narrower range of species as does an intact natural vegetation community. Ten introduced fauna species have been recorded at Rum Jungle (in this and previous surveys). Some of these species

have little impact on habitat values or native species (i.e. the Asian House Gecko, Hemidactylus frenatus). Other introduced species are known to have dramatic impacts and are listed as key threatening processes under EPBC legislation (including Rabbits, Pigs, Cats and Cane Toads). Other species are known to impact tropical savanna habitats but are not listed as key threatening processes under EPBC legislation (e.g. Swamp Buffalo). The introduced species considered most likely to be impacting fauna values at Rum Jungle include Cane Toads which are likely to be have direct impacts on species that prey on them (including the Mertens, Mitchell and Yellow-spotted monitors, and Northern Quolls), feral cats which are likely to prey on a range of small mammals, reptiles and birds, and Pigs which disturb and modify riparian habitats. These pests are generally difficult if not impossible to manage.

3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows

The Rum Jungle site comprises approximately 650 hectares of relatively elevated ground, bisected by wet season ephemeral streams that feed into the ephemeral East Branch of the Finniss River (East Branch). The East Branch joins the Finniss River proper about eight kilometres downstream of the site. The Finniss River then flows west for about 60 kilometres before emptying into Fog Bay. Current surface water catchments and gauging stations in the Rum Jungle area are shown in Figure 11, with an overlay of the 2010 aerial photography for reference.

More specifically, surface water enters the mine site via the upper East Branch of the Finniss River (East Branch) and Fitch Creek. Before mining these creeks met near the NE corner of Main WRD and subsequently flowed eastward via the natural course of the East Branch. The original course of the East Branch ran through the Main and Intermediate ore bodies (now pits) so flow was diverted to the East Branch Diversion Channel (EBDC) during mining operations.

Today, flows from the East Branch and Fitch Creek flow directly into the EBDC and into Main pit. Water then flows from Main pit to Intermediate pit via a channel that roughly follows the original course of the East Branch. Outflow from the Intermediate pit to the EBDC occurs near the western boundary of the mine site and combined flows from both pits and EBDC continues eastward via the natural course of the East Branch.

Flows (and water quality) in the East Branch of the Finniss River are currently monitored at gauges GS8150200, GS8150327, and GS8150097 (Environmental Performance Assessment for the Final Rehabilitation for the Rum Jungle Mine Site, Attachment T). Some key features of these gauges:

Gauge GS8150200 drains an area of 53 km2 that includes the central mine area and Dyson’s Area, but does not capture flows from Old Tailings Creek. This gauge was established in 1991 and has since been used to monitor flows and water quality conditions in the East Branch of the Finniss River (Lawton and Overall, 2002).

Gauge GS8150327 is located downstream of Old Tailings Creek about 2.5 km downstream of gauge GS8150200. This gauge was installed by the DME in 2010, and it captures flows from the entire Rum Jungle Mine Site (i.e. Dyson’s Area, the central mining area, and the Old Tailings Dam area).

Gauge GS8150097 is located about 8 km downstream of the Rum Jungle Mine Site. Gauge GS8150097 has long been considered the principal compliance point for surface water monitoring, and has therefore been monitored almost continuously since 1964 (Davy, 1975).

Water quality (and flows) have also been sporadically monitored at Dyson’s gauge along the upper East Branch of the Finniss River. Historic flow data (from the 1990s) are available for gauge GS8150213 (at the inlet to the Main Pit). Flows from the Intermediate Pit (at gauge GS8150212) were also monitored at that time. Flows at gauge GS8150212 was re-also monitored during the 2010/2011 wet season before the flow monitoring equipment was destroyed by a brush fire (M. Greally, personal communication).

Flows in the East Branch vary predictably in response to intra-annual variability in rainfall and typically vary by several orders-of-magnitude over the course of a single year. First flows at gauging station GS8150200 are usually observed in early December in response to high-intensity rainfall events that often occur in the early Wet (Taylor et al., 2003). First flows at gauging station GS8150097 usually occur 3 to 4 weeks after they are recorded at gauge GS8150200 due to ‘wetting up’ of the dry river bed between the gauging stations (Lawton and Overall, 2002). Sustained flows at both gauging stations typically occur by mid-January and continue until the end of May with peak flows usually occurring in February or March. No appreciable flow is observed at gauging stations GS8150200 and GS8150097 from June to November due to minimal rainfall but small, often localised storm events do cause small flows that may not be recorded at the gauges. The East Finniss River Catchment area to gauging station GS8150097 is 71 km2, which is the bulk of the catchment area of the East Branch, noting that the length of this reach is approximately 18 kilometres. The mine is considered to make an insignificant contribution to the total flows or to the flow regime in the East Finniss River at gauging station GS8150097 because:

Rum Jungle is only nine per cent of the total East Finniss River catchment area upstream of GS8150097; and

the total area of the waste rock dumps and backfilled pit is a very small proportion of the total catchment area (0.76 per cent); therefore, any change in the runoff or infiltration response of the dumps or backfilled pit under natural conditions will be undetectable at the catchment level.

Because the stream length of the current stream diversion between the Main and Intermediate pits and the Intermediate waste rock dump is only 1.26 kilometres, compared with a total stream length of 17.8 kilometres to gauging station GS8150097 (7.1 per cent), the diversion channel will have a very small influence on streamflow travel times. Therefore, any realignment or remodelling of the current diversion channel as part of the rehabilitation is expected to have an undetectable effect on the flow regime measured at GS8150097.

3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics

The Coomalie Shire lies towards the western boundaries of the Pine Creek bioregion, which is comprised primarily of eucalypt woodlands and patches of monsoon forest on hilly to rugged ridges and undulating plains (Bastin et al., 2008). Undisturbed soils within, and adjacent to, the former mine site are categorised as tenosols, which are soils with weakly developed profiles.

Site studies (CSA Global, 2011 and RGC, Inc, 2016 Attachment X) describe metal levels in surface and near surface soils, fluvial sediments, and deep soil and waste material profiles across both previously rehabilitated areas and un-rehabilitated areas. (CSA Global, 2011). A contaminated sites investigation report has been completed. The RGC study (RGC Inc., 2016) describes the physical and geochemical characteristics of waste rock and contaminated materials at the Rum Jungle Mine Site.

About 85% of these materials are considered Potentially Acid Forming (PAF) material. Three categories of PAF waste rock are identified are:

PAF-I waste rock is characterized by the highest sulphide content (and hence the highest AP values), and the

lowest ANC values. PAF-I waste rock would therefore generate the most AMD in the future if it were allowed to oxidize.

PAF-II waste rock is characterized by moderate AP and ANC values. PAF-II waste rock would generate substantial AMD in the future, but less than PAF-I waste rock.

PAF-III waste rock has a low sulphide content (and relatively high ANC), so it’s the least acid generating PAF type.

The current estimate of contaminated material (waste rock and contaminated soils) is 9,483,659 m3, refer to Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 (Section 2.1). The main pit will house 2,787,400 m3, with the new WSF accommodating the remaining 6,696,259 m3.

The process of defining contamination sources, pathways for contamination and receptors impacted by contamination will provide a clear definition of areas and contaminants of concern, the routes in which they are mobilised, the receiving environments and organisms that are affected by contaminants. These models will aid in identifying and quantifying the risk associated with any contamination sources identified. Once this is established, appropriate management or remediation techniques can be introduced to reduce or break the link between the source, pathway and receptor and reduce or eliminate contamination concentrations and associated risk levels.

The design of any remediation work and the type and frequency of future monitoring of remediation works will be characterised by the development and refinement of a conceptual site model. The identification of potential risks and liabilities associated with previous, current and future site conditions will present any current or future unacceptable risks to human health or the environment.

Vegetation characteristics at Rum Jungle are described in Section 3.3 (a).

Figure 11. Current surface water catchments in Rum Jungle

3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features

The pre-mining landscape has significance to the Kungarakan and Warai traditional Aboriginal owners of the site. Rehabilitation aims to restore key aspects of landscape cultural significance.

To Kungarakan and Warai, rehabilitation of the physical landscape will allow spiritual healing of the country. The following outcomes are required for their vision and for the healing process to be achieved:

culturally appropriate preservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage re-establishment of the original landform as far as achieving the best outcomes allows removing or neutralising pollution sources removing any risk of radiological hazard remediating polluted groundwater stopping surface water from being polluted restoring flora and fauna species endemic to the site and its immediate surrounds maximising employment and business opportunities throughout the rehabilitation process.

3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation The vegetation communities of Rum Jungle (653 ha) are very diverse, including monsoon vine forests, Paperbark open

forests, Eucalypt and Acacia woodlands and grasslands. The majority of vegetation communities that exist at Rum Jungle consist of remnant vegetation (218 ha, approximately 33% of the site) and consisted largely of undisturbed native woodlands. The FRLT Borrow Area which covers an area of 324 ha is primarily covered in Eucalypt and low open woodlands. The proposed FRLT borrow area disturbance will impact 21.7 ha of low open woodland, 76.7 ha of Eucalyptus miniata woodland/open forest, rainforest 1.8 ha and a paperbark swamp 1.9 ha. Most areas seem to be densely infested with Gamba grass (EcOz, 2016).

Mount Burton and Mount Fitch are areas where waste rock has been stockpiled, no remnant vegetation remains at these locations. See Section 3.3 (a)

3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) Not applicable.

3.3 (g) Current state of the environment Include information about the extent of erosion, whether the area is infested with weeds or feral animals and whether the area is covered by native vegetation or crops.

The landscape at Rum Jungle, Mount Fitch and Mount Burton has been significantly degraded from mining and to some extent previous rehabilitation activities. Even though revegetation was undertaken on some of these disturbed areas, many have become dominated by grassy weeds and have since been subjected to hot fires. There is both physical and chemical degradation of current landforms on site from the weathering of waste materials and mobilisation via surface and groundwater pathways. The upper reaches of the East Branch on site (i.e. central mining area) are ephemeral systems and the physical site aesthetics change significantly between the wet and dry seasons. During high-flow rainfall, the diversion channel directs water through the East Branch and through inflows to Main and Intermediate pits, a strategy adopted as part of the previous rehabilitation works to improve the surface water quality of the pits. During the dry season (e.g. August–November) the water bodies evaporate and salt efflorescence becomes more pronounced, particularly where seepage occurs directly to the riverbed (e.g. toes of Main and Intermediate waste rock dumps). Waste materials stored onsite in WRDs and contaminated soils and sediments contain sulfides and elevated concentrations of metals (aluminium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, magnesium, nickel, selenium, uranium, sulphate and zinc), which generate AMD. AMD affects the East Branch and the Finniss River downstream of the site; concentrations of cobalt, copper, and nickel exceed ANZECC water quality guideline trigger values for the protection of aquatic ecosystems during low-flow periods in the river. Copper concentrations exceed the trigger values in the East Branch under all flow conditions. These metals can precipitate onto the riverbed and re-mobilise in the ‘first flush’ of contaminants in the river system. The first flush can be detrimental to aquatic ecology due to the elevated metals concentrations. Fire is common in the landscape around and within Rum Jungle. Between 2004 and 2011 almost one quarter of a 130 km2 area surrounding Rum Jungle was burnt every year (DME, 2013). Managing outbreaks of fire in and around Rum Jungle is an ongoing issue and will continue to be an issue into the future, particularly given the increase in high fuel-load grass weeds, such as Gamba grass and Mission grass.

Feral animals in the Pine Creek bioregion include cane toads, black rats, wild dogs, horses, pigs, swamp buffalo, cattle, and

sambar deer (NT NRM Infonet website, 2012). Price and Baker (2003) noted that the distribution of feral animals across the Coomalie Shire was very poorly known and that the control of pigs and cats should be given priority. See also Section 3.3 (a). Disturbed areas on site are highly impacted by weeds, particularly Gamba grass. Gamba grass was identified as ‘probably the most serious environmental problem’ in the region (Price and Baker, 2003). The Coomalie Shire lies within the Gamba Grass Management Zone, which imposes a legal obligation on landholders to contain existing infestations and eradicate any smaller or new infestations. Mission grass and Mimosa pigra also pose threats to this site as they occur in the region. See also Section 3.3 (a). Native vegetation accounts for approximately 33% of Rum Jungle, with the remaining areas on site modified, transformed, replaced or removed by disturbance including weeds and infrastructure. There is no current cropping land within the boundaries of Rum Jungle.

3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values

The project will not occur near a Commonwealth Heritage place or other place recognised as having heritage value. There is currently limited infrastructure on site; the only physical remnants from the mine include three sheds, a decommissioned drill rig, a gatehouse, and a concrete water tank. A site-wide survey conducted in 2011 provided an assessment of the potential heritage significance of these structures (Attachment S).

3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values

As the traditional Aboriginal owners, Kungarakan and Warai, do not differentiate between environment and culture, their vision is largely drawn from their cultural and social principles.

Kungarakan and Warai desire that Rum Jungle will be returned to a natural, living environment that also provides for a return to traditional ceremony, culture and subsistence use of natural resources. In modern society, this may include development of commercial operations that are managed according to Kungarakan and Warai traditional principles.

Traditional Aboriginal owners indicate that for them water quality is the pivotal aspect of rehabilitation at Rum Jungle. Water is linked to the creation cycle embodied in the local landscape and it has an intrinsic value embodied in Aboriginal law, which includes responsibility to protect the health of the immediate environment and the health of neighbouring clans. While concerns over water quality may be the fundamental driver for the final landform design, traditional Aboriginal owners are also concerned about ensuring that appropriate flora and fauna are in the post-rehabilitation landscape. Kungarakan and Warai require the site to be rehabilitated to a standard that allows them to pass their culture and belief systems onto future generations. Refer to Attachment U, for detailed indigenous objectives associated with the rehabilitation of Rum Jungle. Earthsea (2011) found a number of archaeological scatters and sites considered culturally sensitive or significant to traditional Aboriginal owners (Attachment S). In addition, there are a number of sacred sites and sites of significance to traditional Aboriginal owners which are detailed in the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) Certificate (Attachment R).

3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment

Describe any other key features of the environment affected by, or in proximity to the proposed action (for example, any national parks, conservation reserves, wetlands of national significance etc).

At a regional scale, Rum Jungle is located close to two conservation areas. The northern boundary of the 1800 km2 Litchfield National Park is approximately eight kilometres to the south-west of the site, while the Darwin River Dam catchment boundary is less than two kilometres north of the site (DLPE, 2000 in DME, 2013). While three proposed water supply dams are also within, or close to the Coomalie Shire, only the catchment of the proposed Mount Bennett Dam includes Rum Jungle. Located to the south of Rum Jungle is the township of Batchelor which is the main entry point for Litchfield National Park. Batchelor also provides tourist-related services to the 280,000 visitors who visit the park each year (Coomalie Community Government Council, 2012 in DME, 2013). The waters draining from Rum Jungle flow into the East Branch which flows into the Finniss River, which is part of the Darwin Coastal bioregion, and into Fog Bay. Both the Finniss River coastal floodplain and Fog Bay are designated Sites of Conservation Significance due to internationally significant wildlife aggregations, including shorebirds, waterbirds, seabirds,

and marine turtles (Harrison et al., 2009). Beneficial Uses of ‘aquatic ecosystem protection’ and ‘recreational water quality and aesthetics’ were declared for the waters of Fog Bay under the Water Act 1992 in March 1998.

A project completed in 2012 (Hydrobiology, 2013a and 2013b) identified the relevant environmental values for the Finniss system, using the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000b) framework. As part of this process, cultural values were discussed with traditional Aboriginal owners. The health of the river, its ability to flow freely, the abundance and well-being of Totem and other culturally and spiritually significant organisms, and traditional foods were identified as particularly important cultural values.

To help assign environmental values and water quality objectives, the Finniss system was divided into nine discrete zones (Figure 12) based on geomorphic type, habitat, ecological condition, and extent of disturbance. The condition, environmental values, recovery potential, and, therefore, targets are variable along the river system.

The suite of identified environmental values are:

aquatic ecosystems wildlife habitats primary recreation

secondary recreation visual recreation cultural and spiritual values industrial use aquaculture drinking water irrigation stock water farm supply.

Not all values are relevant to each zone, except aquatic ecosystems and cultural and spiritual values, which are significant for every zone. Water quality objectives (WQO) were developed for each zone, for each water quality parameter, by selecting the lowest ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000b) default trigger value identified for any environmental value in that zone. Trigger values were defined for water, sediment, soil quality, radiation parameters, and selected radionuclides. Water quality trigger values for copper, manganese, and zinc, are characteristic of the site’s metal solute fingerprint.

In order to refine these default WQOs to locally-derived water quality objectives (LDWQOs) it was necessary to conduct an impact assessment (Hydrobiology, 2015) by river zone that included wet and dry season sampling for:

terrestrial vertebrates surveys targeting bats, birds, reptiles and frogs (wet and dry);

riparian vegetation (including ‘bush tucker) and macrophyte surveys (wet and dry);

aquatic Tetrapods including goannas, crocodiles and turtles (dry);

aquatic biota including macroinvertebrates, diatoms, mussels and fishes with sample analyses that included fish, mussel and crustacean tissue analysis for metals and radionuclides (dry); and

channel morphology (dry).

The program encompassed both upstream (reference) and downstream sites within each river zone that have previously shown some aquatic or riparian ecosystem impacts. Monitoring extended to a point downstream where impacts have not been detected historically nor would be expected to occur into the future as rehabilitation progresses (River Zone 7).

A review of the water and sediment quality field program results was also undertaken.

Recommended LDWQOs for post-rehabilitation have been developed based on the monitoring data captured over two rounds (two years) of biological sampling, see Table 3-34 below. Recommended LDWQOs have also been developed for rehabilitation (the action), refer Section 3.2.

More information is provided in Attachments: L, M, N, O, P, Q, T and Q.

Figure 12. River Zones and Sampling Sites for the Impact Assessment

3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold)

The tenure designation of Rum Jungle is Section 2968 Hundred of Goyder, held as vacant Northern Territory Crown Land. The site is subject to several exploration licences: ELR 146, EL 27007, EL 27559, EL 27560 and EL 27562, held by Compass Resources Limited. If Rum Jungle is granted to traditional Aboriginal owners as freehold land, Commonwealth and Northern Territory legislation will continue to apply to the land, including in relation to the management and use of the land. Exploration tenure in the vicinity of Rum Jungle is shown in Figure 5. Mount Burton is Section 981 Hundred of Goyder, held as freehold land; refer to Figure 5. Mount Fitch is Northern Territory Portion 3283, held as Crown Lease in perpetuity 862. Refer to Figure 5. Finniss River Lands Trust Borrow Area is Section 2940 Hundred of Goyder, held as Aboriginal Freehold in the possession of the Finniss River Lands Trust. Refer to Figure 5.

3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area

Existing land uses at Rum Jungle are focussed primarily upon management of this former mine site, including site investigations, monitoring and maintenance. In the cases of Mount Burton and Mount Fitch, there is no current land use for proposed areas. Water monitoring continues to be carried out on Mount Fitch.

Indigenous land uses have been largely disrupted by historic mining operations; however traditional Aboriginal owners have been actively engaged in the site investigations, monitoring and maintenance of the site since the commencement of the NPA.

3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area

If Rum Jungle is granted to traditional Aboriginal owners as freehold land, Commonwealth and Northern Territory legislation will continue to apply to the land, including in relation to the management and use of the land. The Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments may wish to continue to access Rum Jungle for the purpose of further rehabilitation. Where, on the vesting of land in a Land Trust, the land is being used or occupied by the Crown, the Crown is entitled to continue that occupation or use for such period as required (s14 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (ALRA)). Section 19 of the ALRA additionally identifies that a Land Trust may grant an estate or interest in Aboriginal land vested in it to a third party, such as the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory. Therefore, if Rum Jungle were granted as Aboriginal land, the relevant Land Trust could grant a lease or other interest to government to facilitate further access to the land by government for the purpose of ongoing rehabilitation of the land. Under such an arrangement, the land could be returned to its traditional Aboriginal owners and cooperatively managed. The lease arrangement would clearly define each party’s rights and responsibilities. For example, the government could be guaranteed access to assess the sustainability of the rehabilitation works, while also allowing traditional Aboriginal owners day-to-day involvement in managing and monitoring the site. Both the Northern Territory and Commonwealth Government recognise the traditional Aboriginal owners’ aspiration to manage their land.

4 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts

Note: If you have identified alternatives in relation to location, time frames or activities for the proposed action at Section 2.3 you will need to complete this section in relation to each of the alternatives identified. Provide a description of measures that will be implemented to avoid, reduce, manage or offset any relevant impacts of the action. Include, if appropriate, any relevant reports or technical advice relating to the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed measures. For any measures intended to avoid or mitigate significant impacts on matters protected under the EPBC Act, specify: what the measure is, how the measure is expected to be effective, and the time frame or workplan for the measure. Examples of relevant measures to avoid or reduce impacts may include the timing of works, avoidance of important habitat, specific design measures, or adoption of specific work practices. Provide information about the level of commitment by the person proposing to take the action to achieve the proposed environmental outcomes and implement the proposed mitigation measures. For example, if the measures are preliminary suggestions only that have not been fully researched, or are dependent on a third party’s agreement (e.g. council or landowner), you should state that, that is the case. Note, the Australian Government Environment Minister may decide that a proposed action is not likely to have significant impacts on a protected matter, as long as the action is taken in a particular manner (section 77A of the EPBC Act). The particular manner of taking the action may avoid or reduce certain impacts, in such a way that those impacts will not be ‘significant’. More detail is provided on the Department’s web site. For the Minister to make such a decision (under section 77A), the proposed measures to avoid or reduce impacts must: clearly form part of the referred action (e.g. be identified in the referral and fall within the responsibility of the person

proposing to take the action), be must be clear, unambiguous, and provide certainty in relation to reducing or avoiding impacts on the matters

protected, and must be realistic and practical in terms of reporting, auditing and enforcement.

If a proposed action is determined to be a controlled action, the Department may request further details to enable application of the Outcomes-based Conditions Policy 2016 (http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/outcomes-based-conditions-policy-guidance), including information about the environmental outcomes to be achieved by proposed avoidance, mitigation, management or offset measures, details of baseline data, milestones, performance criteria, and monitoring and adaptive management to ensure the achievement of outcomes. If this information is available at the time of referral it should be included in the description of the proposed measures. More general commitments (e.g. preparation of management plans or monitoring), commitments to achieving environmental outcomes and measures aimed at providing environmental offsets, compensation or off-site benefits CANNOT be taken into account in making the initial decision about whether the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on a matter protected under the EPBC Act. (But those commitments may be relevant at the later assessment and approval stages, including the appropriate level of assessment, if your proposal proceeds to these stages).

The majority of the proposed rehabilitation activities will be undertaken in areas of previous disturbance (through mining or previous rehabilitation) and new areas of disturbance will be minimised as much as practicable i.e. FRLT Borrow Area, Haul road and new site access. All disturbed areas will be revegetated with native species of the area. The design and scheduling of rehabilitation works takes into account the local conditions at Rum Jungle for example major earthworks will only be undertaken during the Dry Season (e.g. May to November) each year over a 214 day construction period. As a result the construction is expected to take eight years to complete. Temporary soil covers will be placed over waste rock dumps to prevent AMD during the Wet Season. Table 4 details the potential environmental impacts from the rehabilitation activities proposed at Rum Jungle and outlines the control measures required to avoid or reduce the identified impacts. The potential environmental risks for each of the major detailed design elements, as well as site wide risks, were identified during a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) workshop. The workshop comprised key experts involved in developing the detailed design, having the appropriate knowledge and understanding to evaluate the potential environmental risks.

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/outcomes-based-conditions-policy-guidance

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/outcomes-based-conditions-policy-guidance

Table 4-1 Potential environmental impacts and control measures to avoid or reduce impacts

Environmental Aspect Potential Environmental Impact Proposed Control Measures How the measure is expected to be

effective Timeframe/Workplan for the measure

Land Use

Land Use Inappropriate land use Ensure appropriate consultation is undertaken with stakeholders prior to rehabilitation

Ensure clear expectations of end land use are understood and agreed to prior to rehabilitation

Communication strategy developed in 2009 to ensure effective communication outcomes are achieved

Communication and consultation will continue throughout all phases of the project.

Biodiversity

Biodiversity (Vegetation clearing)

Potential impact on native flora and fauna as a result of clearing native vegetation and fauna habitat on Finniss River Land Trust for sourcing borrow material and hauling material to Rum Jungle

AAPA certificate obtained for proposed borrow area

Land use application and approvals process undertaken to obtain relevant approval to develop proposed borrow area

Vegetation clearing restricted to the approved area of development (if approved)

Effective stakeholder consultation, strategy to be developed

Rehabilitation design, and management and monitoring plan (to be developed) for proposed borrow area address the objectives of the TOs and is achievable by proponent

Rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program (to be developed)

Refer to master schedule (Attachment V) Biodiversity management Plan (Attachment W)

Biodiversity (Vegetation clearing)

Potential impact on native flora and fauna as a result of clearing native vegetation and fauna habitat at Rum Jungle during rehabilitation

Protected areas/restricted areas will be marked to avoid disturbance

Areas proposed for vegetation clearing will be appropriately marked/identified to avoid unplanned clearing

Threatened species management (to be developed) implemented

Dust mitigation activities undertaken Weed management (to be developed)

effectively undertaken Detailed design specifications and

construction schedule requirements met



Environmental Aspect Potential Environmental Impact Proposed Control Measures How the measure is expected to be effective

Timeframe/Workplan for the measure

Biodiversity (Threatened species)

Potential impact on EPBC threatened fauna species as a result of habitat destruction No threatened EPBC flora species were identified at Rum Jungle Potential impact on the clearing of the TPWS vulnerable Cycas armstrongii. This species is locally common, and the regional population is unlikely to be impacted by the rehabilitation.

Identified EPBC threatened fauna species are unlikely to be significantly impacted as a result of rehabilitation

Destruction of fauna habitat will be minimised during rehabilitation

Relocation of Cycas armstrongii in known disturbance areas will be undertaken where possible, in consultation suitably qualified botanists/ecologists

Threatened species known, likely or possibly using sites will be managed in accordance with the Biodiversity Management Plan



Biodiversity (Revegetation) During rehabilitation

Unsuccessful revegetation as a result of poor establishment, early uncontrolled fire, weed invasion etc.

Detailed design specifications met Revegetation design specifications met Effective implementation of fire

management and weed management plan (to be developed)

Erosion and sediment control plan implemented (to be developed as part of principal contractor scope)


Early intervention for remediation


Biodiversity (Revegetation) Post-rehabilitation

Failure to establish desired ecosystem regime Effective implementation of post-rehabilitation fire management and 5-year weed management plan

Post-rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program (to be developed)

Completion criteria met

Revegetation monitoring and maintenance will continue post-rehabilitation Refer to post-rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program. Biodiversity management Plan (Attachment W)

Biodiversity (Weeds) During rehabilitation

Potential impact on native flora and flora due to the invasion of weeds (introduced species) during rehabilitation Potential impact on constructed landforms and revegetated areas

5-year weed management plan, including wash down requirements and appropriate control or eradication of identified weeds

Access and contractor controls


Refer to master schedule (Attachment V) Biodiversity management Plan (Attachment W) 5-year Weed Management Plan



(Attachment C)

Biodiversity (Weeds) Post-rehabilitation

Potential impact on native flora and flora due to the invasion of weeds (introduced species) post-rehabilitation

Potential impact on constructed landforms and revegetated areas

Post-rehabilitation weed management plan implemented



Weed management will continue post-rehabilitation

Refer to post-rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program Biodiversity management Plan (Attachment W) 5-year Weed management Plan

(Attachment C)

Biodiversity (Feral animals) During rehabilitation

Potential impact on native flora and flora due to the invasion of feral animals Potential impact on constructed landforms and revegetated areas

Biodiversity management plan, or similar, to be compiled and implemented at least until ecosystem well established



Biodiversity (Feral animals) Post-rehabilitation

Potential impact on native flora and flora due to the invasion of feral animals Potential impact on constructed landforms and

revegetated areas

Post-rehabilitation feral animal management plan implemented



Feral animal management will continue post-rehabilitation

Biodiversity management Plan (Attachment W)



Biodiversity (Uncontrolled Fire) During rehabilitation

Potential impact to native flora and fauna, and revegetated areas

Fire management plan implemented, including appropriately located and sized fire breaks, controlled burning, ongoing maintenance of fire breaks etc.

5-year Weed management plan to be implemented effectively to assist in reducing fuel loads for uncontrolled fires.



Biodiversity

(Uncontrolled Fire) Post-rehabilitation

Potential impact to native flora and fauna, and

revegetated areas

Post-rehabilitation fire management plan

implemented, including appropriately located and sized fire breaks, controlled burning, ongoing maintenance of fire breaks etc.

Post-rehabilitation weed management plan to be implemented effectively to assist in reducing fuel loads for uncontrolled fires

Post-rehabilitation maintenance and

monitoring program (to be developed)


Fire management will

continue post-rehabilitation Refer to post-rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program, to be developed. Biodiversity management Plan (Attachment W)

Water

Surface Water (Pollution) During rehabilitation

Offsite discharge of contaminated surface water during rehabilitation due to: Flooding of WRD foundations Failure of surface water management

system Flooding/cyclone/storm event Geotechnical failure of WRD Geochemical failure of WRD

Failure of lateral drainage in WRD Failure to cover exposed waste materials

prior to wet season/incorrect scheduling of waste placement

Failure to incorporate sufficient lime with waste rock

Failure of WRD liner Insufficient borrow material for cover

system Erosion gullies on constructed landforms

Meet locally derived water quality objectives - construction phase

Rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program

Accurate site wide water balance including seepage

Effective surface water management structures including levees

Adequate controls for potential flooding Detailed design specifications met Minimise exposed waste material at any

given time Maintain and update construction

schedule Monitor BOM website Accurate material balance Effective erosion and sediment control

system

Detailed design specifications and plans


Locally derived water quality objectives developed by experts in the field: - Hydrobiology Impact assessment report

Surface water management developed by experts in the field: - Water Technology's flood/hydrological modelling, surface water management design and site wide water balance

Construction schedule (Attachment T)

Refer to master schedule (Attachment V)



Failure of cover system Poor vegetation establishment on

constructed landforms Failure of the water treatment plant Failure of diversion leading to ingress of

water during dewatering Failure to meet water discharge license

conditions Failure of dewatering/recovery bores

leading to ingress of groundwater during dewatering

Failure of pit wall stability leading to contaminated sediments polluting Main pit water

Insufficient removal of contaminated materials and groundwater in Copper Extraction Area

Erosion of clean fill placed over residual contaminated material leading to mobilisation of contaminated material

Groundwater levels higher than expected in CEA leading to groundwater expressing itself in new channel and discharging off-site

Geotechnical failure of intermediate pit walls leading to loss of volume in intermediate pit for passive water treatment

Suitable cover materials for cover system Revegetation specifications met

Weed and fire management plan implemented

Intermediate pit will act as a buffer for contaminated water during the dry season

Water treatment plant, to treat and release contaminated water, constructed to specifications with capacity to cope with additional water

Additional water treatment requirements due to ingress of contaminated groundwater, surface water or pit wall failure

Material balance calculations based on data from the following investigations undertaken by experts in the field: - RGC waste characterisation report - Soil contamination investigation report - O'Kane/SLR borrow assessment report

Erosion and sediment control plan (to be developed)

Revegetation design Weed management plan Fire management plan (to be

developed)

Surface Water (Pollution) Post-rehabilitation

Offsite discharge of contaminated water post-rehabilitation due to: Flooding of WRD foundation Failure of surface water management

system Flooding/cyclone/storm event Geotechnical failure of WRD Geochemical failure of WRD Failure of lateral drainage in WRD Failure of WRD liner Erosion gullies on constructed landforms Failure of cover system Unsuccessful revegetation Failure to meet water discharge license

New WRD constructed to design specifications to withstand extreme flood events

Meet locally derived water quality

objectives - post-rehabilitation Post-rehabilitation maintenance and

monitoring program Effective post-rehabilitation surface water

management structures Effective erosion and sediment control

system Post-rehabilitation weed and fire

management plans implemented




Surface water management developed by experts in the field: - Water Technology's flood/hydrological modelling, surface water management design and site

Surface water monitoring and assessment will continue post-rehabilitation

Refer to post-rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program



conditions Erosion of clean fill placed over residual

contaminated material leading to mobilisation of contaminated material

wide water balance Post-rehabilitation weed and fire management plans (to be developed)

Groundwater (Pollution) During rehabilitation

Localised contamination of groundwater during rehabilitation due to: Flooding of WRD foundations Flooding/cyclone/storm event Geotechnical failure of WRD

Geochemical failure of WRD Failure of lateral drainage in WRD Failure to cover exposed waste materials


Failure to incorporate sufficient lime with waste rock

Hydrogeological regime not behaving as predicted/modelled

Insufficient borrow material for cover system

Failure of cover system Poor vegetation establishment Failure of WRD liner Failure to meet water discharge license

conditions Failure of dewatering/recovery bores

leading to ingress of groundwater during dewatering

Insufficient removal of contaminated material and groundwater in Copper Extraction Area (CEA)

Groundwater levels higher than expected in CEA leading to groundwater expressing itself in new channel and discharging off-site

Dewatering bores installed around Main pit

Meet locally derived water quality objectives - construction phase

Accurate groundwater model Rehabilitation maintenance and

monitoring program Accurate site wide water balance

including seepage Effective surface water management

structures Adequate controls for potential flooding Detailed design specifications met Minimise exposed waste material at any

given time Maintain and update construction

schedule Monitor BOM website Accurate material balance Effective erosion and sediment control

system Suitable cover materials for cover system Revegetation specifications met

Weed and fire management plans implemented

Intermediate pit will act as a buffer for contaminated water during the dry

season Water treatment plant, to treat and

release contaminated water, constructed to specifications with capacity to cope with additional water

Additional water treatment requirements due to ingress of contaminated groundwater, surface water or pit wall failure


Rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program (to be developed) Groundwater modelling undertaken by experts in the field (RGC)

Locally derived water quality objectives developed by experts in the field: - Hydrobiology Impact assessment report (Attachment P)

Surface water management developed by experts in the field: - Water Technology's flood/hydrological modelling, surface

water management design and site wide water balance


Material balance calculations based on data from the following investigations undertaken by experts in the field: - RGC waste characterisation report - Soil contamination investigation report

- O'Kane/SLR borrow assessment report


Revegetation design (to be developed)

5-year Weed management plan Fire management plan (to be

developed)




Groundwater (Pollution) Post-rehabilitation

Localised contaminated groundwater post-rehabilitation due to: Flooding of WRD foundation Flooding/cyclone/storm event Geotechnical failure of WRD Geochemical failure of WRD Failure of lateral drainage in WRD Hydrogeologic regime not behaving as

predicted/modelled

Failure of cover system Poor vegetation establishment Failure of WRD liner

Contaminated groundwater treated in copper extraction pad area

Accurate groundwater model Meet locally derived water quality

objectives - post-rehabilitation Post-rehabilitation maintenance and

monitoring program Effective post-rehabilitation surface water

management structures Effective erosion and sediment control

system Post-rehabilitation weed and fire

management plans implemented


Completion criteria met Groundwater modelling undertaken

by experts in the field (RGC) Locally derived water quality

objectives developed by experts in the field: - Hydrobiology Impact assessment report

Surface water management developed by experts in the field: - Water Technology's flood/hydrological modelling, surface water management design and site wide water balance

Post-rehabilitation weed and fire management plans

Groundwater monitoring and assessment will continue post-rehabilitation Refer to post-rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program

Water (Flooding/Storm/Cyclone)

During rehabilitation

Site flooding, as a result of a storm event or cyclone, leading to surface water

contamination and sedimentation off site

Predicting cyclone/severe weather event, monitor BOM

Effective surface water management structures

Landforms designed to withstand significant weather events

Adequate controls for potential flooding Newly disturbed areas revegetated as

soon as practical Stockpiled soils suitability located on high ground and outside flood zones

Emergency management plans in place Infrastructure built to cyclone code

specifications Hazardous substances stored

appropriately and MSDSs maintained



Surface water management developed by experts in the field: - Water Technology's flood/hydrological modelling and surface water management design

Construction schedule (Attachment

T) Erosion and sediment control plan

(to be developed) Revegetation design


Soil



Soil (Contaminated) Erosion and sedimentation During rehabilitation

Offsite release of contaminated materials/sediments during rehabilitation due to: Flooding of WRD foundations Flooding/cyclone/storm event Geotechnical failure of WRD Failure of lateral drainage in WRD Failure to cover exposed waste materials


Erosion gullies on constructed landforms Failure of surface water management

system Failure of cover system Poor vegetation establishment Dust generation Failure of diversion leading to ingress of

water during dewatering and mobilisation of tailings

Failure of pit wall stability leading to mobilisation of contaminated sediments

Error is classification, cut-off levels or depth of contaminated soil leading to remaining contaminated soil on site and additional volume for incorporation into new WRD

Erosion of clean fill placed over residual contaminated material leading to mobilisation of contaminated material

Failure to remove and place the replacement material before the wet season leading to large scale erosion of unconsolidated materials in Copper Extraction Area

Rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program

Detailed design specifications met Effective erosion and sediment control

system Surface water management system Adequate controls for potential flooding Minimise exposed waste material at any

given time Maintain construction schedule Monitor BOM website Suitable cover materials used for cover

system Revegetation specifications met


Water treatment requirements due to ingress of contaminated groundwater, surface water or pit wall failure

Contaminated land auditor will assess the classification of contaminated land and

effective recovery during rehabilitation







Revegetation design Weed management plan Fire management plan (to be

developed)


Soil (Contaminated) Erosion and sedimentation Post-rehabilitation

Offsite release of contaminated materials/sediments post-rehabilitation due to: Flooding of WRD foundations Flooding/cyclone/storm event Geotechnical failure of WRD Failure of lateral drainage in WRD Erosion gullies

Post-rehabilitation maintenance and monitoring program Effective erosion and sediment control system

Surface water management system Adequate controls for potential flooding Revegetation specifications met



Locally derived water quality objectives

Erosion and sedimentation monitoring will continue post-rehabilitation Refer to post-rehabilitation



Failure of surface water management system

Failure of cover system Poor vegetation establishment Dust generation


developed by experts in the field: - Hydrobiology Impact assessment report




Revegetation design Weed management plan

Fire management plan (to be developed)

maintenance and monitoring program

Soil (Pollution) During rehabilitation

Localised impact to soil due to run-off or leaching of hazardous substances, e.g. hydrocarbons, chemicals etc.

Detailed design specifications met Effective bunding of chemical

containment areas and refuelling stations Any spills will be reported and cleaned up

in a timely manner Appropriate training will be provided to all

relevant staff. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) will be made available for all substances on site

Personal Protective Equipment will be provided and worn by all staff

Specialised equipment required for cleaning up spills will be made available in the relevant work areas

Contaminated soils will disposed on appropriately

Surface water management system Effective erosion and sediment control

system



Locally derived water quality objectives developed by experts in the field: - Hydrobiology Impact assessment

report Construction schedule (Attachment

T) Surface water management

developed by experts in the field: - Water Technology's flood/hydrological modelling and surface water management design




Air and Noise

Air (Dust) During rehabilitation

Dust generation due to vegetation clearing, hauling, and other general ground disturbance leading to: Localised damage to vegetation Sedimentation of waterways Loss of clean topsoil/subsoil material

Water trucks will be used to reduce dust generation during rehabilitation

Where practicable, construction activities during rehabilitation will be undertaken to avoid dust generation

Air quality management plan enacted






Refer to master schedule (Attachment V) Air Quality management Plan

Noise and Vibration During rehabilitation

Use of heavy machinery, e.g. haul trucks, during rehabilitation leading to noise disturbance to local community and local fauna

Traffic Management Plan to be created Limit speed of vehicles Use of low tonal alarms where possible Well-designed blasting activities Restrict noisy work to daytime hours Use quiet equipment where possible Design layout of site to factor location of

sensitive receptors Noise and Vibration management plan

enacted

No community complaints No monitoring exceedances No damage to any sensitive

receptors

Refer to master schedule (Attachment V) Noise and Vibration Management Plan

5 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts Identify whether or not you believe the action is a controlled action (i.e. whether you think that significant impacts on the matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act are likely) and the reasons why.

5.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?

No, complete section 5.2

Yes, complete section 5.3

5.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action. Specify the key reasons why you think the proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have significant impacts on a matter protected under the EPBC Act.

NA

5.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action Type ‘x’ in the box for the matter(s) protected under the EPBC Act that you think are likely to be significantly impacted. (The ‘sections’ identified below are the relevant sections of the EPBC Act.)

Matters likely to be impacted

World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A)








A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development

(sections 24D and 24E)

Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A)

Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28)

Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)

Specify the key reasons why you think the proposed action is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the matters identified above.

In the short-term, adverse impacts are likely to result from the proposed action. The implementation of the rehabilitation strategy, in particular the earthworks required to relocate substantial quantities of sulfidic and metalliferous waste rock is likely to cause short-term environmental impacts. Refer to Section 3 for details on mitigation measures.

The potential long-term benefits for the environment, specifically in terms of AMD and radiological sources, outweigh the short-term impacts. Locally Derived Water Quality Objectives (Hydrobiology 2015) have been developed during construction and post-rehabilitation.

6 Environmental record of the responsible party NOTE: If a decision is made that a proposal needs approval under the EPBC Act, the Environment Minister will also decide the assessment approach. The EPBC Regulations provide for the environmental history of the party proposing to take the action to be taken into account when deciding the assessment approach.

Yes No

6.1 Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible environmental management?

Provide details

The NT Department of Mines and Energy, regulates and oversees the management of major mining operations, exploration sites and legacy mines across the Northern Territory. It is responsible for the enforcement of compliance issues associated with the Mining Management Act; and for conducting audits and inspections, to ensure compliance with the Mining Management Plans and relevant environmental standards (e.g. EPBC commitments). The DME has an excellent record of responsible environmental management, due in part to the commitment of its employees in improving the environmental impacts of operational and legacy mines in the Northern Territory and its contemporary legislative basis. The DME continues to be responsible for coordinating inspections and audits of mining operations, against agreed environmental conditions and frequently engages qualified experts to undertake environmental assessments for actions to ensure that impacts to the environment are minimised and that the needs of Territorians are met. The DME has developed the Rum Jungle rehabilitation design based on best practice in mine rehabilitation. This includes ensuring the design accounts for traditional owners views and aspirations for the site.

6.2 Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources?

The DME has never been subject to any proceedings under the Commonwealth or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

If yes, provide details

6.3 If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?

If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework

Yes No

6.4 Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act? The NT Department of Mines and Energy has not previously referred an action under the EPBC Act. However, more broadly the Northern Territory Government has previously been responsible for undertaking actions referred to under the EPBC Act.

Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known)

Power and Water Corporation/Waste management (sewerage)/Ludmilla and East Point /NT/Replacement of the East Point Outfall (EPO) as part of the overall upgrade of the Ludmilla waste water treatment plant and closure of the Larrakeyah Outfall, Darwin, NT: 2011/6099 Northern Territory Department of Lands and Planning/Residential development/10km south of Palmerston /NT/Proposed City of Weddell ON APPROXIMATELY 5,118 ha, approximately 10 kilometres south of Palmerston, Northern Territory: 2011/6090. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE - MAJOR PROJECTS UNIT/Manufacturing/Darwin Harbour/Northern Territory/East Arm Wharf Expansion Works, including construction of a hardstand area and barge ramp, marine supply base and tug and small vessel berths, and dredging and disposal of spoil: 2010/5304. POWER AND WATER CORPORATION/Waste Management (sewerage)/NT/Northern Territory/Augmentation of the East Point Effluent Rising Main and Extension of East Point Outfall: 2009/5113. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government/Transport - air and space/Darwin Airport/NT/Exposure Draft MDP for Darwin Airport Home and Lifestyle Super Centre: 2008/4294 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government/Transport - air and space/Darwin Airport/NT/Exposure draft MDP for passenger terminal expansion at Darwin Airport: 2008/4280

7 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above)

7.1 References List the references used in preparing the referral. Highlight documents that are available to the public, including web references if relevant.

ANZECC. 2000b. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, ANZECC/ARMCANZ, Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 31 July 2012, 3218.0 Population Estimates by Local Government Area, 2001 to 2011, Estimated Resident Population, Local Government Areas, Northern Territory, accessed 14 November 2012 from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3218.02011?OpenDocument

Bastin, G. and ACRIS Management Committee. 2008. Rangelands 2008 — Taking the Pulse. Published on behalf of the ACRIS Management Committee by the National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Bollhöfer, A., Pfitzner, K., Ryan, B., Esparon, A., and Brazier, J. 2008. Radiological assessment of Rum Jungle

Mine, Northern Territory. Report by the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist,

Supervising Scientist Division, Department of Environment and Water Resources, prepared for Northern Territory

Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Art and the Commonwealth Department of Industry,

Tourism and Resources, amended January.

BirdLife International (2009e). Bubulcus ibis. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. Bubulcus ibis. [Online]. IUCN. www.iucnredlist.org.

BirdLife International (2016) Species factsheet: Merops ornatus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 15/06/2016.

Braithwaite, R.W., and Griffiths, A.D. (1994). Demographic variation and range contraction in the northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus (Marsupalia: Dasyuridae). Wildlife Research 21:203-217.

Burbidge, A.A. (1987). The management of crocodiles in Western Australia. In: Webb, G. J. W., S. C. Manolis & P. J. Whitehead, eds. Wildlife Management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Page(s) 125-127. Sydney: Surrey Beatty & Sons.

Coomalie Community Government Council, 2012, History, accessed 14 November 2012 from: http://www.coomalie.nt.gov.au/index.php/our-community/history

Cowie, I., R. Kerrigan & B. Stuckey (2012). Threatened Species of the Northern Territory-Helicteres sp. Glenluckie Creek. [Online]. Available from: http://lrm.nt.gov.au/plants-and-animals/threatened-species/specieslist.

Cowie, I 2014, Threatened Species of the Northern Territory- Atalya brevialata, Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, viewed 18 April 2016, <http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/353282/atalaya_brevialata_cr_v2.pdf>.

CSA Global (2011), Rum Jungle Mine Site: Results of Soil & Fluvial Zone Sampling & Assessment; Prepared for the Dept. of Resources, Northern Territory. Report No. R167.2011.

Davy, D.R. (1975), Rum Jungle Environmental Studies, Australian Atomic Energy Commission report. September 1975.

del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott & J. Sargatal (2001). del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott & J. Sargatal, eds. Handbook of the Birds of the World: Mousebirds to Hornbills. 6. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, 2012, Coomalie Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives 2000, accessed 15 November 2012 from: http://www.lands.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/25192/coomalie.pdf

Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, 2012, Threatened species of the Northern Territory, Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae, accessed 13 June 2016 from: https://nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/206353/gouldian-finch-vu-final.pdf

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3218.02011?OpenDocument

http://www.birdlife.org/

http://www.coomalie.nt.gov.au/index.php/our-community/history

http://lrm.nt.gov.au/plants-and-animals/threatened-species/specieslist

http://lrm.nt.gov.au/plants-and-animals/threatened-species/specieslist

http://www.lands.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/25192/coomalie.pdf

Department of the Environment (2013) Atalaya brevialata – Conservation Advice. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/86125-conservation-advice.pdf. Accessed Wed 15 June 2016.

Department of the Environment (2016). Acacia praetermissa in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:17:11 +1000.

Department of the Environment (2016a). Apus pacificus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 27 May 2016. Department of the Environment (2016b). Merops ornatus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 27 May 2016. Department of the Environment (2016c). Ardea modesta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 27 May 2016. Department of the Environment (2016d). Ardea ibis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 27 May 2016

Department of the Environment (2016e). Ardea modesta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:24:09 +1000.

Department of the Environment (2016). Ardea ibis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:02:11 +1000.

Department of Mines and Energy, 2013. Former Rum Jungle Mine Site: Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan. Report prepared for Commonwealth Government Department of Industry. Publicly available.

Department of Mines and Energy (2016). Partridge Pigeon Survey of the proposed waste rock dump at the former Rum Jungle Mine. Report prepared by Dane Trembath Mining Compliance Unit.

Dunlop, CR, Leach, GJ & Cowie, ID (1995), Flora of the Darwin Region, Vol 2, Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Earth Sea Pty Ltd. (2011). Heritage assessment of the former Rum Jungle Mine site, Northern Territory. A report prepared for the Department of Resources, NT. Darwin, NT.

Eco Logical Australia (2014). Flora and Fauna surveys of the Former Rum Jungle Mine Site. Prepared for the NT Department of Mines and Energy.

Ecological Management Services (2005). Browns Oxide Project – Fauna Report. Report prepared for Enesar Consulting Pty Ltd & Compass Resources. EcOz (2014a). Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey. Report prepared for Hydrobiology, Brisbane. EcOz (2014b). Aquatic Reptile Survey of the Finniss River. Report prepared for Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

EcOz (2015). Threatened Monitor Lizard and Bat Survey of the Finniss River. Report prepared for Hydrobiology, Brisbane.

EcOz (2016). Run Jungle Borrow Pit and Haul Road Investigation. Prepared for the NT Department of Mines and Energy.

Fukuda, Y., P. Whitehead & G. Boggs (2007). Broad-scale environmental influences on the abundance of saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus). Australia. Wildlife Research. 34:167-176.

Garnett ST, Szabo JK, Dutson G (2011). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Groombridge, B. (1987). The distribution and status of world crocodilians. In: Webb, G. J. W., S. C. Manolis & P. J. Whitehead, eds. Wildlife Management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Page(s) 9-21. Sydney: Surrey Beatty & Sons.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/86125-conservation-advice.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat



http://www.nt.gov.au/d/rumjungle/Content/File/Rum_Jungle_Conceptual_Rehabilitation_Plan.pdf

Harrison, L., McGuire, L., Ward, S., Fisher, A., Pavey, C., Fegan, M. and Lynch, B. 2009. An inventory of sites of international and national significance for biodiversity values in the Northern Territory. Department of Natural Resources.

Hill, B 2012, Threatened Species of the Northern Territory- Black-footed Tree-rat Mesembriomys gouldii, Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, viewed 18 April 2016, <http://lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/143100/Black-footed_tree-rat_VU_FINAL.pdf>.

Holtze (2004). Darwin Herbarium specimen database. Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure Planning and Environment, Darwin

Hydrobiology Pty Ltd. 2013a. Environmental Values Downstream of the Former Rum Jungle Minesite – Phase 1. Prepared for the NT Department of Mines and Energy.

Hydrobiology Pty Ltd. 2013b. Environmental Values Downstream of the Former Rum Jungle Minesite – Phase 2. Prepared for the NT Department of Mines and Energy.

Hydrobiology Pty Ltd. 2015a. Rum Jungle Aquatic Ecosystem Survey – Early and Late Dry Season 2015. Prepared for the NT Department of Mines and Energy. October 2015.

Hydrobiology Pty Ltd. 2015b. Rum Jungle Impact Assessment. Prepared for the NT Department of Mines and

Energy. June 2016.

Hydrobiology Pty Ltd. 2015c. Revised LDWQOs and Construction Phase LDWQO Sensitivity Analysis – Draft Memorandum. Prepared for the NT Department of Mines and Energy. October 2015.

Jaensch, R.P. (2008). Personal communication. May 2008.

Kushlan, J.A. & J. Hancock (2005). Herons. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Lawton, M.D. and R. Overall (2002a), Surface water monitoring, in Rum Jungle Rehabilitation Monitoring Report 1993 to 1998, Pidsley, S.M. (ed.), July 2002. Low, W.A. (2001). Flora and Fauna of the Browns Project Region, N.T., a desk top assessment of information available and required for environmental impact assessment of Brown Polymetallic Project. Report prepared for NRS Environmental Consultants P/L Melbourne and Compass Resources NL Sydney.

McKean, J.L., G. Friend & A.L. Hertog (1981). Occurrence of the Sheath-tailed Bat Taphozous saccolaimus in the Northern Territory. Northern Territory Naturalist. 4:20.

McNamara, K.J. & G.J. Wyre (1993). The conservation, management and farming of crocodiles in Western Australia. In: Crocodiles, Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group. 435-450. Gland, IUCN.

Miller, J.D. (1993). Crocodiles in Queensland: A Brief Overview. In: Crocodiles, Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Meeting of the Crocodile Specialist Group. 272-289. Gland, IUCN.

Milne, D.J., T.B. Reardon & F. Watt (2003). New records for the Arnhem Sheathtail Bat Taphozous kapalgensis (Chiroptera: Emballonuridae) from voucher specimens and Anabat recordings. Australian Zoologist. 32:439-445.

Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport (NT DNREAS), (2013). Information provided with respect to nomination.

NT NRM Infonet website. 2012. Territory Natural Resource Management. Charles Darwin University, Natural Heritage Trust, Northern Territory Government. Accessed on 30 November 2012 from: http://infonet.cdu.edu.au/nrm.

O'Malley, C. (2006a). Appendix to the National Recovery Plan for the Gouldian Finch (Erythrura gouldiae) Background Information. [Online]. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/pubs/e-gouldiae-background.pdf.

O'Malley, C. (2006b). National Recovery Plan for the Gouldian Finch (Erythrura gouldiae). [Online]. National Gouldian Finch Recovery Team. Palmertson, NT Parks and Wildlife. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/e-gouldiae.html.

http://infonet.cdu.edu.au/nrm%3e.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/pubs/e-gouldiae-background.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/e-gouldiae.html

Price, O. and Baker, B. 2003. A natural resource strategy for Coomalie sub-region – draft for public comment. A report to the Coomalie Community Government Council by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Darwin.

Price, O, Rankmore, B, Milne, DJ, Brock, C, Tynan, C, Kean, L & Roger, L 2005, ‘Regional patterns of mammal abundance and their relationships to landscape variables in eucalypt woodlands near Darwin, northern Australia’, Wildlife Research, vol. 32, pp. 435-446.

Radiation Advice and Solutions Pty Ltd. 2015. Rum Jungle Radiation Monitoring Report. Prepared for the NT Department of Mines and Energy. May 2015.

Robertson GeoConsultants Inc. and DR Jones Environmental Excellence, 2016. Rum Jungle Mine Site, Physical and Geochemical Characteristics of Waste Rock and Contaminated Materials, Part 1. Waste Classification, Re-location Sequence and Neutralant Requirements. Report No. 183006/1.

Robertson GeoConsultants Inc. and DR Jones Environmental Excellence, 2016. Rum Jungle Mine Site, Physical and Geochemical Characteristics of Waste Rock and Contaminated Materials, Part 2. Geochemical Source Terms and Neutralant Requirements for Waste Rock. Report No. 183006/1.

Ross, J.P. (1998). Crocodiles: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan; Second Edition. [Online]. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Available from: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/act-plan/plan1998a.htm.

Schulz, M. & B. Thomson (2007). Recovery plan for the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus 2007-2011. [Online]. Report to Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Brisbane: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/s-nudicluniatus.html.

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, 2016. Rum Jungle Rehabilitation – Borrow Put Identification Geotechnical Field Investigations. Report No. 622.10679.

Taplin, L.E. (1987). The management of crocodiles in Queensland, Australia. In: Webb, G. J. W., S. C. Manolis & P. J. Whitehead, eds. Wildlife Management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Page(s) 129-140. Sydney, Surrey Beatty & Sons.

Taylor, G., Spain, A., Nefiodovas, A., Timms, G., Kuznetsov, V. and J. Bennett (2003), Determination

of the Reasons for Deterioration of the Rum Jungle Waste Rock Cover, Australian Centre for Mining Environmental Research (Brisbane). Thomson, B. (1991). A Field Guide to Bats of the Northern Territory. Darwin: Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory.

Tidemann, S. (2002). Bird Survey of the Browns Project Area. Unpublished report to NSR Pty Ltd/Ecological Management Services. Webb, G., S. Manolis, P. Whitehead & G. Letts (1984). A proposal for the transfer of the Australian population of Crocodylus porosus Schneider (1801) from Appendix I to Appendix II of C.I.T.E.S. Page(s) 82. Darwin: Conservation Commission of NT.

Webb, G.J.W., P.J. Whitehead & S.C. Manolis (1987). Crocodile management in the Northern Territory of Australia. In: Webb, G. J. W., S. C. Manolis & P. J. Whitehead, eds. Wildlife Management: Crocodiles and Alligators. Page(s) 107-124. Sydney, Surrey Beatty & Sons.

Woinarski, J.C.Z. (2004). National multispecies Recovery Plan for the Partridge Pigeon [eastern subspecies] Geophaps smithii smithii; Crested Shrike-tit [northern (sub)-species] Falcunculus (frontatus) whitei; Masked Owl

[north Australian mainland subspecies] Tyto novaehollandae kimberli; and Masked Owl [Tiwi Islands subspecies] Tyto novaehollandiae melvillensis, 2004-2008. NT Department of Infrastructure Planning and Environment, Darwin.

Woinarski, J.C.Z. (2006). Threatened Species of the Northern Territory. Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus. Northern Territory Government Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts. Accessed May 2016. https://nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/206352/red-goshawk-vu.pdf

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/act-plan/plan1998a.htm

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetology/act-plan/plan1998a.htm

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/s-nudicluniatus.html

Woinarski, J.C.Z. Armstrong, M. Brennan, K. Fisher, A. Griffiths, A.D. Hill, B. Milne, D.J. Palmer, C. Ward, S. Watson, M. Winderlich, S. and Young, S. 2010. Monitoring indicates rapid and severe decline of native small mammals in Kakadu National Park, northern Australia. Wildlife Research 37, 116-126.

Woinarski, JCZ, Burbidge, AA & Harrison, PL 2012a, The action plan for Australian mammals 2012, CSIRO

Publishing.

Woinarski, J.C.Z. and Ward, S. 2012. Threatened species of the Northern Territory – Masked Owl. Threatened species information sheet. Northern Territory Government Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts.

Woinarski, JCZ & Ward, S 2006, Threatened Species of the Northern Territory-Masked Owl (north Australian mainland subspecies) Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli, Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, viewed 18 April 2016, <http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/10856/masked_owl_tiwi_en.pdf>.

Young, S (2012). Threatened Species of the Northern Territory. Fawn Antechinus Antechinus bellus. Northern Territory Government Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts. Accessed May 2016. https://nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/205503/fawn_antechinus.pdf

7.2 Reliability and date of information For information in section 3 specify: source of the information; how recent the information is; how the reliability of the information was tested; and any uncertainties in the information.

Section 3.1 (a) – (h)

1. EPBC Act Protected Matters Report, 4 April 2014.

Uncertainty in the information:

The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from the EPBC Act Protected Matters database:

threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants

some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed

some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area

migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers

2. Flora and Fauna Surveys of the Former Rum Jungle Mine Site, 1 September 2014.

Reliability of the information:

The flora and fauna surveys were conducted by suitably qualified ecologists from Eco Logical Australia. A desktop review of previous information and a likelihood assessment of listed threatened species were undertaken prior to field work. Appropriate Northern Territory survey methods were used.

3. A likelihood analysis for threatened flora and fauna species listed under the EPBC Act, in the proposed borrow pit and associated haul road area was conducted by qualified ecologists from EcOz Environmental Consultants. This utilised a combination of desk based research and field surveys.

Section 3.1 (i)

1. Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan, May 2013.


The Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan documents the findings from technical investigations commissioned to fill key knowledge gaps about the current environmental status of the site, the outcomes of consultation with key stakeholders, site maintenance activities, and the process by which a preferred conceptual rehabilitation strategy has been developed. Both the long-term monitoring data and previous technical investigations on the site and downstream were intensively reviewed.

Section 3.2 (a) – (e)



See above

Section 3.3 (a)

1. Flora and Fauna Surveys of the Former Rum Jungle Mine Site, 1 September 2014.

See above.

Section 3.3 (b) – (g)


Refer Section 3.2 (a) – (e)

Section 3.3 (h) – (i)



2. Heritage Assessment of the Former Rum Jungle Mine Site, Northern Territory. 2011.

The heritage assessment was undertaken by suitably qualified archaeologists from Earth Sea Pty Ltd. This report has been compiled following the process outlined in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter for the conservation of heritage places. The Burra Charter outlines a logical order for making decisions appropriate for heritage places.

Section 3.3 (j)



2. Environmental Values Downstream of Former Rum Jungle Minesite – Phase 1, April 2013.

The study was undertaken by team of recognised scientific experts from Hydrobiology Pty Ltd, which included those with extensive experience at Rum Jungle, and those with expertise in the biophysical and cultural characteristics of the region.

3. Environmental Values Downstream of Former Rum Jungle Minesite – Phase 2, April 2013.

See above, dot point 2.

Section 3.3 (k)


Tenure information sourced from Department of Mines and Energy – Mineral Titles.

Section 3.3 (l) & (m)



Section 4



7.3 Attachments Indicate the documents you have attached. All attachments must be less than three megabytes (3mb) so they can be published on the Department’s website. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay the processing of your referral.

attached Title of attachment(s)

You must attach

figures, maps or aerial photographs showing the project locality (section 1)

Figure 1 – Project Area and Location Site_boundarySHP

GIS file delineating the boundary of the

referral area (section 1)

figures, maps or aerial photographs

showing the location of the project in

respect to any matters of national environmental significance or important

features of the environments (section 3)

Figure 5 – Listed threatened and migratory species records within 10km of Rum Jungle

If relevant, attach

copies of any state or local government approvals and consent conditions (section

2.5)

Attachment A - National Partnership Agreement Attachment F - Project Agreement

copies of any completed assessments to meet state or local government approvals

and outcomes of public consultations, if

available (section 2.6)

Attachment E - Communication Strategy

copies of any flora and fauna investigations

and surveys (section 3)

Attachments G, H, J, K – EPBC Act Matters of National Environmental Significance report Attachment I - Flora and Fauna Surveys of the Former Rum Jungle Mine Site: Wet Season Report

technical reports relevant to the assessment of impacts on protected

matters that support the arguments and conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4)

Attachment D - Conceptual Rehabilitation Plan Attachment L - Report on Numerical Groundwater Flow Modelling at the Rum Jungle Mine Site, NT. Attachment M - Surface Water Quality and Contaminant Load Assessment for the Rum Jungle Mine Site, NT. Attachment N - Environmental Values Downstream of Former Rum Jungle Minesite – Phase 1

Environmental Values Downstream of Former Rum Jungle Minesite – Phase 1 Attachment S - Heritage Assessment of the Former Rum Jungle Mine Site, Northern Territory Attachment C Weed Management Plan

report(s) on any public consultations Attachment E -

undertaken, including with Indigenous

stakeholders (section 3)

Communication Strategy Attachment R - Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority

referral of proposed action · 2016. 7. 29. · 001 referral of proposed action june 2016 page 3 of...

Documents