5000_2_v6 October 2007 Kanmantoo Copper Project Mining Lease Proposal Appendices Volume 2 Kanmantoo Copper Project Mining Lease Proposal Appendices Volume 2 October 2007 5000_2_v6 Prepared by: Enesar Consulting Pty Ltd Level 1, 2-3 Greenhill Road Wayville South Australia 3510 p 61-8-7221 3588 f 61-8-7221 3510 e [email protected] www enesar.com.au Project Director David Browne Project Manager Tara Halliday Version/s: Distribution: CR 5000_2_v6 Hillgrove – 4 copies October 2007 Enesar – 4 copies South Australian Agencies and other project stakeholders – 30 copies Summary Information Mine owner: Hillgrove Copper Pty Ltd and Kelaray Pty Ltd Mine operator: Hillgrove Copper Pty Ltd Contact person: Marty Adams Project Manager Contact details: Hillgrove Resources Limited Callington Project Office 42 Back Callington Road Callington SA 5254 Telephone: 08 8538 5100 Email: [email protected] Tenements: MC 3510, MC 3833, MC 3834, MC 3835, MC 3836 Name of mining operation: Kanmantoo Copper Project Commodity to be mined: Copper, gold, silver and garnet MLP date: October 2007 Mining Lease Proposal Kanmantoo Copper Project Appendices 5 Kanmantoo Copper Project Flora Assessment 6 Kanmantoo Copper Project Fauna Baseline Survey and Impact Assessment 7 Kanmantoo Copper Project Socio and Economic Impact Assessment 8 Kanmantoo Copper Project Indigenous Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Assessment 9 Kanmantoo Copper Project Non-Indigenous Heritage Survey and Archaeological Assessment 10 Kanmantoo Copper Project Traffic Impact Assessment 11 Kanmantoo Copper Project Geochemistry (Acid Rock Drainage) Assessment Enesar Consulting Pty Ltd 5000_App-Vol2_ToCv6.doc/October 9, 2007 Appendix 5 Kanmantoo Copper Project Flora Assessment Final Report Kanmantoo Copper Project Flora Assessment Coffey Natural Systems Pty Ltd Level 1, 2-3 Greenhill Rd Wayville SA 5034 May 2007 ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES DE005-C Contents 1 Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Scope of Work 1-1 1.3 Background to the Project 1-1 2 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-1 2.1 Landform 2-1 2.2 Known Vegetation Values 2-1 2.3 Mine Proposal 2-2 2.4 Legislative Framework 2-3 2.5 Existing Information 2-5 3 Survey------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1 3.1 Method 3-1 3.2 Results 3-2 3.3 Pest Plants 3-18 4 Impact Assessment --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-1 4.1 Clearance of Native Vegetation 4-1 4.2 Incidental Impacts on Native Vegetation 4-3 4.3 Dust 4-3 4.4 Acid Mine Leachate 4-4 4.5 Altered Groundwater and Surface Water Hydrology 4-4 5 Recommendations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1 5.1 Options to Mitigate the Impacts of Vegetation Clearance 5-1 5.2 Limitations of this Study 5-2 5.3 Recommendations for Further Investigations 5-3 6 References ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 i Figures, Tables and Appendices Figures Figure 1. Location of proposed Kanmantoo Copper Project. ....................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2. Proposed project footprint of Kanmantoo Copper Project............................................................ 2-3 Figure 3. Eucalyptus odorata Low woodland with condition score of SEB 8:1......................................... 3-3 Figure 4. Vegetation map of the study area with proposed project footprint overlaid................................ 3-4 Figure 5. Eucalyptus odorata Low woodland with condition score of SEB 4:1......................................... 3-5 Figure 6. Eucalyptus odorata Low woodland with condition score of SEB 2:1 (right of fence)............... 3-5 Figure 7. Lomandra effusa +/- Heliochrysum leucopsideum Open tussock grassland with condition score of SEB 8:1........................................................................................................................3-6 Figure 8. Lomandra effusa +/- Heliochrysum leucopsideum Open tussock grassland with condition score of SEB 4:1........................................................................................................................3-7 Figure 9. Austrostipa sp. Open tussock grassland with condition score of SEB 8:1. ................................. 3-8 Figure 10. Austrostipa sp. Open tussock grassland with condition score of SEB 6:1. ............................... 3-8 Figure 11. Acacia pycnantha Low woodland with condition score of SEB 6:1.......................................... 3-9 Figure 12. Eucalyptus gracilis ± E. oleosa Open mallee with condition score of SEB 8:1. .................... 3-10 Figure 13. Allocasuarina verticillata ± Callitris gracilis ± Lomandra effusa Low woodland with condition score SEB 8:1................................................................................................ 3-11 Figure 14. Location of threatened species (source indicated) within study area....................................... 3-15 Figure 15. Sections of Back Callington Road (yellow line) assessed for conservation significance....... 3-16 Figure 16. Example of roadside vegetation, Back Callington Road; southern side within Section 1......3-17 Tables Table 1. Conservation significance of previously reported species and vegetation communities. ............ 2-6 Table 2. Area and conservation significance of surveyed vegetation communities.................................. 3-12 Table 3. Vegetation requiring clearance and SEB offset calculation......................................................... 3-13 Table 4. Surveyed species of conservation significance. ............................................................................ 3-13 Table 5. Summary of data collected for each section of Back Callington Road. ...................................... 3-18 Table 7. Summary of unavoidable vegetation clearance impacts................................................................. 4-1 Appendices Appendix A. Surveyed Flora and Location Appendix B. Biological Survey Quadrat Data Appendix C. Combined Species List for All Surveys Appendix D. Data for Scattered Trees within the Proposed Project Footprint ii Executive Summary Scope of Work Ecological Associates was engaged by Coffey Natural Systems on behalf of Hillgrove Resources Ltd to: • survey the flora of the Kanmantoo Copper Project Area and the road between the site and Callington; • assess potential impacts to flora associated with the project; • identify opportunities to avoid, minimise or mitigate impacts; • establish a foundation for ongoing monitoring; and • recommend further investigations, if required. Methods A review was conducted of reports and surveys describing the plant species and vegetation associations of the study area and the region. A survey of the project area, based on the methods of the Biological Survey of South Australia, was conducted in February 2007. The survey involved four quadrats in the main vegetation types, descriptions of all vegetation types, assessments of scattered trees and assessment of roadside vegetation. Findings A total of 113 ha of native vegetation was identified in the study area. Eight vegetation communities were identified with vegetation condition ranging from "very good" to "poor". Eucalyptus odorata Low woodland is the most extensive vegetation community and occupies 54.1 ha. This vegetation community is listed as a critically endangered ecological community under the EPBC Act 1999. It is also of conservation significance at the state level (Neagle 1995) and at the regional level (Kahrimanis et al. 2001). At the local level, the remnants on the site include some of the best preserved examples in the western slopes of the Southern Mount Lofty Ranges (Ecological Associates 2007). Lomandra effusa ± Heliochrysum leucopsideum Open tussock grassland occupies 23.3 ha of the study area. This vegetation community is also listed as a critically endangered ecological community under the EPBC Act 1999. It is of conservation significance at the state level (Neagle 1995), and at the regional level (Kahrimanis et al. 2001). At the local level, the remnants on the site include some of the best preserved examples in the western slopes of the Southern Mount Lofty Ranges (Ecological Associates 2007). Remnant patches of Austrostipa sp. Open tussock grassland occupies 17 ha. This community is of regional conservation significance (Kahrimanis et al. 2001). Other plant associations observed on the site were: • Acacia pycnantha Low woodland (11.2 ha) iii Executive Summary • Eucalyptus gracilis ± E. oleosa Open mallee (4 ha) • Allocasuarina verticillata ± Callitris gracilis ± Lomandra effusa Low woodland (1.8 ha) • Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. leucoxylon ± Lomandra effusa Open woodland (1.3 ha) • Callitris gracilis Low woodland (0.2 ha). The highest level of conservation significance for plant species recorded during the survey was regional. Four species listed as rare in the Murray botanical region were recorded: • Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. leucoxylon; • Elymus scaber var. scaber; • Aristida contorta; and • Aristida behriana. However, from previous investigations it is known that the site also supports two species of conservation significance at the state level: • Diuris behrii (Behr’s cowslip orchid) – rare; and • Ptilotus erubescens (hairy tails) – rare;