CORE EXPLORATION LTD
2017-2018 MINING MANAGEMENT PLAN and PUBLIC REPORT
BYNOE PROJECT Authorisation 959-01
EL29699, EL30012, EL30015 & MLN16
(The “BYNOE PROJECT TENEMENTS”)
Annual Renewal 16th November 2018
1 DOCUMENT DETAILS
VERSION RECORD
Date Submitted Document Reference Status Version
5 October 2017 Bynoe Project MMP 2017-2018 v0.5 Final Report 11 November 2017 Bynoe Project MMP 2017-2018 v0.6 Amended Report Table 6 18 December 2017 Bynoe Project MMP 20171218 Amended Report Fig 3 and Fig 7 and Table 9 21 May 2018 Bynoe Project MMP 20180521 Amended Report scope 7 September 2018 2018 MMP Bynoe Project 20180901 Amendment Amended Report scope 16 November 2018 Bynoe Project MMP Renewal 2018 Renewal Report
SIGNITORIES:
I Stephen Biggins, Managing Director declare that to the best of my knowledge the information contained in this mining management plan is true and correct and commit to undertake the works detailed in this plan in accordance with all the relevant Local, Northern Territory and Commonwealth Government legislation.
SIGNATURE:
DATE: 16th November 2018
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 9 Operator Details ...... 9 Organisational Structure ...... 9 Work Force ...... 10 2. IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSULTATION ...... 11 2.1 Identified Stakeholders ...... 11 2.2 Consultation ...... 12 3. PROJECT DETAILS ...... 13 3.1 Summary and Maps ...... 13 3.2 History of Development and Current Status ...... 16 3.2.1 Historical Mining/Exploration Chronology ...... 16 3.2.2 Exploration by Liontown (“LTR”) and CXO ...... 17 3.3 Proposed Activities ...... 20 4. SITE CONDITIONS ...... 22 4.1 Physical Environment ...... 22 4.1.1 Geology ...... 22 4.1.2 Hydrology ...... 22 4.1.3 Land Use ...... 23 4.2 Vegetation ...... 24 4.2.1 Flora ...... 32 4.2.2 Weeds ...... 33 4.3 Fauna ...... 34 4.3.1 General Fauna ...... 34 4.3.2 Threatened Species ...... 34 4.3.3 Feral Animals ...... 38 4.4 Socio-Economic Environment ...... 39 4.4.1 Historical Aboriginal, Heritage Sites ...... 39 5. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM / PLAN ...... 42 5.1 Environmental Policy and Responsibilities ...... 42 5.2 Statutory and Non-Statutory Requirements ...... 42 5.3 Induction and Training ...... 43 5.4 Environmental Aspects and Potential Impacts ...... 44 5.4.1 Environmental Aspects ...... 44 5.4.2 Potential Impacts ...... 44 5.4.3 Risk Assessment by CXO ...... 44 5.4.4 Risk Assessment by SLR Consulting ...... 49 MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 3
5.4.5 Assessment of Residual Impacts to Species of Concern ...... 49 5.4.6 Proposed Impact Reduction, Mitigation and Rehabilitation Methods ...... 54 5.4.7 Threatened Species Management ...... 59 5.5 Environmental Audits and Inspections ...... 65 5.6 Environmental Performance ...... 66 5.6.1 Objectives and Targets...... 66 5.6.2 Performance Reporting ...... 68 5.7 Emergency Procedures and Incident Reporting ...... 69 5.7.1 Potential Environmental Emergencies ...... 69 5.7.2 Emergency Procedures – Safety ...... 70 5.7.3 Emergency Procedures – Environmental ...... 70 5.7.4 Incident Reporting ...... 70 5.7.5 Incident Assessment ...... 71 5.8 Consultation and Communication ...... 71 5.8.1 Communication ...... 71 5.8.2 Consultation ...... 72 5.8.3 Health and Safety Representatives ...... 72 5.8.4 Reporting ...... 72 5.8.5 Key Deliverables ...... 72 6. EXPLORATION REHABILITATION ...... 72 6.1 Exploration Rehabilitation Records and Registers ...... 76 6.2 Costing of Closure Activities ...... 77 7. REFERENCES...... 78 8. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 80
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 4
FIGURES
Figure 1: CXO Organisational Structure ...... 9 Figure 2: Regional Location map CXO’s Bynoe Project tenements in relation to Darwin ...... 14 Figure 3: Location of work areas in relation to the Bynoe Project Tenements. Green Polygons are the recent amendments. Detailed Maps in Appendix 3 ...... 15 Figure 4 Bynoe Project area historic exploration ...... 19 Figure 5 Location of waterbores in the Bynoe project area. Yellow dots are NT Government registered bores (named). Brown dots are CXO bores. Blue are MMP drill polygons...... 23 Figure 6: Vegetation Communities of EL29699 (Northern tenement of the Bynoe Project) ...... 29 Figure 7: Vegetation Communities of EL30015 (Central tenement of the Bynoe Project) ...... 30 Figure 8: Vegetation Communities of EL30012 (Southern tenement of the Bynoe Project) ...... 31 Figure 9: Locations of Threatened Species Records on or within 5 km of EL29699 and EL30015 (Northern and Central tenements of the Bynoe Project) ...... 40 Figure 10: Locations of Threatened Species Records on or within 5 km of EL30012 (Southern tenement of the Bynoe Project) ...... 41 Figure 11 Vegetation mapping in the EL29699 area showing the areas of Drainage Open Woodland...... 62 Figure 12 Vegetation mapping in the EL30015 area showing the areas of Drainage Open Woodland...... 63 Figure 13 Vegetation mapping in the EL30012 area showing the areas of Drainage Open Woodland...... 64
TABLES
Table 1: Operator Details ...... 9 Table 2: Workforce Positions and Responsibilities ...... 10 Table 3: Identified Stakeholders ...... 11 Table 4: Consultation with Relevant Stakeholders ...... 12 Table 5: Project Details ...... 13 Table 6: November 2018 Proposed Activities EL29699, EL30012, EL30015 and MLN16. Approval is sought for 60 RC holes in this MMP Renewal which are confined to approved drilling polygons...... 20 Table 7: Vegetation Landcover (Greater Darwin) Definitions (Hempel, 2003) ...... 24 Table 8: Vegetation Cover of Bynoe Project Tenements ...... 26 Table 9: Vegetation Cover of Drilling Polygons ...... 27 Table 10: Frequently Recorded Weed Species in the proximity of the Bynoe Project tenements ...... 33 Table 11: Threatened Fauna Species or Species Habitat known or likely to occur on or within 5 km of the Bynoe Project tenements (EPBC Protected Matters Report. 2017; NRM Report, 2017) ...... 35 Table 12: Applicable Legislation ...... 42 Table 13: Environmental Risk Assessment – Risk Matrix ...... 44 Table 14: Environmental Risk Rating Definitions ...... 45 Table 15: Results of the Environmental Risk Assessment ...... 46 Table 16: Definitions of Levels of Potential Impact (TSSC, 2015b) ...... 50 Table 17: Level of Potential Inherent and Residual Impacts to Threatened Species Possible or Likely to Occur within the Bynoe Drilling Areas ...... 51 Table 18: Bynoe Project Inspection Summary ...... 66 Table 19: Performance Objectives for Environmental Management for the Bynoe Project ...... 67 Table 20: Potential Environmental Emergencies and Associated Requirements ...... 69
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 5
Table 21: Description of Rehabilitation Methods for the Bynoe Project ...... 75 Table 22 Breakdown of Hole Rehabilitation status ...... 76 Table 23: Breakdown of Track Rehabilitation Status ...... 76 Table 24: Drillhole EMS summary ...... 77
APPENDICIES
Appendix 1 Application for Authorisation and Original Authorisation (Sect 1) Appendix 2 Nomination of Operator of a Mining Site (Sect 1) Appendix 3 Location Maps of Proposed Activities, including Vegetation and Threatened Species Maps (Sect 3, Sect 4) Appendix 4 Biodiversity Database Search Reports/Results, Likelihood Analysis & Identification Materials EPBC (Sect 4, Sect 5) Appendix 4A Protected Matters Search Tool Appendix 4B NR Maps (Threatened Species and Weeds) Appendix 4C NRM Infonet Report Appendix 4D Species Profiles for Armstrong’s Cycad, Stylidium ensatum and Utricularia singeriana Appendix 4E Darwin Harbour SOCS Information Sheet Appendix 5 AAPA Register Search (Sect 4) Appendix 6 DENR Heritage Search & Hydrogeology Information (Sect 4) Appendix 7 DPIR Exploration Methods Guidelines (Sect 5, Sect 6) Appendix 8 DENR Landholder Searches (Sect 2, Sect 4) Appendix 9 CXO Emergency Procedures (Sect 5.7) Appendix 10A DPIR Security Calculation Spreadsheet (Sect 6.2) Appendix 10B Accumulative Works, Disturbance and Security Table (Sect 3) Appendix 11 CXO Induction Pack, including Safety Risk Management Plan (Sect 4, Sect 5) Appendix 12 Rehabilitation Data and Report Appendix 13 Rehabilitation Photos – Digital Files
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 6
AMENDMENTS
Material changes to this document from the approved Authorisation are highlighted in yellow.
Section Amendment
Various Integrated various past approved Amendments into the current document without material alteration. These are not highlighted, as they are not new. 3.2.2 Exploration by CXO 3.3 Proposed Activities Outline approvals sought (Table 6) 5.5 Environmental Audits Summary of reporting period and Inspections 5.6.2 Performance Summary of reporting period Reporting 6.0 Exploration Rehabilitation status at end of reporting period Rehabilitation Appendix 10A Security Calculation for approvals sought Calculation Spreadsheet Appendix 12 Rehab Data and Report Appendix 13 EMS photographs
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 7
ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Description AAPA Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority AMETS Australian Mining & Exploration Title Services ASX Australian Stock Exchange CE Critically Endangered CXO Core Exploration Ltd DDH Diamond Drill Hole DEE Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy DENR NT Department of the Environment and Natural Resources DME Former NT Department of Mines and Energy DPIR NT Department of Primary Industries and Resources EL Exploration Lease EN Endangered EPA Environmental Protection Authority EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 HSE Health, Safety and Environment MLN Mine Lease Number MMP Mining Management Plan MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance MODAT Mineral Occurrence Database NEPM National Environment Protection Measures NLC Northern Land Council NRETAS Former NT Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport NRM Natural Resource Management NT Northern Territory NTEC NT Environment Centre NVIS National Vegetation Information System PWC Power and Water Corporation PPE Personal Protective Equipment RAB Rotary Air Blast RC Reverse Circulation SLR SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd SOCS Site of Conservation Significance TBA To be advised VU Vulnerable WM Act Weeds Management Act 2001 WoNS Weeds of National Significance
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 8
1. INTRODUCTION
Core Exploration Ltd submits this Mining Management Plan (MMP) for the proposed exploration activities at the Bynoe Project area for the 2017-18 period. See Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. DPIR have assessed and approved the original MMP in November 2017 and assigned Authorisation number 959-01. This document proposes amendments for approval by DPIR.
OPERATOR DETAILS The proponent, Core Exploration Ltd (CXO) has built a strong, strategic holding - through joint venture, acquisition and new tenement applications in highly prospective geology in the Northern Territory and South Australia.
Core Exploration's projects have been carefully acquired in geology which hosts world-class mines and within some of the most prospective geological terrains for lithium, base metals and uranium in Australia.
Table 1: Operator Details
Operator Name: Core Exploration Ltd. Relationship to Core Exploration (CXO) is the current operator for all exploration on tenement holders EL 29699, EL 30012, EL 30015 and MLN 16. Key Contact Person/s: David Rawlings – Exploration Manager Postal Address: PO Box 6028, Halifax St, Adelaide, SA, 5000 Street Address: Level 1, 366 King William St, Adelaide, SA, 5000 Phone: (08) 8317 1700
ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
The CXO team organisational structure is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: CXO Organisational Structure
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 9
WORK FORCE The proposed workforce and associated work descriptions for the Bynoe Project have been provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Workforce Positions and Responsibilities
Number of Company Position Staff Responsibilities Personnel David or the delegated project geologist will supervise the project on site. They will be responsible for all aspects of the drilling program including • Managing the logistical and technical David Rawlings, aspects of the drilling program Geologist 1 Michael Hicks or • Environmental management Project Geologist • Emergency response and HSE • Heritage, Cultural and Sacred Site Core Exploration management Ltd • Interactions with the public on site • Rehabilitation management The technical assistant to the geologist, carrying out a variety of tasks, including monitoring access, positioning drill pads and sumps, maintaining Technical Mike Hope 1 sample integrity, collecting sub-samples for the Assistant TBA laboratory, wash-downs of vehicles, liaison with driller and offsiders, acquiring and managing consumables etc. The role of the driller will be to operate equipment and complete all jobs in a safe, cost effective manner whilst complying with Company and Client policies/procedures, and to recover an accurate sample as per Client specifications. The Driller 1 TBA driller will also have the responsibility to mobilise and maintain drill rigs and associated tools and equipment, and complete all reporting, inspection and other documentation correctly; in Contact Drilling a timely manner. Company (TBA) Trainee drillers learning how to operate equipment and complete all jobs in a safe, cost effective manner under the guidance of the driller whilst complying with Company and Client policies/procedures, and to recover an accurate Offsiders 2-3 TBA sample as per Client specifications. The Offsiders will assist in maintaining drill rigs and associated tools and equipment, and the completion of reporting, inspection and other documentation as directed by the driller. The operator is responsible for operation, maintenance and management of plant Wildman River machinery (Loader, Backhoe). The loader will be Earthworks (TBA) Operator 1 Stock Company used to assist access as outlined in this document (WRSC) and undertake rehabilitation at the end of the drilling program
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 10
2. IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS AND CONSULTATION
2.1 IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS Stakeholders associated with the Bynoe Project have been identified and are listed in
Table 3: Identified Stakeholders
Type of Stakeholder Identified Groups or Departments
Company Neighbouring Exploration Licence holders Neighbours Local Community Local Fire and Emergency Response Group (volunteers) Community Property owners or leases (NT Govt in this case) Native Title Claimants (DC2005/005 Bynoe No. 2) Belyuen Land Management Group Larrakia Rangers Power and Water Corporation (PWC) Commercial Tenement Managers – Complete Tenement Services Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) Bushfires NT NT Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) • Land Management Division • Weeds Management Branch • NT Herbarium Regulatory • Water Resources Branch NT Department of Primary Industry and Resources (DPIR) NT Department of Tourism and Culture – Heritage Branch NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services NT Environment Protection Authority (EPA) NT Worksafe Fire and Emergency Response Groups Non-government Minerals Council of Australia – NT Division Organisations Northern Land Council (NLC) Northern Territory Environment Centre (NTEC)
As required by the Mining Management Act and Regulations, CXO is required to report on all exploration works that occur across the site, as well as reporting to DPIR any environmental incidents of significance.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 11
2.2 CONSULTATION Consultation by CXO in relation to the Bynoe Project has been detailed in Table 4.
Table 4: Consultation with Relevant Stakeholders
Stakeholder Consultation
Environmental group SLR Consulting were commissioned by CXO to interrogate various publicly accessible datasets and documentation on land management and land management issues for the Bynoe Project area, including the NT DENR. Results are outlined in Section 4 – Current Project Site Conditions. Recommendations from this study have been incorporated into various parts of this MMP. As per the NT DPIR Mining Management Plan and Public Report Structure Guide for Exploration Operations (DPIR, 2017), the objectives of SLRs assessment are to report on the following for the project area: DENR • Potential for and identification of any listed threatened species • Potential for any Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), as listed under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), to occur on the site • Flora and fauna native to the project area, including vegetation communities • Any flora and fauna of cultural significance • Description of any feral animals and weed species in the project area. • Provide specific management plans. CXO has applied to the DPIR for permission to conduct substantial disturbance activities within DPIR Bynoe Project tenements (this MMP), and in it has outlined its philosophy, policies and procedures for this operation. CXO will maintain contact with Bushfires NT through its web portal to establish the daily fire regime within the Project area to ascertain the level of fire danger pertinent to the site. CXO Bushfires NT have in past years liaised with Bushfires NT leading up to the dry season regarding the coordination of controlled burning on the Finniss Project. CXO has ascertained its level of obligation to NT Worksafe through its adherence to National NT Worksafe Health & Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act and will continue to meet its obligations under this Act. The AAPA was contacted to undertake a search of registered sacred sites over the tenement AAPA (Appendix 5). Two Restricted Work Areas are defined within the project area. CXO is committed to adhering to conditions stipulated in the AAPA document. The Heritage Branch has been consulted in regards to registered heritage sites within the Bynoe DTC – Heritage Project area. Advice was received to indicate the presence of tenuous heritage value associated Branch with historic mine sites such as Hang Gong (refer to correspondence in Appendix 6). The planned drilling program is enclosed with a number of vacant crown land parcels: • 605 00001 (the principal stakeholder – this is a crown lease) Neighbours and • 000 03283 (the principal stakeholder – this is a crown lease) Community Title searches are available in Appendix 8. As the planned drilling program is well within the Vacant Crown land boundaries CXO does not consider it necessary to needlessly inform those members of the wider public community that are not directly affected by its planned activities. Neighbouring CXO will inform neighbouring Exploration Licence holders when undertaking activities that are Exploration adjacent to or on the boundaries of the Bynoe Project tenements. Licence Holders
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 12
As the Bynoe Project tenements cover Government owned land (Crown Land), CXO are not required to enter into any Access Agreements. CXO will ensure all relevant information is available to stakeholders at all times including MMPs being published on the CXO website, as well as relevant information made available through ASX Announcements and on the DPIR’s website. 3. PROJECT DETAILS
3.1 SUMMARY AND MAPS Key details associated with the Bynoe Project are provided in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Project Details
Project Name: Bynoe Project – Authorisation 959-01
The Bynoe Project is located approximately 50 km SW of Darwin in the Bynoe Harbour Location: area (Figure 2)
Access into the area is excellent from Darwin via the Stuart Highway and sealed Cox Peninsula Rd, then west via the Fog Bay Road and south via the Litchfield Road. From Site Access: these main sealed roads, access is then by dirt roads and tracks which traverse the Project area. Some of the proposed work areas need to be accessed via new tracks.
Mining Interest/s: EL29699, EL30012, EL30015, MLN16
100% - Lithium Developments Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Core Exploration Ltd. Transfer happening. Title holder/s: Core Exploration is the Operator
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 13
Figure 2: Regional Location map CXO’s Bynoe Project tenements in relation to Darwin
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 14
Figure 3: Location of work areas in relation to the Bynoe Project Tenements. Green Polygons are the recent amendments. Detailed Maps in Appendix 3
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 15
3.2 HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT STATUS
3.2.1 Historical Mining/Exploration Chronology
• The history of mining in the Bynoe Harbour – Middle Arm area dates back to 1886 when tin was discovered by Mr C Clark. • By 1890 the Leviathan Mine and the Annie Mine were discovered and worked discontinuously until 1902. • In 1903 the Hang Gong Wheel of Fortune was found and 109 tons of tin concentrates were produced in 1905. In 1906, the mine produced 80 tons of concentrates, but it was exhausted and closed down the following year after a total of 189 tons of concentrates had been won. • By 1909 activity was limited to Leviathan and Bells Mona mines in the area with little activity in the period 1907 to 1909. • Renewed activities in 1925 coincided with the granting of exclusive prospecting licences over an area of 26 square miles in the Bynoe Harbour – West Arm section but once again nothing eventuated. • The records of production for many mines are not complete, and in numerous cases changes have been made to the names of the mines and prospects which tend to confuse the records still further. In many cases the published names of mines cannot be linked to field occurrences. • In the early 1980s the Bynoe Pegmatite field was reactivated during a period of high tantalum prices by Greenbushes Tin which owned and operated the Greenbushes Tin and Tantalite (and later spodumene) Mine in WA. Greenbushes Tin Ltd entered into a JV named the Bynoe Joint Venture with Barbara Mining Corporation, a subsidiary of Bayer AG of Germany. • Greenex (the exploration arm of Greenbushes Tin Ltd) explored the Bynoe pegmatite field between 1980 and 1990 and produced tin and tantalite from its Observation Hill Treatment Plant between 1986 and 1988. • They then tributed the project out to a company named Fieldcorp Pty Ltd who operated it between 1991 and 1995. • In 1996, Greenex undertook the first systematic RC drilling in the district (Figure 4). They drilled many of the pegmatites that are of current interest for lithium, but they did not analyse for this element, and frequently drilled to only shallow depths where spodumene is not present due to weathering. • Various small mines operated within the Bynoe Project tenements during the periods outlined above, including Hang Gong, Lees, Lees West, Lees Extended, Highlands, Bells Mona, BP33, Carlton and Sandra’s. There are also some large historic mines annexed from the Bynoe project via granted MLS, including the Bilatos, Saffums and Annie mines. Beyond these, mining has also taken place at a plethora of small-scale “workings” in the earlier part of the century. These consist of shallow shafts and small pits. During the 1980s to 1990s exploration phases, costeans have been dug at many of these historic workings via back-hoe, but subsequently the prospects did not warrant mining. Costeans and pits remain at most of the prospects today. • Beyond these historic mines and workings, there are even more mineral occurrences on the NT Government databases (e.g., MODAT) • In the mid to late 2000s, Haddington Resource Ltd (now Altura Mining Ltd) undertook various exploration activities in the Bynoe Project area and beyond. Their program consisted largely of regional soil and RAB sampling of shallow bedrock (Figure 4). While Haddington was essentially seeking Sn and Ta, it was the first exploration in the area to include Lithium in its suite of sought elements. They did not drill any deep (RC) holes, despite generating numerous targets. • Since that time, the field has been defunct until recently when exploration has begun on ascertaining the lithium prospectivity of the Bynoe pegmatites.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 16
3.2.2 Exploration by Liontown (“LTR”) and CXO
Liontown (“LTR”) undertook exploration during the period April 2016 to present throughout the Bynoe Project area by way of RC drilling, soil sampling and rock chip sampling (Figure 4). They encountered economic grades of lithium at a number of prospects, including Hang Gong, Sandra’s and Ah Hoy, but intersections did not reach the necessary width to be considered economic. All up, LTR drilled 75 RC holes for 8142 m. They collected 1224 soils samples and 99 rockchip samples.
CXO started exploring in the adjacent tenement areas at the same time as LTR and have accelerated exploration in recent months, defining a maiden resource at the Grants Prospect, immediately west of EL30015. CXO became interested in acquiring the LTR ground to augment this exploration footprint and to discover and define further resources to enable the broad project area to become sustainably economic.
CXO purchased the Bynoe Projects ELs from Liontown Resource Ltd on 13/09/2017 via a purchase agreement.
CXO have explored the Bynoe Harbour-Cox Peninsula region utilising mapping activities to locate historic workings and new pegmatites and existing access tracks. Mapping and rock-chip sampling are ongoing to allow the location and sighting of a number of Aircore, RAB and RC drill programs over the highest ranked pegmatites with the intention of investigating their lithium prospectivity. Rock and soil sampling programs also on-going in the region as part of the CXO broader exploration strategy. CXO intend to replicate this exploration methodology over the Bynoe Project area.
The principle low-impact activities for the reporting period include: • Mapping activities within this licence to locate named pegmatites and the existing access tracks. Mapping allows the location and sighting of drill programs over the highest ranked pegmatites with the intention of investigating their lithium prospectivity. • Rock and soil sampling programs have covered a significant part of the tenement to date, as part of the CXO exploration strategy. As per the recently-approved May 2018 Amendment, low impact auger drilling to 1.8m is to be used in place of soil sampling in the coming year to improve quality of initial sampling data. • Ground geophysical surveys, largely as trials to assess their viability for pegmatite exploration. The most successful to date have been Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). Others trialled include magnetics, passive seismic and gravity. • Airborne geophysics, including detailed fixed wing magnetics-radiometrics-DTM and Hymapper have been flown. • Remote sensed data have been acquired over the broader area (Worldview 3 and Hymapper). These low impact datasets have allowed to CXO to plan ground disturbing exploration activities, as covered by the original MMP and subsequent Amendments. These are largely drilling and related access works, the methodologies of which are described in detail below. The summary drilling statistics are as follows, and the locations are dealt with in more detail in Section 6 – Exploration Rehabilitation of this report and Appendix 12. Maps are presented in Appendix 3. • RAB and Aircore holes along lines at various prospects, aimed at defining pegmatite surface expression and geometry, ahead of deeper drilling – 858 holes • RC (Reverse Circulation) drillholes at various localities – 131 holes • Diamond drill-holes, including “tails” on RC pre-collars and mud rotary pre-collars – 1 hole Flow-on laboratory based activities related to this drilling can be summarised as follows:
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 17
• Assays, mineralogy, spectroscopic and petrology relating to the samples collected. • Baseline environmental data collection. Appendix 10B (Accumulative Works, Disturbance and Security Table) summarises the Original MMP and subsequent Amendments in respect of Authorisations.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 18
Figure 4 Bynoe Project area historic exploration
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 19
3.3 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES CXO proposes to undertake various exploration activities with the Bynoe Project tenements, including soil sampling, rock chips sampling, ground geophysics, mapping and inevitably drilling. Activities in relation to drilling will include clearing vegetation for drill pads and some new access . These activities have the potential to impact on threatened species occurring or potentially occurring on the site through removal of habitat, habitat fragmentation, erosion and sedimentation, introduction of weeds and pests, and death or injury of wildlife through contact with machinery and vehicles. Section 5.4.6 provides management and mitigation measures to minimise these potential impacts.
The exploration activities proposed to occur as part of the Bynoe Project are provided in Table 6.
Table 6: November 2018 Proposed Activities EL29699, EL30012, EL30015 and MLN16. Approval is sought for 60 RC holes in this MMP Renewal which are confined to approved drilling polygons.
EL29699, EL30012, EL30015, MLN16 Mining Interests (i.e. Titles) (Bynoe Project) Authorisation 959-01
What time of the year will exploration occur? December 2018– May 2019
How long is exploration expected to occur? 6-8 weeks
Type of drilling (i.e. RAB, RC, Diamond, Aircore) RC
Target commodity Lithium
Is drilling likely to encounter radioactive material? No
Number of proposed drill holes RC:60 RC: 280m Maximum depth of holes
Number of drill pads 60 (Length: 25 m x Width: 20 m) RC not expected to encounter significant groundwater Is drilling likely to encounter groundwater? based on previous experience and Water Resources (Y, N, unsure) predictions Number of sumps 60 (Length: 3m x Width: 2m x Depth: 1.2 m) Length of line / track clearing Nil (already sufficiently authorised) (Kilometres: Width: 2.5 m) Number of costeans Nil (Length: x Width: x Depth: m) Total bulk sample (tonnes) Nil (Length: x Width: x Depth: m)
Will topsoil be removed for rehabilitation purposes? No
Previous disturbance yet to be rehabilitated on title (ha) if 2.8 known Camp Camping off site at commercial accommodation (Length: x Width: m)
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 20
Drill pads and 6.6 sumps Total area disturbed (hectares) Tracks 8.6
Total 15.2
Other
Over and above the currently approved work programs that are summarised in Appendix 10B, CXO have employed the services of GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) to undertake geotechnical investigations for the preliminary designs of Water storage locations for the proposed Grants Lithium project. To perform these investigations GHD has identified ground disturbance activities necessary for vital data collection. These include drilling a total of 5 boreholes at the Observation Hill Dam and C4 Water storage locations. GHD also require a total of 16 test pits to be dug at the same location. CXO has recently expanded the approved work polygons within the tenements. This includes the expansion of some polygons to capture the proposed geotechnical work. Due to small number of holes and pits being dug, and this separate program being partially completed at the time of reporting, the geotechnical program will be reported on in next years renewal with regard to hole rehab status. Detailed maps of proposed activity location and drilling polygons are included in Appendix 3.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 21
4. SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.1.1 Geology
The Bynoe Project Tenements cover the central “spine” of a swarm of complex zoned rare element pegmatites which comprise the 55km long by 10km wide West Arm – Mt Finniss pegmatite belt. The main pegmatites in this belt are: Mt Finniss, Grants, BP33, Bilato’s (Pickett’s), Hang Gong and Bells Mona are up to 300m long and 100m wide.
The Mt Finniss pegmatites have intruded early Proterozoic shales, siltstones and schists of the Burrell Creek Formation which lies on the northwest margin of the Pine Creek Geosyncline. To the south and west are the granitoid plutons and pegmatitic granite stocks of the Litchfield Complex. The source of the fluids that have formed the intruding pegmatites is generally accepted as being the Two Sisters Granite to the west of the belt, and which probably underlies the entire area at depths of 5-10 km.
Lithium mineralisation has been identified as occurring at Bilato’s (Pickett’s), Saffums 1 (amblygonite) and more recently at Hang Gong, Grants, Ah Hoy and BP33 (spodumene).
The Burrell Creek Formation increases in metamorphic grade westward from sub-greenschist facies siltstone, phyllite and siltstone, to upper greenschist facies gneiss and schist. Sedimentary features and lithologies, typical of the lower grade units of the Burrell Creek Formation, can be recognised until the sillimanite isograd is approached, where after these features are obliterated by recrystallisation.
4.1.2 Hydrology
The Litchfield-Bynoe-Cox Peninsula area has very poor groundwater resources due to the “tight” nature of the Proterozoic rock. There are no Government registered bores within EL29699 and only one within EL30015 at Observation Hill (RN023177; Figure 5; Appendix 6). CXO have recently completed a groundwater drilling program on the adjacent EL29698 in association with the Grants Prospect, but flow rates rarely exceeded 0.5 L/sec (maximum 2 L/sec in RN040093; Appendix 6). In the southern tenement (EL30012) there are more bores, but these tend to be distal to the work areas proposed herein, located at historic mines that CXO do not have access to (annexed MLs from the Bynoe project area). Those that are close or within the drilling polygons (Figure 5) include:
• Lucy Mine (6 bores; max 1.2 L/sec in RN020672, otherwise very low yield; Appendix 6) • Annie Mine (4 bores; 12 L/sec in both RN030582 and RN030583 for production at old mine; otherwise low yield; Appendix 6) • Bilatos Mine (1 bore; 3 L/sec in RN021868; Appendix 6) • Saffums Mine (2 bores; max 3 L/sec in RN024251 and 1.4 L/sec in RN024252; Appendix 6)
Based on the good flow rates for bores at the Annie Mine, which appear to have been used to produce mine process water, there appears to be a local structure at that site and this has a reasonable groundwater source. There are no recordings on the bore longevity or sustainability, however.
CXO and LTR experience in the broader RC drilling campaigns in the region provides a better indication of regional groundwater resources. Flow rates anecdotally are low and apparently not sufficient to justify measurement.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 22
4.1.3 Land Use
There is no current land use stated for the area underlying the Bynoe Project tenements, but several private land parcels and crown leases are affected by the proposed work program. Title searches are available in Appendix 8, as is a map showing these in relation to Core’s work areas.
Figure 5 Location of waterbores in the Bynoe project area. Yellow dots are NT Government registered bores (named). Brown dots are CXO bores. Blue are MMP drill polygons.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 23
4.2 VEGETATION Vegetation community data across the Bynoe Project tenements was obtained from the following datasets:
• NVIS Version 3.1 National Vegetation Information System (NVIS), NT Data Compilation (Scale 1:1,000,000) (Source: DENR) • Landcover Vegetation Mapping for the Greater Darwin Region (Landcover Vegetation Mapping) (Scale 1:100,000) (Source: DENR).
The Landcover Greater Darwin Vegetation Mapping identifies three primary communities as occurring across the three tenements (24 drilling polygons) - ‘Eucalypt woodland’, ‘Eucalypt open forest’ and ‘Melaleuca Open Forest. These vegetation communities are described in Hempel (2003) and have been provided in Table 7.
Table 7: Vegetation Landcover (Greater Darwin) Definitions (Hempel, 2003)
Land Cover Class Description (Hempel, 2003) Woodland occurring in shallow soils on undulating uplands, rises and rugged low hills. Grassland ground cover interspersed with a variety of shrubs and vines... Frequently recorded species include Livistona humilis, Pandanus spiralis, Erythrophleum chlorostachys, Grevillea pteridifolia, Lophostemon latifluus, Eucalypt Themeda triandra (perennial grass), Buchanania obovata, Heteropogon triticeus (perennial grass), Woodland Petalostigma pubescens, Planchonia careya, Terminalia ferdinandiana, Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Eriachne triseta (perennial grass), Eucalyptus miniata, Persoonia falcata, Xanthostemon paradoxus, Cycas armstrongii, Alloteropsis semialata (perennial grass), Petalostigma quadriloqulare, and Pseudopogonatherum contortum (annual grass). Open woodland again occurring in shallow soils on undulating uplands, rises, rugged low hills and plains, with grasses beginning to dominate the ground layer. Frequently recorded species include Livistona humilis, Pandanus spiralis, Grevillea pteridifolia, Themeda triandra (perennial grass), Heteropogon triticeus (perennial grass), Eragrostis cumingii (perennial grass), Petalostigma pubescens, Eucalypt Open Erythrophleum chlorostachys, Buchanania obovata, Schizachyrium fragile (annual grass), Triodia Woodland bitextura (perennial grass), Terminalia ferdinandiana, Pseudopogonatherum contortum (annual grass), Cycas armstrongii, Planchonia careya, Eriachne avenacea (perennial grass), Mnesithia rottboellioides (perennial grass), Petalostigma quadriloculare, Eriachne triseta (perennial grass) and Persoonia falcata. Indicator species include Eragrostis cumingii (perennial grass). Open forest occurring in deep sandy soils on undulating uplands and rises, often adjacent to the coastline. Frequently recorded species include Pandanus spiralis, Livistona humilis, Erythrophleum chlorostachys, Cycas armstrongii, Terminalia ferdinandiana, Planchonia careya, Buchanania obovata, Eucalypt Open Petalostigma pubescens, Eucalyptus miniata, Lophostemon lactifluus, Eriachne triseta (perennial Forest grass), Acacia auriculiformis, Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Persoonia falcata, Smilax australis (vine), Themeda triandra (perennial grass), Heteropogon triticeus (perennial grass), Grevillea pteridifolia, Mnesithea rottboellioides (perennial grass) and Panicum mindanaense (perennial grass). Indicator species include Cycas armstrongii. Open woodland dominated by Lophostemon lactifluus, occuring on broad flats with seasonally waterlogged soils and impeded drainage. Frequently recorded species include Lophostemon lactifluus, Pandanus spiralis, Grevillea pteridifolia, Livistona humilis, Eriachne burkittii (perennial grass), Drainage Melaleuca viridiflora, Melaleuca nervosa, Themeda triandra (perennial grass), Xyris complanata Open (sedge), Ectrosia leporina (annual grass), Ischaemum australe (perennial grass), Erythrophleum Woodland chlorostachys, Heteropogon triticeus (perennial grass), Corymbia polycarpa, Corymbia polysciada, Acacia auriculiformis, Drosera petiolaris (herb), Banksia dentata and Xanthostemon paradoxus. Indicator species include Lophostemon lactifluus, Themeda triandra (perennial grass) and Grevillea pteridifolia. Open forest associated with the edges of perennial and seasonal watercourses, swamps and Riparian Open Forest floodplains. Dominant species include Pandanus spiralis, Acacia auricoma, Smilax australis (vine), Erythrophleum chlorostachys, Lophostemon lactifluus, Melaleuca cajuputi, Livistonia humilis,
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 24
Alphitonia excelsa, Eriachne triseta (perennial grass), Petalostigma pubescens, Carpentaria acuminata, Breynia cernua, Canarium australianum, Carallia brachiata, Cycas armstrongii, Melaleuca viridiflora, Terminalia ferdinandiana, Acacia auriculiformis, Barringtonia acutangula, Buchanania obovata, Diospyros littorea, Corymbia polycarpa, Nauclea orientalis, Opilia amentacea (vine), Panicum trichoides (perennial grass), Planchonia careya, Syzygium suborbiculare, Terminalia microcarpa and Timonius timon. Indicator species include Pandanus spiralis. Low open to closed forest growing alongside tidal channels and in areas inundated by salt water. Mangrove Frequently recorded species include Sonneratia alba, Rhizophora stylosa , Ceriops tagal, Avicennia Forest marina and Lumntizera racemosa (Brock, 1995). Due to a lack of plot data for this community no indicator species are given.
As shown in Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8 and detailed in Table 8, the vegetation community with the largest extent in the Bynoe Project tenements, according to the NVIS dataset, is ‘Open Forest’ in EL29699 and EL30015, and ‘Woodland’ in EL30012. These communities are also mapped widely within the surrounding area.
It should be noted that EL30012 and EL30015 are both intersected by roads (Fog Bay Road and Cox Peninsula Road respectively) and EL30012 is also intersected by a number of dirt access tracks.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 25
Table 8: Vegetation Cover of Bynoe Project Tenements
NVIS Level 3 Description / Vegetation Landcover EL NVIS Level 2 Description Vegetation Landcover Name NVIS Level 4 Description (Greater Darwin Community) (Greater Darwin Community) Majority Eucalyptus mid open forest\ Livistona low sparse Majority Eucalyptus open forest with palmland\ Heteropogon tall tussock Majority eucalypt woodland and Majority open forest with small small pockets of Canarium (mixed) grassland with small pockets of eucalypt open woodland with some pockets of mid closed forest and mid closed forest and Halosarcia low EL29699 Canarium (mixed) mid closed forest areas of Eucalypt open forest, sparse samphire shrubland, sparse samphire shrubland, and Halosarcia low sparse samphire drainage open woodland and bordered by closed forest bordered by Ceriops low closed shrubland, bordered by Ceriops low mangrove forest forest closed forest\Ceriops unknown tree\Ceriops low sparse shrubland Majority eucalyptus mid open Majority open forest intersected by forest\ Livistona low sparse A mix of drainage open woodland, Roads (specifically Cox Peninsula Majority eucalyptus open forest with palmland\ Heteropogon tall tussock eucalypt open woodland and EL30012 Road and existing access tracks) with the south eastern corner as grassland with the south eastern eucalypt woodland with portions of the south eastern corner as Eucalyptus woodland corner as Eucalyptus mid woodland\ cleared land woodland Gardenia tall open shrubland\ Heteropogon mid tussock grassland Majority eucalyptus mid woodland\ The majority of the tenement is Gardenia tall open shrubland\ A mix of Eucalypt woodland, woodland with Roads (Fog Bay Road) Majority Eucalyptus woodland with Heteropogon mid tussock grassland Eucalypt open forest, Eucalypt open intersecting the north of the EL30015 small portions of Melaleuca open with small portions of Melaleuca mid woodland, drainage open woodland tenement. There are small patches forest open forest\Pandanus low sparse and some small portions of riparian of woodland across portions of the palmland\Germainia mid open open forest. tenement associated with creeks. tussock grassland
There are 24 drilling polygons proposed as part of this MMP. Table 9 provides details of the vegetation cover for each of the new drilling polygons. It should be noted that the EL29699 lies entirely within the Darwin Harbour Site of Conservation Significance (SOCS) which includes the proposed Jade drilling polygon.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 26
Table 9: Vegetation Cover of Drilling Polygons
Drilling Vegetation Landcover Name EL NVIS Level 4 Description SOCS Polygon (Greater Darwin Community) Yes Eucalyptus mid open forest\Livistona low sparse Eucalypt woodland and Eucalypt open woodland. The EL29699 Jade palmland\Heteropogon tall tussock grassland southern boundary is lined with mangrove forest Entirely within the Darwin Harbour SOCS Eucalyptus mid open forest\ Livistona low sparse Hang Gong palmland\Heteropogon tall tussock grassland intersected from the north west to the south by Rural/Residential/Roads Drainage open woodland, Eucalypt open woodland and Majority Eucalyptus mid open forest\ Livistona low sparse Eucalypt woodland with areas of cleared land Solomons palmland\Heteropogon tall tussock grassland with small portions of Rural/Residential/Roads Monas Eucalyptus mid open forest\ Livistona low sparse Drainage open woodland, Eucalypt open woodland and EL30015 Boulder palmland\Heteropogon tall tussock grassland Eucalypt woodland Eucalyptus mid open forest\ Livistona low sparse palmland\Heteropogon tall tussock grassland and Drainage open woodland, Eucalypt open woodland and Lees Rural/Residential/Roads with small portion of the south east Eucalypt woodland with areas of cleared land corner as Eucalyptus mid woodland\Gardenia tall open shrubland \ Heteropogon mid tussock grassland BP33N & Eucalyptus mid woodland\Gardenia tall open shrubland \ Drainage open woodland, Eucalypt open woodland and BP33NE Heteropogon mid tussock grassland Eucalypt woodland No Arlee Eucalypt open woodland and Eucalypt woodland Jans Eucalypt woodland and Eucalypt open forest Jans West Eucalyptus mid woodland\ Gardenia tall open shrubland\ Eucalypt open forest Heteropogon mid tussock grassland Saffums 4 Eucalypt woodland Sandras Majority Eucalypt woodland with small pocket of eucalypt EL30012 East open woodland Annie Eucalypt woodland North Eucalyptus mid woodland\ Gardenia tall open shrubland\ Rocky Drainage open woodland, Eucalypt open woodland and Heteropogon mid tussock grassland intersected by Ridge Eucalypt woodland Pastoral/Horticulture/roads A combination of drainage open woodland, Eucalypt open Sabine woodland, Eucalypt open forest and Eucalypt woodland
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 27
Drilling Vegetation Landcover Name EL NVIS Level 4 Description SOCS Polygon (Greater Darwin Community) Majority Drainage open woodland with small portions of , Bilatos Eucalypt open woodland and Eucalypt woodland Fred Eucalypt woodland Drainage open woodland, Eucalypt open woodland and Turners Eucalypt woodland Majority Eucalypt woodland with small portions of Eucalypt Lucy open woodland and drainage open woodland Fred East Eucalypt woodland and Eucalypt open forest Talmina Majority Eucalypt woodland with some Eucalypt open forest West Eucalyptus mid woodland\ Gardenia tall open shrubland\ Majority Drainage open woodland with small portions of , Hungry Heteropogon mid tussock grassland Eucalypt open woodland and Eucalypt woodland Majority drainage open woodland and Eucalypt woodland Sandras with small portions of Eucalypt open woodland and Eucalypt open forest Fold Eucalypt woodland
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 28
Figure 6: Vegetation Communities of EL29699 (Northern tenement of the Bynoe Project)
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 29
BP33NE
Figure 7: Vegetation Communities of EL30015 (Central tenement of the Bynoe Project)
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 30
Figure 8: Vegetation Communities of EL30012 (Southern tenement of the Bynoe Project)
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 31
4.2.1 Flora
A search of the following biodiversity databases was undertaken for the Bynoe Project tenements in September 2017 (with a 5 km buffer):
• Australian Government’s ‘Protected Matters Search Tool’ (DEE, 2017; Appendix 4A); • NT Government’s ‘NR Maps’ (NR Maps, 2017; Appendix 4B); • NRM Infonet (NRM Infonet, 2017; Appendix 4C); and • Darwin Harbour SOCS Factsheet (NRETAS, 2008; Appendix 4E).
The 5 km buffer was considered adequate given the proximity of the site to Darwin and the volume of flora records in the region.
Threatened species
The search identified three threatened flora species with the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Bynoe Project:
• An annual herb (Stylidium ensatum) (DoE, 2016 [Appendix 4A]); • A small-medium sized terrestrial bladderwort (Utricularia singeriana) (NRETAS, 2008 [Appendix 4E]); and • Armstrong’s Cycad (Cycas armstrongii) (NR Maps, 2016 [Appendix 4B] and NRM Infonet, 2016 [Appendix 4C]).
Stylidium ensatum is an annual herb to 22 cm tall, endemic to the area around Darwin. The preferred habitat is thought to be the wet margins of drainage flats in damp heavy clay or peaty soils (Cowie & Westaway, 2012). Stylidium ensatum occurs with sedges (e.g. Fimbristylis furva), perennial grasses such as Eriachne burkittii, herbs such as Burmannia spp. and shrubs such as Osbeckia and scattered Banksia dentata. The sites occupied are poorly drained sandy or loamy flats that are seasonally inundated and are damp well into the dry season (June- August). Stylidium ensatum is listed as Endangered under both the EPBC Act and TPWC Act. Threatening processes include invasion of habitat by weeds, encroaching urban development and early Dry season burning before these annual plants have produced seeds are seen as threats to the species.
No recordings of Stylidium ensatum have been made in, or within 5 km of, the Bynoe Project tenements (Appendix 4B and Appendix 4C). Due to the relatively small population size, small area of occupancy and restricted distribution of the population, any disturbance of the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be likely, as further discussed in Table 17.
EL29699 (within which the Jade drilling polygon is located) sits entirely within the Darwin Harbour SOCS. The two threatened species known to occur in the Darwin Harbour SOCS are Armstrong’s Cycad (Cycas armstrongii) and Utricularia singeriana.
Utricularia singeriana is a small to medium-sized, terrestrial bladderwort, known to occur on the margins of wet sandy flats and swamps with short relatively open grasses and sedges (Holtze 2011). The species is endemic to the NT. The species is listed as Vulnerable under the TPWC Act. Threatening processes for Utricularia singeriana include direct and indirect impacts associated with rural subdivisions, and the species may be affected by trampling by feral animals and changes in hydrology precipitated by erosion due to the effects of feral animals.
No recordings of Utricularia singeriana have been made in, or within 5 km of, the Bynoe Project tenements. Due to the relatively small population size, small area of occupancy and restricted distribution of the population, any disturbance of the species from the proposed exploration activities is not considered likely, as further discussed in Table 17.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 32
Armstrong’s Cycad (Cycas armstrongii) has been identified within the proximity of the Bynoe Project tenements (as per the NRM Report Appendix 4C). Further investigation of the likelihood of it being impacted as a result of this project is presented in Table 17, along with its conservation status, preferred habitat and likelihood of occurrence. The Species Profile for Armstrong’s Cycad has been provided as Appendix 4D. Additional specific environmental management measures have been provided for the species in Section 5.4.7 in the event that the species is encountered during the proposed drilling events.
Species profiles for the three threatened species can be found in Appendix 4D and in the Induction handouts (Appendix 11).
4.2.2 Weeds
Weeds classified under the NT Weeds Management Act 2001 (WM Act) are to be managed in accordance with this Act. All owners, managers and occupiers of land as well as any other land user within the NT must comply with the WM Act.
Once a weed is declared in accordance with Section 7 of the WM Act, there is a requirement for all land holders, land managers and land users to comply with the declaration classification.
In the NT, there are three classification types, these being:
• Class A - To be eradicated • Class B - Growth and spread to be controlled • Class C - Not to be introduced into the NT.
Both Class A and Class B weeds are also considered Class C.
National classifications or statuses of weeds must also be considered in the ongoing management of an area. The Australian Government has compiled a list of 32 Weeds of National Significance (WoNS) based on an assessment process which categorise these weeds based on their invasiveness, potential for spread, and environmental, social and economic impacts (DoE, 2016b). In conjunction with the WoNS, there is a National Environmental Alert List (the Alert List). The Alert List identifies plant species that are in the early stages of establishment and have the potential to become a significant threat to biodiversity if they are not managed (DoE, 2016a). It is up to the relevant state or territory government to take responsibility for this within their own jurisdiction.
The combined database results from NR Maps (NR Maps, 2017; Appendix 4B) and NRM Infonet (2017; Appendix 4C) contain records of 43 species of weeds in the general area of the Bynoe Project tenements. This includes three WoNS, of which two are Class A weeds (Gamba Grass (Andropogon gayanus) and Mimosa (Mimosa pigra). The frequently recorded weed species within the search results have been listed in Table 10. Weed management controls and measures are detailed in Section 5.4.6.g.
Table 10: Frequently Recorded Weed Species in the proximity of the Bynoe Project tenements
Declared Weed Common Name Scientific Name WoNS (NT) Mission grass – perennial Cenchrus polystachios B/C No Mission grass – annual Cenchrus pedicellatus No No Gamba Grass Andropogon gayanus A/B/C Yes Sicklepod Senna obtusifolia No No Para Grass Urochloa mutica No No Buffel Grass Cenchrus ciliaris No No
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 33
Declared Weed Common Name Scientific Name WoNS (NT) Caltrop Tribulus terrestris B/C No Mimosa Mimosa pigra A/B Yes Coffee Bush Leucaena leucocephala B/C No Lantana Lantana camara B/C Yes Hyptis Hyptis suaveolens B/C No Coffee Bush Leucaena leucocephala No No Spiny-head Sida Sida acuta B/C No
4.3 FAUNA A search of the following biodiversity databases was undertaken for the Bynoe Project tenements on 20 September 2017 (with a 5 km buffer):
• Australian Government’s ‘Protected Matters Search Tool’ (DEE, 2017; Appendix 4A); • NT Government’s ‘NR Maps’ (NR Maps, 2017; Appendix 4B) • NRM Infonet (NRM Infonet, 2017; Appendix 4C); and • Darwin Harbour SOCS Factsheet (NRETAS, 2008; Appendix 4E).
The 5 km buffer was considered adequate given the proximity of the site to Darwin and the volume of fauna records in the region.
4.3.1 General Fauna
NR Maps lists previous records of 164 native fauna species within 5 km of the Bynoe Project tenements (NR Maps, 2016; Appendix B). Many of these species are common within the Darwin region, including several species of finches, honeyeaters, kingfishers, parrots, lorikeets, pigeons and cockatoos. Kites, Black Cockatoos, Magpie Geese, Kookaburras and Sea Eagles are also common.
4.3.2 Threatened Species
A total of 38 threatened fauna species were identified as having the potential to occur within the area. As shown in Table 11, suitable habitat does not exist within the Bynoe Project tenements for many of these species (including six species of shark, two species of whale and six species of marine turtles) and therefore they are not assessed any further within this MMP.
Whilst the listed marine turtles frequent the waters of Darwin Harbour, the lack of sandy beaches close to the project area inhibit nesting activity. The Jade drilling polygon is the closest to the coast yet remains a significant distance from any beach areas.
The remaining species and/or species habitat likely to occur in, or within 5 km of, the Bynoe Project tenements have been listed in Table 11.
It should be noted that significant aggregations of seabirds are not known from this site (Chatto 2001) and although large areas of mudflats occur around Darwin Harbour during periods of low tide, high numbers of shorebirds have not previously been recorded (Chatto 2003). As such, it is likely that the majority of migratory bird species listed in Table 11 are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed exploration.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 34
Table 11: Threatened Fauna Species or Species Habitat known or likely to occur on or within 5 km of the Bynoe Project tenements (EPBC Protected Matters Report. 2017; NRM Report, 2017)
NT Status National Status Number of Records Common Name Scientific Name Preferred Habitat within 5 km (most Likelihood of Occurring (TPWC Act) (EPBC Act) recent year recorded) Birds Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus VU VU Forests and woodlands 0 Possible – foraging habitat likely to be present. Wooded hills with snappy or salmon gums in the breeding season Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae VU EN and surrounding lowland grasslands during the non-breeding 0 not understood to be present. season. Lowland eucalypt open forests and woodlands that have grassy *Partridge Pigeon Geophaps smithii VU VU understoreys, where they nest on the ground, and feed on fallen 9 (1996) Possible – habitat likely to occur. seeds between grass tussocks. Unlikely – there are no previous known records and On shallow, grassy, freshwater swamps, claypans and seasonally preferred habitat is unlikely to be located within the Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis VU EN flooded grasslands. In the NT, most suitable habitat occurs on 0 proposed drilling areas, nor in new access tracks to pastoral land. be created. Eucalypt tall open forests (especially those dominated by Darwin Woollybutt (Eucalyptus miniata) and Darwin Stringybark (E. Masked Owl (northern) Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli VU VU tetrodonta)), but also roosts in monsoon rainforests, and forages 0 Possible – foraging habitat likely to be present. in more open vegetation types, including grasslands (Woinarski and Ward, 2012b) Migratory Species Unlikely –Preferred habitat is unlikely to be located Most common in mangrove areas, but will also forage on intertidal *Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis VU CR 2 (1994) within the proposed drilling areas, nor in new access flats and saltmarshes tracks to be created. Mainly intertidal mudflats, sandflats and sandy beaches of Unlikely – no previous records preferred habitat is sheltered coasts, in estuaries, bays, inlets, lagoons and harbours; Red Knot Calidris canutus VU EN 0 unlikely to be located within the proposed drilling sometimes on sandy ocean beaches or shallow pools on exposed areas, nor in new access tracks to be created. wave-cut rock platforms or coral reefs. Forages around coastal brackish lagoons, intertidal mud and sand Unlikely – no previous records preferred habitat is Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea VU CR flats, estuaries, saltmarshes and occasionally on inland freshwater 0 unlikely to be located within the proposed drilling wetlands (Garnett et al 2011, cited in Ward, 2012a). areas, nor in new access tracks to be created. Sheltered coastal habitats, with large intertidal mudflats or Unlikely – no previous records preferred habitat is Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris VU VU sandflats. This includes inlets, bays, harbours, estuaries and 0 unlikely to be located within the proposed drilling lagoons. areas, nor in new access tracks to be created. Almost entirely coastal, inhabiting littoral and estuarine habitats. They mainly occur on sheltered sandy, shelly or muddy beaches Unlikely – no previous records preferred habitat is with large intertidal mudflats or sandbanks, as well as sandy *Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii VU EN 0 unlikely to be located within the proposed drilling estuarine lagoons (Bamford 1988; Blakers et al. 1984; Lane 1987; areas, nor in new access tracks to be created. Sibson 1948; Stewart et al. 2007), and inshore reefs, rock platforms, small rocky islands or sand cays on coral reefs. Coastal littoral and estuarine environments. It inhabits large Unlikely – no previous records preferred habitat is intertidal sandflats or mudflats in sheltered bays, harbours and Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus VU VU 0 unlikely to be located within the proposed drilling estuaries, and occasionally sandy ocean beaches, coral reefs, areas, nor in new access tracks to be created. wave-cut rock platforms and rocky outcrops. Unlikely –Preferred habitat is unlikely to be located *Bar-tailed Godwit (baueri) Limosa lapponica baueri VU VU Intertidal mudflats and shallow water. 1 (1994) within the proposed drilling areas, nor in new access tracks to be created. Unlikely – no previous records preferred habitat is Large intertidal sandflats, banks, mudflats, estuaries, inlets, *Northern Siberian Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica menzbier VU CR 0 unlikely to be located within the proposed drilling harbours, coastal lagoons and bays areas, nor in new access tracks to be created. Mammals Possible – preferred habitat likely to occur, although *Fawn Antechinus Antechinus bellus EN VU Savannah woodland and tall open forest 1 (1995) no records exist. Possible – preferred habitat likely to occur, although Brush-tailed Rabbit-rat Conilurus penicillatus EN VU Eucalypt tall open forest 0 no records exist
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 35
NT Status National Status Number of Records Common Name Scientific Name Preferred Habitat within 5 km (most Likelihood of Occurring (TPWC Act) (EPBC Act) recent year recorded) Possible – whilst preferred habitat probably exists, the numerous records from the region all occur pre- 1995. Given that numbers of quolls reduced Near-coastal forests and woodlands, most commonly in rocky *Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus CR EN 9 (1995) drastically elsewhere following Cane Toad arrival to country the Darwin region (approx. 2006), it is possible (though with much less certainty than 2006) that the species occurs on site. Continuous forest with large trees with tree hollows and diverse Possible – suitable habitat likely to exist, however no Black-footed Tree-rat Mesembriomys gouldii gouldii VU EN 0 shrubby understorey records exist. Restricted to rocky areas (sandstone or granite), especially on Unlikely – no records and preferred habitat not Nabarlek (Top End) Petrogale concinna canescens VU EN 0 steep slopes, with large boulders, caves and crevices predicated to occur on site. Tall open forests dominated by Darwin Woollybutt (E. miniata) and Possible – suitable habitat likely to exist, however no Northern Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale pirata EN VU 0 Darwin Stringybark (E. tetrodonta). records exist. Unlikely – suitable habitat likely to exist within Mangroves and the associated saltmarsh, sedgelands, clay pans, EL29699 however unlikely to be located within the Water Mouse, False Water Rat Xeromys myoides - VU 0 heathlands and freshwater wetlands proposed drilling areas, nor in new access tracks to be created. No records exist. Possible – preferred habitat likely to occur, although *Pale Field-rat Rattus tunneyi VU - Dense vegetation along creeks 2 (1995) few records exist from the region with the latest being over 20 years ago. Foraging habitat generally consists of tropical savanna woodlands Possible – preferred habitat likely to occur, although Ghost Bat Macroderma gigas Near threatened VU and rainforests. Favoured roosting sites are undisturbed caves or 0 no records exist. mineshafts. Coastal lowlands, where they have been recorded in open screw- Possible – preferred habitat likely to occur, although Bear-rumped Sheathtail Bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus - VU 0 palm woodland, eucalypt tall open forest and rainforest no records exist. Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Data Deficient EN Occurs in all oceans and inhabits coastal, shelf and oceanic waters 0 not present Occurs in all major oceans, mostly in coastal and continental shelf Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae - VU 0 waters not present Reptiles Cracking soils on floodplains of the Adelaide, Mary and Alligator Unlikely – not within, or near to, the known Plains Death Adder Acanthophis hawkei VU VU 0 Rivers distribution of the species.
Possible – Suitable habitat likely to exist on site, Seldom seen far from water, preferring to climb on rocks or trees however the species has likely been substantially Mertens` Water Monitor Varanus mertensi VU - near water, and often basking on branches overhanging the water 1 (1995) impacted by Cane Toads and therefore it’s or on rocks mid-stream (Ward et al., 2006). abundance in the region is uncertain.
Semi-aquatic and arboreal and inhabits margins of watercourses, Possible – Suitable habitat likely to exist on site, swamps and lagoons in northern Australia. It rests and shelters in however the species has likely been substantially Mitchell’s Water Monitor Varanus mitchelli VU - hollows and under bark on trees next to water. It basks on rocks 0 impacted by Cane Toads and therefore it’s and overhanging limbs and readily takes to the water when abundance in the region is uncertain. disturbed (Ward, 2012).
Possible – Suitable habitat likely to exist on site, Ground-dwelling monitor occupying a variety of habitats, including however the species has likely been substantially Yellow-spotted Monitor Varanus panoptes VU - coastal beaches, floodplains, grasslands and woodlands (Ward et 0 impacted by Cane Toads and therefore it’s al. 2012) abundance in the region is uncertain.
Unlikely – preferred habitat is unlikely to be located Tropical and subtropical waters throughout the world. Nesting Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Least concern VU 2 (1995) within the proposed drilling areas, nor in new access common in the NT. tracks to be created. Unlikely – preferred habitat is unlikely to be located Flatback Turtle Natator depressus Data Deficient VU Tropical waters of Australia and New Guinea. 1 (2001) within the proposed drilling areas, nor in new access tracks to be created.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 36
NT Status National Status Number of Records Common Name Scientific Name Preferred Habitat within 5 km (most Likelihood of Occurring (TPWC Act) (EPBC Act) recent year recorded) Unlikely – preferred habitat is unlikely to be located Open ocean, benthic foraging habitat and sandy beaches for Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta VU EN 0 within the proposed drilling areas, nor in new access nesting. tracks to be created. Unlikely – preferred habitat is unlikely to be located Regarded as an oceanic species nesting mostly in tropical areas Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea CR EN 0 within the proposed drilling areas, nor in new access and feeding in temperate areas. tracks to be created. Unlikely – preferred habitat is unlikely to be located Tropical, subtropical and temperate waters of all oceans of the Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata VU VU 0 within the proposed drilling areas, nor in new access world. tracks to be created. Unlikely – preferred habitat is unlikely to be located Shallow, protected tropical and subtropical waters throughout the Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea VU EN 0 within the proposed drilling areas, nor in new access world. Nesting common in the NT. tracks to be created. Amphibians Appears to be confined to sandsheet heath, areas of sandy soils Possible – Records show observations of the species *Howard Springs Toadlet Uperoleia daviesae VU - with short vegetation that is inundated in the Wet season, or to 16 (unknown) have been made within 5 km of EL30015. adjacent melaleuca woodland areas. Sharks Range from close inshore around rocky reefs, surf beaches and 0 Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Great White Shark Carcharodon carcharias Data Deficient VU shallow coastal bays to outer continental shelf and slope areas. not present 0 Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Northern River Shark Glyphis garricki EN EN Restricted to shallow, brackish reaches of large rivers. not present Usually inhabits shallow (2–3 m) coastal waters and estuarine 0 Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Dwarf Sawfish Pristis clavata VU VU habitats. not present Muddy bottoms of freshwater areas and upper reaches of 0 Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Freshwater Sawfish Pristis pristis VU VU estuaries. not present 0 Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Green Sawfish Pristis zijsron VU VU Inhabits muddy bottom habitats and enters estuaries. not present 0 Unlikely – no previous records and preferred habitat Whale Shark Rhincodon typus Data Deficient VU Oceanic and coastal, tropical to warm-temperate seas/oceans not present *Based on the NRM InfoNet reports and the NR Map, threatened fauna species marked with an asterisk have previously been recorded within 5 km of the Bynoe Project tenements (Figure 9, Figure 10)
CR = Critically Endangered, EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 37
As previously mentioned EL29699 lies entirely within the Darwin Harbour SOCS. The following threatened fauna species have been known to occur within the Darwin Harbour SOCS (National/NT Listing):
• Atlas Moth Attacus atlas (VU/-); • Australian Bustard Ardeotis australis (-/VU); • Christmas Frigatebird Fregata andrewsi; • Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae (VU/EN); • Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli (VU/VU); • Mertens Water Monitor Varanus mertensi (VU/-); • Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus (CR/EN); • Partridge Pigeon Geophaps smithii (VU/VU); • Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus (VU/VU); and • Yellow-spotted Monitor Varanus panoptes (-/VU).
Whilst none of these species have been mapped on the Darwin Harbour SOCS factsheet (Appendix 4E) to occur within EL29699, the Masked Owl, Partridge Pigeon, Red Goshawk, Gouldian Finch and Northern Quoll have all been listed as likely to occur on or within 5 km of the Bynoe Project tenements.
Information regarding conservation status, preferred habitat and likelihood of occurrence within the Bynoe Project tenements for the remaining species is presented in Table 15.
CXO staff inductions include identification and avoidance measures for threatened and endangered flora and fauna in the area. The threatened species identification information pack used in these inductions is provided in Appendix 11 of this MMP. In addition, suitably skilled CXO personnel will walk new access tracks and drill pads prior to construction to avoid specific threatened fauna occurrences.
4.3.3 Feral Animals
Whilst no species of feral animal has been recorded on or within 5 km of the Bynoe Project tenements (NR Maps, 2017; Appendix 4B), it is likely that a range of feral animals exist in the area including, but not limited to, cane toads, cattle, pigs, cats and introduced rats.
Management of these species, appropriate to the project, is detailed in Section 5.4.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 38
4.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
4.4.1 Historical Aboriginal, Heritage Sites
Requests were made of the AAPA and the Heritage Branch of the DTC to identify known historical, Aboriginal and heritage site within the Bynoe Project Tenements.
The AAPA search identified two Restricted Work Areas (“RWAs”) within EL30012, on the far eastern edge near the historic Lucy’s Mine (detailed map in Appendix 3). Other registered points lie within or close to the adjacent Kangaroo Flat military ground. CXO has designed the work program at Lucy’s to avoid working within these RWAs or traversing through the sites. Correspondence from the AAPA indicates that the RWAs have a sizable buffer already and that should CXO wish to operate within the RWAs, a more detailed assessment of previous Authority Certificates would provide greater clarity and potentially enable work within at least part of the RWAs. CXO believes it currently has no desire to work within these RWAs and will ensure that exploration does not encroach on the RWAs.
The request from the Heritage Branch returned the information that the only sites of heritage significance within the work area are historic mine sites (Hang Gong, Bells Mona, Golden Boulder, Good Hope, Newsham’s). The heritage value of these is tenuous because they have been disturbed significantly during the 1980s and 1990s via excavation of materials for the Greenex mine production. Inspection of the sites indicates that items of obvious heritage value are not present. However, CXO will ensure that more detailed inspections are carried out if and when exploration takes place at the sites.
See Appendix 5 and Appendix 6.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 39
Figure 9: Locations of Threatened Species Records on or within 5 km of EL29699 and EL30015 (Northern and Central tenements of the Bynoe Project)
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 40
Figure 10: Locations of Threatened Species Records on or within 5 km of EL30012 (Southern tenement of the Bynoe Project)
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 41
5. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM / PLAN
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND RESPONSIBILITIES In addition to the requirements of legislation in the Northern Territory, CXO maintains a strict policy to monitor the environmental impact of all exploration activities. CXO’s policy is that compliance with statutory obligations is a minimum standard and strives for best practice in all aspects of environmental management.
The Exploration Manager will be the person responsible for environmental management.
5.2 STATUTORY AND NON-STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS CXO management identify and track the legal and other requirements applicable to its activities and services in accordance with the MMP. Mining operations have obligations to meet the requirements of several Northern Territory and Commonwealth laws. These have been listed in Table 10. CXO also comply with all Licence and Authorisation conditions.
Table 12: Applicable Legislation
Northern Territory Legislation Commonwealth Legislation
Atomic Energy Act Bushfires Act Crown Lands Act Dangerous Goods Act Environmental Assessment Act Environmental Offences and Penalties Act Heritage Act Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act Mineral Royalty Act Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act Minerals (Acquisition) Act Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act Minerals Title Act and Regulations Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 Mining Management Act and Regulations Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act Act (No 1) 2003 Northern Territory Land Corporation Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Parks and Wildlife Commission Act Act Pastoral Land Act Native Title Act Soil Conservation and Land Utilisation Act National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPM) Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act Traffic Act Validation (Mining Tenements) Act Waste Management and Pollution Control Act Water Act Weeds Management Act Workplace Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 42
In addition, CXO will comply with industry codes of practice with respect to environmental management and closure planning.
There are currently no non-statutory agreements in place.
5.3 INDUCTION AND TRAINING CXO will induct all contract field staff involved in the program in relation to the HSE risks and management requirements of the specific work program in addition to the specific environmental and cultural sensitivities of the licence area. A copy of CXO’s current Induction Pack is included as Appendix 11. The CXO site manager or appointed qualified team member will distribute a hard copy and read through the Induction pack, followed by some project specific information. Some specific induction items for this project are presented below. The role of the Inductee determines which of these items are presented. For example, the earthworks crew won’t be briefed on items 7 and 8.
1. Travel mudmap for access to and around work sites. 2. Local hazards around the work area and en route to the area from the accommodation. 3. Bushfire conditions expected. 4. Endangered flora and fauna species in the area – how to identify and avoid (with the aid of illustrated fact sheets). 5. Archaeological artefacts – how to recognise and procedures to follow should their preservation be threatened (with the aid of illustrated fact sheets). 6. Weed identification – outline the important weeds to recognise and the specific management system that will be used whilst on site (with the aid of illustrated fact sheets or “weed decks”). 7. Clearing methods agreed in the MMP – articulate these to the earthworks crew 8. Groundwater conditions expected and agreed procedures in the vent of groundwater intersection. 9. Sampling procedures. 10. Tool box meetings – when, how, what. 11. Emergency response procedures. 12. Contact numbers for routine and emergency communications.
The level of knowledge required for each of these is either implicit with the qualifications of the operator (e.g., driller will be qualified for groundwater procedures) or is consistent with that expected of the general public (e.g., the recognition of a weed species by way of comparison to an identification kit designed for public consumption). If in the companies view the level of knowledge of inductees isn’t sufficient, CXO will arrange for appropriate training.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 43
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS
5.4.1 Environmental Aspects
CXO has identified a number of aspects of any given program that have the potential to have an environmental impact. CXO has identified the activities with the greatest risk of an environmental impact as:
1. Implementing new tracks; 2. Drillhole sites; 3. The camp site; 4. Intersection of groundwater in drilling and potential for spillage; 5. Drilling sample bags and waste; 6. Rubbish; 7. Weed management; 8. Hydrocarbon storage & management.
5.4.2 Potential Impacts
Unregulated drilling and mining has the potential to impact vegetation, soil, air, and water. Drilling operations present a range of environmental issues that need to be managed at every step of the process. Identified impacts, along with a range of measures to avoid and mitigate these impacts, have been described below.
5.4.3 Risk Assessment by CXO
A qualitative risk assessment has been applied to the environmental risks associated with CXO’s Bynoe Project. It has been applied in accordance with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles and guidelines (Standards Australia, 2009). Each environmental risk has been given a rating in terms of likelihood and consequence using the criteria in Table 13. These ratings were then combined to generate a risk rating in the absence of mitigation measures (i.e. inherent risk) as well as following the application of the mitigation measures identified above (i.e. residual risk). The objective of the risk assessment process is to ensure that significant risks are identified and evaluated in order to ensure an appropriate level of risk treatment is applied to mitigate such risks.
Table 13: Environmental Risk Assessment – Risk Matrix
Consequence
Low Medium High (little to no impact) (medium term negative (irreversible or long-term impact) impact)
High (>75% chance event will 4 7 9
occur in life of plan)
Medium (25-75% chance event will 2 5 8
occur in life of plan) Likelihood
Low (<25% chance event will 1 3 6 occur in life of plan)
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 44
Table 14: Environmental Risk Rating Definitions
Risk Level Risk Treatment Criteria No significant action or further assessments required Low Managed under existing operational controls Some mitigation may be required - no detailed assessment of factors and aspects required but addressed in management measures as routine controls Moderate Substantial mitigation required - assessment required of factors and aspects High Major mitigation action required - assessment required of factors and aspects Critical Potentially unacceptable - Urgent management and mitigation action required
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 45
Table 15: Results of the Environmental Risk Assessment
Inherent Risk Residual Risk Aspect Impact Management Measures (prevention) Management Measures (remediation) Rating Rating The Bynoe Project tenements have limited established access tracks, and these variably over-grown since last used intensively. These will be used where possible, but not all of the target areas are serviced by existing tracks and will require new access track construction. New tracks or drill pads at will need to be “cleared” along at least part of their length because the vegetation is thick, particularly with sandpalms. Where continued use of vehicle pathways results in the development of a firm track the site will be Native vegetation Potential for damage to Naturally clear pathways between large trees will be utilised, but shrubs and grass will need to be driven scarified after use to even the ground surface and encourage the regeneration of native vegetation. M over using a loader with blade-up techniques, thereby reducing the disturbance to the topsoil, and allowing L disturbance native vegetation If vegetation is physically removed from the track route, it will be placed back over the track upon for a greater chance of quick regeneration from in-situ root systems. Large trees will be avoided by not rehabilitation. drilling near them and directing tracks around them. Difficult sandpalms will either be removed by the rootball or will be cut off at ground level with a chainsaw. The extent of this sandpalm problem can only be gauged once the access is being created. It is likely that the area will be burnt by the time access is being put in place, so the “clearing” process will be minimised further. The drill sites/pads for this program will preferably be located in naturally clear areas and as such will not require clearing. Drill sites/pads will not be located within riparian zones. This greatly reduces the potential impact of the drilling in terms of soil disturbance, vegetation disturbance, and fauna habitat disturbance. This should be the case for many of the already-disturbed historic mine sites. However, at least some “clearing” will be required for drill pads, as described above. Regardless, allowance has been made in this MMP for all drill pads to be cleared. As discussed, new access tracks are locally required to undertake this drill program. The tracks are planned to begin at existing tracks and/or public roads. The new tracks are located along routes designed to have By utilising natural clear paths and avoiding soil disturbance constructing the new tracks, it is planned that the minimum impact on the natural environment, as determined from imagery and from field little to no scarification will be necessary during rehabilitation. However, if it is deemed necessary and Potential for erosion of soil reconnaissance. beneficial, tracks and drill pads will be scarified. Tracks will be blocked by vegetation to discourage future Soil disturbance due to exploration M L The tracks are designed to avoid, when possible, steep topography and large or significant vegetation. The use by the general public. activities tracks will largely be simple flattened paths clear of upright vegetation, however, if vegetation is thick and The speed restrictions on tracks will reduce the potential for tracks to degrade or “bull dust”. not responding to flattening techniques, it may be necessary to physically remove specific vegetation (e.g., In the event that this occurs CXO will endeavour to rehabilitate the problem area before continuing use. sandpalms) off the track route, as described above. The tracks will not be graded or have topsoil cleared/removed. Vehicle speeds will be restricted (variant on style and condition of track). CXO believes that by utilising these techniques the program will have only minor disturbance to the soil profile from its proposed new tracks and drill pads. Where soil is disturbed due to earthworks activities, where possible the topsoil will be separately stockpiled and restored in its correct position in the soil profile during rehabilitation. In the event of heavy rain, works will cease to prevent damage to tracks, soils and vegetation. There are no recorded specific scientific or cultural sites within the confines of the proposed work program. Where work areas or access tracks exist nearby to sites of significance, a sufficient buffer is put in place to Any un-recorded culturally significant site that is encountered during reconnoitre will be avoided during Disturbance of sites of Scientific & cultural minimise the chances of encroachment on the site. In addition, staff are alerted of the nearby existence of clearing. cultural or scientific M L sites the site prior to works via the induction process. interest If CXO earthworks, by accident, encroach on a site, work will be suspended in that area while the AAPA is Disturbance of un-recorded sites will be avoided through fact sheets provided to field staff with feed-back consulted. as determined by the AAPA and the DENR Heritage Branch. A desktop study undertaken by environmental consultants SLR and has shown that the potential disturbance to fauna, especially threatened species, from this program is low. They did not recommend a Any habitat that is damaged through CXO works will be re-established. Disturbance of vulnerable specific on-ground survey of the work area. Regardless, suitably skilled CXO personnel will walk new access Fauna disturbance L Recognition of NTG INFONET listed species or significant damage to fauna or fauna habitat will be L or endangered fauna tracks and drill pads prior to construction to avoid specific threatened fauna occurrences (see Section reported to NT DENR by calling (08) 8995 5000. 5.4.7). All Employees will be inducted using the materials provided by SLR, including a threatened species identification information pack.
Three threatened species possibly or likely occur within the proposed work areas – Armstrong’s Cycad, Recognition of NTG INFONET species or damaged flora of significance will be reported to NT DENR by Stylidium ensatum and Utricularia singeriana (Appendix 4D) (refer Section 4 and Table 11). calling (08) 8995 5000. All Employees will be inducted to be able to recognise these species. Individuals of Armstrong’s Cycad will be avoided, or where disturbance is unavoidable, managed in Disturbance of vegetation will be minimised by careful management of all earthworks. Individuals of accordance with the process described in Section 5.4.7. Disturbance of vulnerable Armstrong’s Cycad will be avoided, or where disturbance is unavoidable, managed in accordance with the Flora disturbance L Whilst several individuals of Armstrong’s Cycad may exist in the areas proposed for drilling activities L or endangered flora process described in Section 5.4.7. (including new tracks), the avoidance and/or translocation measures detailed in Section 5.4.7 are likely to Suitably skilled personnel will walk new access tracks and drill pads prior to construction to identify any reduce the residual level of potential impact sufficiently. For example, all individuals of the species will be species of conservation significance. avoided as much as possible and even where there may be impacts to a small number of individuals (<10), In the case of Stylidium ensatum and Utricularia singeriana, should Core be undertaking ground-disturbing given that the species is locally abundant (Clugston & Nagalingum, 2016; Kerrigan et al, 2006), it is activities within the preferred vegetation community (Drainage Open Woodland [identified on Figures 6- expected that such impacts are unlikely to be significant. Where there is a higher number of individuals
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 46
Inherent Risk Residual Risk Aspect Impact Management Measures (prevention) Management Measures (remediation) Rating Rating 8]), where possible, drilling will be confined to the drier and rockier parts of the landscape, avoiding wet (>10) that may be unavoidably impacted, they should be translocated as per the guidelines in Section sandy substrates. 5.4.7. The implementation of the above measures (as detailed in Section 5.4.7) is likely to ensure: • Minimal impact on local population numbers • Area affected negligible compared to total population Minimal or acceptable impact on population size. It is expected that once the program is completed and rehabilitation has taken place the evidence of the Through implementing the land use techniques discussed in this document CXO is reducing the impact of work program on the area will be restricted to increased tyre tracks due to increased traffic in an Evidence of increased the program on the environment and therefore having a lesser effect on the visual impact on the area. otherwise rarely used area, it will be evident that vehicles have used the new proposed tracks and the Visual impact L L vehicle activity in the area. All works are well off the main roads and won’t be visible or audible to passers-by in vehicles. drillhole locations will be visible due to the lack of grasses and other small vegetation in the immediate There are no residences within 5 km of the work area. radius of the hole. Over time natural regeneration will remediate the visual impacts of this program to their pre-disturbance state. CXO believes fire risk from this program is likely to be minimal, as it will have been burnt by the regular burning regime of the Bushfires NT (Government). However, if work areas have not been burnt, there is a high risk of a wild fire starting in the area (generally by members of the public) and resulting in a threat to Ignition of a fire from hot CXO people and equipment. For non-emergency situations call NT Emergency Services 24-hour call 131 444 exhausts/ equipment Drilling operations will cease on total fire ban days, unless the area has previously been burnt and no grass For information on controlled burns call Bushfires NT: Fire L L Threat to safety of people fire risk exists. No vehicles with petrol engines which can have hot exhausts will be allowed on site, except • Batchelor office (08) 8976 0098 or equipment by wild fire for ATV’s and quadbikes with sufficient fire control measures in place. This should drastically reduce the • Darwin office (08) 8922 0844 chances of CXO starting a fire. All vehicles will carry fire extinguishers and shovels. Vehicles and equipment will be parked on open ground. Cross contamination of If significant aquifers are encountered cement plugs will be placed between and above aquifers to Groundwater There is little or no cross contamination of aquifers expected during this program, as all groundwater is in fresh aquifers with saline L preserve the integrity of the seals. L contamination tight fracture-controlled situations. aquifers Water Resources will be consulted first by calling (08) 8999 4455. Disturbance of natural The proposed work area has only minor low-order surface drainage with no significant or steeply banked Surface drainage Any works will be removed/cleared at the completion of the program back to as close to its original state drainage systems and L drainage systems. No clearing will occur within 25m of any significant drainage features and will follow the L interference as possible. erosion guidelines discussed in Section 5.4.6. CXO anticipates that the risk from introduced species is low for this work program. Induction processes will Introduction and spread of inform all Employees of potential weed species and their management to prevent weed propagation. Weed monitoring will be periodically ongoing to ensure any blow down areas do not become infested. Introduced weeds weeds from vehicles and M As a precautionary measure CXO will ensure that all CXO staff and contractors vehicles are cleaned before Weeds Hotline number is 1800 084 881 L equipment entering the site and when moving between sites, to reduce the risk of contamination. Weeds Management Branch (08) 8999 4567 Fact sheets and/or weed-decks will be distributed to CXO staff during the program. Increased potential for disturbance by introduced Monitoring. Feral Animals L Treatment of disturbed areas. L animals such as horses or Manage impacts. feral pigs. Contamination of drill sites Rubbish and waste and tracks with rubbish and H CXO will induct all staff and contractors on the appropriate actions when dealing with rubbish and waste. As per Section 4, all rubbish at the drill sites will be collected and removed from site. L waste Exposure of contaminants Soil contamination Appropriate remediation, if required. such as hazardous L Monitoring during drilling and appropriate control if suspected contaminated materials located L exposure materials or ASS All contaminated material will be disposed of in accordance with relevant legislation Landowner Disturbance of landowner As the land is freehold land owned by the NT Government there are no landowner activities or interests The exploration manager will be responsible for managing any unforeseen conflicts with the wishes of the H L activities/interests activities/assets present on the site. stakeholders. No refuelling is to take place within 50m of any water source. Any contaminated soil will be removed, bagged and disposed of at an appropriately licenced facility with Hydrocarbon leak / spill – Spill Kits and absorbent matting will be available at all areas where there is potential to spill hydrocarbons contaminated areas replaced with clean topsoil. All leaks of hydrocarbons over 20L will be recorded as an Fuel Storage contamination of soil, H (ie drill sites). Where possible, full or partial bunding will be deployed to storage tanks/drums to contain environmental incident and will thus be fully investigated and reported to the Department with the L surface and ground water any leaks (exceptions include fitted vehicle fuel tanks). rehabilitation report. Water based dust suppression, where required. Environmental Emergency procedures are outlined in the body of this document.
Air Quality Potential for excessive dust L Dust suppression of access roads and mining areas, where required. Water based dust suppression, where required. L
The area is frequented by pig hunters and ATV enthusiasts, and as such there is potential for Core’s Public or third Disturbance of public Any unauthorized access to drill sites will be managed by the supervising geologist who will be on site at H programs to come into contact with these people. Signs will be placed at all public entrances stating no L party activities activities. Access by all times while drilling. unauthorised access to the immediate drill work area. Core have no authority to deny access to the work
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 47
Inherent Risk Residual Risk Aspect Impact Management Measures (prevention) Management Measures (remediation) Rating Rating unauthorized parties to area more generally, but the new access tracks will need to be made impassable as soon as possible after drill sites. drilling. Potential Impact significance: - = Not applicable, L = low/negligible, M = medium, H = high
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 48
5.4.4 Risk Assessment by SLR Consulting
In addition to the Risk Assessment carried out by CXO, a qualitative risk assessment has also been carried out by Environmental consultants SLR Consulting, based on the desktop biodiversity assessments. Based on the results of the assessment of likelihood of occurrence of threatened species in Section 4, an additional assessment of potential (inherent) impacts to these species was undertaken. The ratings used to define the levels of potential residual impacts to the species are shown in Table 16 The results of the assessment are provided in Table 17. Note that these assessments relate to inherent potential impacts, that is, prior to the application of recommended impact avoidance and mitigation measures.
5.4.5 Assessment of Residual Impacts to Species of Concern
The previous sections have assessed the likelihood of occurrence of a range of threatened species, the inherent and residual potential impacts to species determined to possibly occur within the drilling areas and tracks, and their recommended avoidance and mitigation measures. Provided that the measures in Section 4 of this MMP are implemented to avoid or mitigation impacts to species of concern, it is expected that the residual potential impact to each threatened species assessed is insignificant.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 49
Table 16: Definitions of Levels of Potential Impact (TSSC, 2015b)
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Critical Consequence 1 2 3 4 5 Minimal impact on local population Moderate impact on local population Major population reduction or loss of Population reduction which may results in Minor impact on local population numbers; area affected negligible numbers. Some impacts on populations local population; recovery measured in species extinction; recovery period is Impact on population1 numbers. Population in other locations compared to total population; minimal or in other locations; moderate and/or years to decades; serious and significant greater than decades; very significant and not impacted acceptable impact on population size short-term effects impact on species serious impact on high value species
Loss of local habitat with no potential for Complete loss of local habitat with no Minimal losses of local habitat only, Moderate loss of local habitat requiring recovery, or partial loss of habitat across potential for recovery and loss of habitat Fragmentation of habitat/loss of habitat recovery likely in a relatively short period Minor losses of local habitat requiring recovery over a short to medium term large areas and/or with limited potential in other locations with limited potential connectivity/reduce the areas of of time; threats are covered by current recovery over short term and resulting in loss of connectivity for recovery in the medium to long term. for recovery in the long term resulting in occupancy2 management or legislation between habitats at a local scale Results in a net reduction in connectivity a significant impact on habitat over a large area connectivity over a large area
Modification, destruction, removal or loss of local habitat with no potential for Minimal modification, destruction, recovery, or partial loss of habitat across removal or decrease of local habitat only, Moderate modification, destruction, large areas and/or with limited potential Significant impact resulting in the recovery likely in a relatively short period removal ore decrease of local habitat for recovery in the medium to long term. removal, destruction, fragmentation and Minor modification, destruction, removal Impact on the habitat critical to the of time; insignificant impact to habitat or requiring recovery over a short to Results in a net reduction in connectivity degradation of habitat; the entire habitat or decrease of local habitat requiring survival of the species3 threat activity only occurs in a very small medium term and resulting in loss of over a large area; habitat is affected is in danger of being affected or removed, recovery over short term areas of habitat; limited damage to connectivity between habitats at a local which may endanger the species and that >90% habitat, >50% fragile habitat, minimal area of low significance; minor scale habitat long term survival – 70-90% and >30% critical habitat effects on physical environment habitat affected or removed; 30% fragile habitat affected or removed; 10-20% critical habitat affected or removed;
Moderate disruption to breeding cycle resulting in modification of behaviour Direct impacts on breeding cycle resulting Complete disruption of breeding cycles Minimal impact on any aspect of the both within the direct impact zone and at in a net decline in size of the population; over several seasons with significant Disruption to breeding cycle4 Minor disruption to the breeding cycle breeding cycle; nearby locations; long term recruitment the is limited information to judge the population decline and possible and/or population dynamics are not impact extinction adversely impacted
Minor impact on local population Moderate impact on local population Population reduction which may results in Minimal impact on local population Major population reduction or loss of Impact of invasive species and/or disease5 numbers or habitat quality. Population in numbers or habitat quality. Some species extinction loss of critical habitat numbers or habitat quality local population or loss of habitat quality other locations not impacted impacts on populations in other locations extent or quality
Results in minor behavioural modification Results in modification of behaviour or Results in modification of behaviour or on a local scale or impacts to physical animal condition such that there is Significant impact resulting in either animal conditions such that there is Minimal impact on species migratory conditions of animal interfering with potential for medium to long term complete failure, or failure of majority of Interaction with species migration potential for medium term impacts, with patterns migration for the short term only. impacts, both locally and in nearby individuals, to complete migration in that some possibility of individuals failing to Unlikely to negatively impact on the locations, with some individuals failing to cycle complete migration overall success of migration complete migration
1 Refers to the proportional changes to the numbers of individuals; change in the size of the population 2 Refers to the physical destruction of the species habitat and/or chemical or physical barriers 3 Refers to species habitat resource includes modify, destroy, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat 4 Breeding cycle including activities associated with breeding (mating, gestation, nesting). Assessment assumes that the species is present in the affected area during the breeding cycle 5 Refers to the invasive species that is harmful to the species becoming established in the species habitat and introduced disease that may cause the species to decline
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 50
Table 17: Level of Potential Inherent and Residual Impacts to Threatened Species Possible or Likely to Occur within the Bynoe Drilling Areas
Scientific Name Common Name Level of Potential Impact - Inherent6 Level of Potential Impact - Residual7
FLORA Insignificant – whilst several individuals may exist in the areas proposed for drilling activities (including new tracks), the avoidance and/or translocation measures detailed in Section 5.4.7 are likely to reduce the residual level of potential impact sufficiently. For example, all individuals of the species will be avoided as much as possible and even where there may be impacts to a small number of individuals (<10), given that the species is locally abundant (Clugston & Nagalingum, 2016; Kerrigan et al, 2006), it is Minor – several individuals of the species may occur within areas proposed for expected that such impacts are unlikely to be significant. Where there is a higher development of access tracks or drill pads and may be damaged as a result of number of individuals (>10) that may be unavoidably impacted, they should be Cycad armstrongii Armstrong’s Cycad unmanaged activities. This could have a minor impact on local population numbers (as translocated as per the guidelines in Section 5.4.7. per the definition in Table 16). The implementation of the above measures (as detailed in Section 5.4.7) is likely to ensure that the definition for an ‘insignificant’ impact (as per Table 16) is achieved, as follows: • Minimal impact on local population numbers • Area affected negligible compared to total population • Minimal or acceptable impact on population size. Insignificant – Where exploration activities are proposed to be undertaken within the preferred vegetation community (Drainage Open Woodland [identified on Figures 6-8]), Minor – disturbances to the species habitat from the proposed exploration activities are Core will, where possible, confine drilling to the drier and rockier parts of the landscape, Stylidium ensatum Annual Herb considered to be minor and short term given the limited amount of vegetation clearance avoiding wet sandy substrates. required within the species preferred habitat (Drainage Open Woodland). In order to minimise direct and indirect impact on the potential habitat, diversions of tracks and/or avoiding the removal of ground cover on that portion of the track may also be implemented. Insignificant – Where exploration activities are proposed to be undertaken within the preferred vegetation community (Drainage Open Woodland [identified on Figures 6-8]), Minor – disturbances to the species habitat from the proposed exploration activities are Core will, where possible, confine drilling to the drier and rockier parts of the landscape, Utricularia singeriana Bladderwort considered to be minor and short term given the limited amount of vegetation clearance avoiding wet sandy substrates. required within the species preferred habitat (Drainage Open Woodland). In order to minimise direct and indirect impact on the potential habitat, diversions of tracks and/or avoiding the removal of ground cover on that portion of the track may also be implemented. FAUNA
Birds Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the minimal modification/ destruction/ Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk Insignificant removal of potential habitat, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle. Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the minimal modification/ destruction/ Geophaps smithii smithii Partridge Pigeon (eastern) Insignificant removal of potential habitat, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle.
6 Level of potential impact prior to the application of impact avoidance or mitigation measures
7 Level of potential impact following the application of impact avoidance and mitigation measures (detailed in Section 5.4.7)
Scientific Name Common Name Level of Potential Impact - Inherent6 Level of Potential Impact - Residual7 Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the minimal modification/ destruction/ Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli Masked Owl (northern) Insignificant removal of potential habitat, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle. Mammals Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the minimal modification/ destruction/ Antechinus bellus Fawn Antechinus Insignificant removal of potential habitat, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle. Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the minimal modification/ destruction/ Conilurus penicillatus Brush-tailed Rabbit-rat Insignificant removal of potential habitat, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle. Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the minimal modification/ destruction/ Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll Insignificant removal of potential habitat, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle.
Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the small area of habitat to be modified, no caves will Macroderma gigas Ghost Bat Insignificant be disturbed, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle.
Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the minimal modification/ destruction/ Mesembriomys gouldii gouldii Black-footed Tree-rat Insignificant removal of potential habitat, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle. Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the minimal modification/ destruction/ Phascogale pirata Northern Brush-tailed Phascogale Insignificant removal of potential habitat, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle.
Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the exploration activities are not Saccolaimus saccolaimus considered to be significant given the small area of habitat to be modified, no caves will Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat Insignificant nudicluniatus be disturbed, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle.
Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the preferred habitat (dense vegetation along Rattus tunneyi Pale Field-rat Insignificant creeks) is unlikely to be impacted, the mobile nature of the species and the minimal impact to its breeding cycle. Reptiles
Insignificant – there will be a limited amount of vegetation clearance required and, at Varanus mertensi Mertens` Water Monitor Insignificant most, very few creeks will require traversing.
Insignificant – there will be a limited amount of vegetation clearance required and, at Varanus mitchelli Mitchell’s Water Monitor Insignificant most, very few creeks will require traversing.
Insignificant – there will be a limited amount of vegetation clearance required and, at Varanus panoptes Yellow-spotted Monitor Insignificant most, very few creeks will require traversing.
Amphibians
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 52
Scientific Name Common Name Level of Potential Impact - Inherent6 Level of Potential Impact - Residual7 Insignificant – any disturbances to the species from the proposed exploration activities are not considered to be significant given the lack of suitable habitat at proposed drill Uperoleia daviesae Howard Springs Toadlet locations. Results from recent surveys appear to suggest that the Howard River toadlet is Insignificant confined to sandsheet heathland within the Howard and Elizabeth River Catchments close to Darwin (Fisher et al. 2011).
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 53
5.4.6 Proposed Impact Reduction, Mitigation and Rehabilitation Methods
CXO proposes to undertake exploration drilling within EL29698, as outlined in Table 6. Planning of the allocation of access tracks, drill lines and holes to the various polygons in Figure 3 will be carried out as the program progresses, based on results and priorities. Indicative distributions have been determined to calculate the Security and CXO will manage the actual program to ensure that the company is operating well within those limits.
Activities to enable the drilling to take place will include clearing vegetation for drill pads and some new access tracks. These activities have the potential to impact on threatened species occurring or potentially occurring on the site through removal of habitat, habitat fragmentation, erosion and sedimentation, introduction of weeds and pests, and death or injury of wildlife through contact with machinery and vehicles.
In all fieldwork and field operations it is CXO’s policy and intention to cause minimal impact on the environment. CXO endeavours to leave all areas visited in the same state as they were before visiting that area.
CXO proposes to minimise the potential impacts of the field activities have an environmental impact as follows: a) Implementing new tracks and refurbishing existing tracks
Tracks will be prepared and cleared with a minimum of disturbance to the environment and will be rehabilitated in such a way as to promote rapid revegetation and prevent the initiation of erosion. Whilst existing tracks will be used wherever possible, new tracks will be required to access areas with no previous tracks. Locally, there may be refurbishment of existing access track, depending on their condition. These various track types are shown in the Track Status Register and Maps in Appendix 3. Security calculations are based estimates derived from Table 6, with some contingency built in more unforeseen (but otherwise immaterial) modifications to the current drill plan.
Access tracks
• Where possible, tracks will be located in flat areas with low slopes, naturally clear routes and will avoid areas of sensitive habitat such as vine thickets, monsoon rainforest and riparian habitat (except to cross creeks). No specific sensitive habitat areas were identified in the Desktop study undertaken by environmental group SLR Consulting (Section 4). Potential habitat areas are managed in accordance with the guidelines below. • New tracks that will receive regular travel to and from work areas will need to be cleared such that vehicle access is facilitated and safety is not compromised. • Existing tracks will be utilised where available and the use of earthworks will be minimised. The existing/historic access tracks are in various physical conditions, which may change from year to year, especially during the recent large wet season. Experience suggests that when planning to utilise existing historic access for the first time with heavy equipment such as drill rigs, it is prudent to assume 10% of the total length of these tracks will need refurbishment in terms of vegetation clearing or pruning. • Deep wheel ruts will be mitigated by avoiding driving in the same wheel ruts every time a road is used (i.e. spread the load), as wheel ruts quickly channel water, increasing erosion potential. • No windrows will be created. • Land clearing will only be undertaken for the establishment of drill sites or access tracks where it is deemed necessary. Wherever possible, vegetation will only be flattened by vehicle/loader tyres to retain root structure and surface soil stability. Sandpalms that are extensively developed in the area pose a significant problem for access, as they tend to be elastic and spring back into an upright or inclined position after they have been run over. In this position they are a significant safety risk to vehicles. In the worst-case scenario, a sandpalm impacting on the front of an oncoming vehicle has the capacity to overturn the vehicle. Most incidents involving sandpalms are the rupturing of the vehicle cooling system. To alleviate this problem, CXO will utilise two runs of back-blade techniques with a front-end loader that is able to flatten most sandpalms. If this proves ineffective, particularly
difficult sandpalms will be either dug out by the root ball or will be cut off at ground level with a chainsaw. • Notwithstanding the above, for the Security calculation it is assumed that the lines will be cleared in full. Hence there is sufficient contingency in the calculations. • Where large trees overhang existing access tracks and pose a safety issue they will be pruned using a chainsaw or loader bucket. In worst case scenario a tree may need to be felled, however, on most occasions these trees can be avoided. • Microhabitat features such as rocks and fallen logs should be removed from areas to be disturbed and stockpiled at the edge of the site for re-use in rehabilitated areas. • Any fauna that is injured should be taken to an appropriate animal care organization (e.g. Wildlife Rescue Darwin in Humpty Doo, ph. 0409 090 840). • Portions of routinely-used tracks may be sheeted to enable access at the start of the wet season, so as to avoid equipment and vehicles getting bogged and causing damage. Gravel materials will be sought from local gravel pits and bought in by tipper truck, then levelled by loader. It is worth noting that there are already some sheeted tracks in the area dating back to the operational times of the tin-tantalum mining/processing, for example, the majority of the tracks into BP33, Sandra’s, Lees and Carlton.
Ephemeral creek crossings
• Existing creek crossings are used in most instances and will be maintained in good condition. • Ephemeral drainage will be kept clear of soil and debris to allow water to cross roads. • Ephemeral creek crossings will be located where the bank edge is lowest. • Tracks will be designed to intersect creeks at a right angle to the direction of flow. • If/where creek banks are too steep for vehicles; ramps will be constructed to a suitable approach angle. Material will be moved away from the drainage line (i.e. no sand to be deposited within drainage). Material from scraping will be used to make a low bank at the top of the ramp to direct water away from the track. This will reduce risk of gully erosion, as in the event of rainwater will be directed into stable soils.
Implementing new tracks will be done in accordance with the DPIR advisory note AA7-005 “Clearing and Rehabilitation of Lines and Tracks Guide” (Appendix 7).
Measures relating to the avoidance and mitigation of impacts on Armstrong’s Cycad are described in the next section. b) Drillhole sites
The number of holes, pads and sumps anticipated are outlined in Table 6. Drill hole site planning will ensure drill holes are located within approved polygons or drill-prescribed access lines.
Rotary Air Blast (RAB) drillholes will not require a specific pad. They are simply drilled in the centre of the line. Reverse circulation (RC) pads will be constructed on an as-needs basis along the drill lines or as off- shoots from the lines. These need to large enough to accommodate the drill rig and support vehicles safely. Where possible, holes will be designed to occur on relatively flat areas of ground that are naturally clear of trees and rocky outcrops. If the drill site is vegetated, CXO will need to clear grass and shrubs from an area of 25x20m (500 m2) for RC and diamond drill core (DDH) to allow the drill rig and geological crew to operate safely. This is particularly critical where the work area has not been burnt by the regular fires that pass through the area – fire safety is a significant issue in this area. This 500m2 includes the sump area.
For DDH holes, two sumps are dug for each drill hole. If groundwater becomes an issue, sumps will be dug at each RC drill site for containment of excess ground water that is encountered. The nominal size of the
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 55 sumps will be 3m x 2m x 1.2m, which will be dug using a front-end loader or excavator. If there is reason to believe that the hole will produce more groundwater, then the sump will be dug deeper and longer. Sufficient tolerate is built into the Security calculation for this scenario. There is no need to use a liner as water is not recirculated, and the groundwater will not pose a problem to the sub-soil environment.
For the RC drill holes and DDH, the hole diameter is ~150 mm at the top of hole and ~130 mm at depth. Aircore/RAB holes will be ~85 mm along their length.
Depending on the competence of the thin soil profile, PVC collars may need to be used in the top 1 to 3 metres but will be removed or cut down below surface during rehabilitation. Drill hole depths are expected to be between 50 and 160 m for RC and 1 to 30 m for aircore/RAB, depending on purpose of hole and lithology intersected at depth.
Sample materials are collected in green plastic bags and placed in rows of 20. A subsample is taken from each bag and used for analysis. A chip tray is kept for each metre drilled. For DDH, core is laid out in plastic core trays.
The rehabilitation process for all of the drill sites will be to back-fill the sample spoils/cuttings down the hole and/or sump as much as possible. Experience thus far at Finniss indicates that holes collapse soon after drilling and that negligible backfilling is possible. Excess spoils are spread on the work site and raked into the soil, unless they are substantially different in colour to the surface. In this case the excess spoils are buried in a nearby sump or a pit dug immediately next to the samples. The top section of the hole is plugged >40 cm below surface, using a recommended hole plug. Soil is heaped over the collar to allow for natural subsidence. Rehabilitation of sumps will ensure correct reconstruction of natural soil profiles. Topsoil is stored separately so it can be spread over the top of the sump.
All waste, including the plastic bags, will be removed from site and disposed as detailed below.
All drill holes will be rehabilitated according to the DPIR’s advisory note AA7-008 Drill Hole Capping and Plugging Guide and AA7-029 Construction and Rehabilitation of Exploration Drill Sites (Appendix 7).
Measures relating to the avoidance and mitigation of impacts on Armstrong’s Cycad are described in the next section. c) Camp site
CXO will locate its drill camp at the Sand Palms Roadhouse, Tumbling Waters or other commercial site, which are located outside the Bynoe Project tenements. Exploration crew will drive or helicopter in to site each day. d) Groundwater in drilling
CXO’s targets during this program are all hard-rock targets. As such no aquifer bearing cover sequences are expected to be intersected. Ground water is not expected to be intersected given the paucity of bores in the area, however, there is a small chance that existing structures could act as a zone of weakness in the rock and therefore be a conduit or trap for groundwater. If this is the case CXO will trap the water in the drill sump and isolate it from the surrounding environment. Should groundwater flows be significant the hole will be grouted to reseal the aquifer. The significance of groundwater flow will be determined by consultation with the Water Resources Branch. e) Waste
CXO anticipates the only waste produced during the drilling to be green plastic cuttings bags, empty additive (for drilling fluids) containers and miscellaneous rubbish. All hydrocarbon waste, any contaminated soil and MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 56 other waste aside from plastic bags will be transported to an appropriately licenced waste disposal facility such as Shoal Bay. The remaining “household” type waste will be disposed of in the Berry Springs waste transfer station. f) Rubbish
All rubbish will be removed from around the drill holes. g) Weed Management
It is the requirement and responsibility of the owner and occupier of land to adhere to the following measures under the NT Weeds Management Act:
• Take all reasonable measures to prevent the land being infested with a declared weed. • Take all reasonable measures to prevent a declared weed or potential weed on the land spreading to other land. • Within 14 days after first becoming aware of a declared weed that has not previously been, or known to have been, present on the land, notify an officer of the presence of the declared weed.
There are many weed species known to occur in the local area. Site inductions will include discussion on weed management and cover identification of main weed species (largely Mission and Gamba Grass, Mimosa).
Exploration activities may result in introduction or spread of weed species if appropriate planning and weed control measures are not implemented. The following mitigations will be adopted (at a minimum) by CXO to reduce weed impact on the site as a result of the exploration drilling operations.
All machinery and vehicles will be cleaned in suitable facility in Darwin (or site of origin) prior to mobilisation to site. Likewise, if moving between areas and at the completion of the program prior to demobilisation all vehicles and equipment will be washed / blown-down at site at the nominated weed washdown and inspection site. The nominated site for this program is the Observation Hill Government borrow pit at waterbore RN023177 (695400e, 8595800n; Figure 5). This site has substantial existing disturbance and weeds are already prevalent. Most drilling contractors have their own facilities for washdowns at their point of hire.
No vehicles will go off-road on transit to site and approved access routes will be strictly adhered to.
Follow up weed monitoring activities will occur as part of site inspections conducted by CXO, and will target weed blow down points, drill pads, and access tracks. Any suspected weeds will be photographed and supplied to an ecologist for identification. If weeds are identified, CXO will inform DPIR and initiate relevant controls for the species. h) Hydrocarbon Storage & Management
Diesel fuel and oils (including: engine oil, gear oil, hammer oil, grease, penetrating oils, hydraulic oils/fluids) will be required to operate the drilling equipment. The drilling contractor will be responsible for providing and safely storing both fuel and other hydrocarbon products. CXO requires all hydrocarbons brought to CXO’s worksites be appropriately bunded and stored as part of our HSE contractor management. A full list of MSDS sheets of all chemical products brought to site is available at request and maintained onsite.
Several spill kits and absorbent matting are readily available should an incident occur (located close to all hydrocarbon / chemical storage and work areas), which will be fully documented and investigated. Should any soil be contaminated it will be bagged and disposed at a licensed waste disposal facility.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 57 i) ATV-based Augering
CXO is also planning to undertake ATV-based engine-assisted augering as part of geological mapping throughout the tenement area.
Holes associated with this augering are very shallow, less than 1.8m deep, and narrow compared to RAB/AC. They are effectively a soil sample, assisted by a narrow-diameter rotating auger “flight” that is motorised and portable enough to move around on the rear of an All-Terrain vehicle (“ATV” 4x4 Buggy). The hole will be back-filled “on-the-fly” with a shovel, but as they are so shallow and prone to natural collapse, they will not be routinely plugged. Introducing a plastic plug into the environment is considered unnecessary given the minimal footprint, unless the hole is augered in a setting that makes backfilling impossible, such as laterite at surface. It is unlikely that augering in this situation would be successful in any case, given how hard the surface material is. No discolouration at surface likely as holes are in soil profile. The overall footprint of this exploration method is no different to soil sampling and is considered by CXO to have minor immediate impact and have no on-going impact. No access tracks or pads are required and the footprint of the ATV is no different to low-impact work currently carried out routinely by CXO, such as mapping, soil sampling and prospecting.
Currently, hand-augering is not considered “substantial disturbance” under the NT Mining Management Act and is not subject to regulation via a Mine Management Plan. Anecdotally, the introduction of a small engine to undertake this task is sufficient to move this exploration method into the category of substantial disturbance. Note that in most other jurisdictions, such as Western Australia, small engine-assisted augering is exempt from regulation. The logic is that the end-result is the same, whether it be a hand-made or engine- assisted hole. The key difference between engine-assisted and hand-powered augering is the productivity rate – the former enables the explorer to auger up to 50 holes per day. On this basis it has the capacity to be ground disturbing if used intensively. However, the shallow nature means the disturbance is only short term.
CXO is committed to minimising disturbance associated with the proposed small engine-assisted augering. As such, no augering will be conducted within riparian zones in order to minimise erosion and sedimentation risks and avoid disrupting important flora and fauna habitat. CXO staff undertook training on the identification and avoidance of riparian zones in May 2018 (conducted by SLR Consulting). j) Geotechnical Boreholes
After consulting with local drilling contractors, holes are to be drilled using hollow flight Auger with a truck mounted rig. Holes will be 180mm in diameter and a maximum of 25m deep. Sampling will be performed every 1.5 – 2.5m, with samples being extracted in clear plastic tubes which are then removed from site. Once logging, in-situ testing and sampling have been carried out holes will be capped unless groundwater in encountered, in which case a PVC standpipe will be installed to monitor groundwater levels. Borehole reinstatement can be performed using gravel pack or bentonite slurry. Access to borehole locations does not require any clearing activities. Pads will require clearing, up to 20m x 25m, which is within the current size nominated for RC and DDH drilling to be performed safely. The same procedure as with other pad clearing will be followed, including topsoil and vegetation being retained for rehabilitation purposes. No sumps are expected to be required for drilling, with any muds being retained within a mud baffle tank. The security calculation however will include the usual two sumps associated with DDH pads as a precaution to allow for the control and containment of groundwater if necessary. As with the other drilling methods the rehabilitation process of drill sites will be to reinstate the borehole either by back filling with drill spoils or with gravel pack/ bentonite slurry. Excess spoils will be spread on the work site and raked into the soil, unless they are substantially different in colour to the surface. In this case they will be buried in a purpose dug sump. The top section of the hole will be plugged, using a recommended MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 58 hole plug. Soil will be heaped over the collar to allow for natural subsidence. As mentioned topsoil and vegetation will be retained so it can be spread over the top of the pad. All waste, including plastic mining bags, will be removed from site and disposed as detailed below. Drill holes and sites will be rehabilitated in accordance with the Department of Primary Industry and Resources’ advisory note AA7-008 Drill Hole Capping and Plugging Guide and AA7-029 Construction and Rehabilitation of Exploration Drill Sites (Appendix 7 of 2018 MMP renewal). CXO’s specific management methods for Threatened species are outlined in Section 5.4.5 of 2018 MMP renewal. All Geotechnical bore holes will be nominated for ongoing environmental monitoring as designated EMS (section 6.1 of 2018 MMP renewal). k) Test Pits
Test pits will be dug using up to a 30T excavator, to refusal or the reach of the excavator, to a maximum depth of 5m. A 1.2m wide, toothed bucket will be utilized, with the length of pits at surface being up to 10m, this is far greater than the base will be due to method of excavation. CXO is advised the volume of pits will be up to 36m³.
Logging, observations, photographs and sampling of material for laboratory analysis will be performed immediately after excavation. Adequate access tracks are already in place and pits will be filled in immediately upon sampling being completed. GHD commit to having each test pit filled in before moving on to the next. Material removed during excavation will be stored alongside the pit and replaced in such a manner as to preserve the rock/ soil profile, with topsoil and the minimally cleared vegetation being replaced last. All test pits will be subject to ongoing environmental monitoring and will be nominated as EMS (Section 6.1 of 2018 MMP renewal). CXO have nominated existing local earthworks contractor (WRSC), whose operators are competent professionals, familiar with site and ground conditions as well as CXO’s environmental values and responsibilities, including weed management practices.
5.4.7 Threatened Species Management
Armstrong’s Cycad
Armstrong’s Cycad occurs around the Darwin area south to near Hayes Creek, and to the north-western corner of Kakadu National Park in the east, as well as on the Tiwi Islands, Cobourg Peninsula, and Cox Peninsula. It occurs mainly in open grassy woodland on yellow and red earths.
Armstrong’s Cycad, like all cycads, is a long-lived, slow-growing, woody plant, with male and female individuals. Reproductive age is unknown but can be 15 years under cultivation. Seeding may be annual or sporadic. Pollination appears to be mainly through insects, in particular beetles in the family Boganiidae. Seeds are dispersed through gravity, water and animals. Cycads live in symbiosis with cyanobacteria which provide the plant with nitrogen. The species is relatively resilient to low intensity fires, and can regenerate from crown damage, apical growing shoot damage, and even from destruction of the entire above ground stem, through regrowth from the stem base or root stock. However, populations decline when subjected to high intensity fires (Liddle, 2004).
A species profile is provided in Appendix 4D. The species is threatened by:
• Conversion of its habitat for residential and rural pursuits
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 59
• Through changes in prevailing fire regimes, facilitated by the influx of weeds into the species’ habitat, resulting in enhanced fuel loads and higher intensity fires.
The performance criterion and indicator for this issue includes the following:
• Number of Armstrong’s Cycad individuals to be impacted and where relevant, the number successfully translocated. • Number of seed collected, number of seed successfully grown into plants, number of seedlings successfully planted. • Majority (>80 %) of translocated Amstrong’s Cycad individuals survive two years after translocation.
Recognition
Armstrong’s Cycad grows to a height of 6 m, with a slender trunk 6-12 cm in diameter. Branching occurs, with occasional offsets and basal suckers. The crown is obliquely erect to spreading, with 84-156 leaflets. Leaflet have a prominent midrib on the upper surface and are attached to the rachis at an angle of about 56-70 degrees. Additional description is available in Hill (1996), Hill and Osborne (2001), Jones (2002) and Dixon (2004).
Management Measures
The following management measures have been formulated specifically for Armstrong’s Cycad. Procedures for propagation and translocation are summarised from Origin Energy (2014).
Pre-Clearing Survey
The following measures should be employed prior to disturbance activities commencing:
• Proposed new tracks and drill sites should be surveyed by personnel suitably skilled in the recognition of Armstrong’s Cycad. Should any individuals of Armstrong’s Cycad be encountered within these areas, plants should be avoided as much as practically possible. Where it is anticipated that a substantial number of individuals (>10) cannot be avoided, the plants should be clearly marked for appropriate removal during clearing operations with the aim of translocation. • The northern side of the plant should be marked with marker paint or fluorescent dye to facilitate re-planting with the same orientation. • Seed encountered on the forest floor surrounding the plants should be collected for propagation and rehabilitation purposes either elsewhere on the site or at the collection location once mining operations have ceased.
Operational Phase
The following measures should be employed during drilling operations, where a substantial number of plants (>10) cannot be avoided:
• During clearing operations, Armstrong’s Cycad individuals marked during pre-clearing surveys must be removed for relocation in rehabilitation areas elsewhere on the site or for temporary storage for rehabilitation at a later date. • Prior to removal, the area around plants must be cleaned by hand or with machinery (e.g. front end loader) and foliage removed to where the rhachis is attached to the stem. Using a spade, excavator or backhoe, soils surrounding the root ball is loosened prior to excavation ensuring that as much of the rootball around the plant roots remains intact. Damaged roots are to be trimmed and treated with Banrot® and/or Formula20®. To initiate root growth, Vitamin B or Seaweed can be sprayed on the roots. Roots are bagged in breathing material, such as hessian, and moistened with water prior
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 60
to transport to a temporary holding location or to a prepared rehabilitation location elsewhere on the site. Care should be taken not to bruise plant stems during transport, using soft materials such as hessian to stabilise the plant. • Upon arrival, plants are to be immediately potted or put into woven fibre planter bags for temporary holding or, if used for rehabilitation elsewhere on the site, in a prepared hole of a size suitable for the inserted root ball. Plants should be positioned in their original orientation. Washed sand or sandy loam should be used to for packing around the roots, to provide a suitable medium for root growth. The crown of each cycad must be sprayed with an insecticide (either Confidor® at a rate of application of 10 millilitres (mL) per 9 litres (L) of water or application of Crown® at a rate of application of 5 mL per 9 L of water). Translocated plants must also be watered with 5-9 L of water around each root ball with a systemic fungicide (Banrot® at the recommended rate). Rocks can be placed around the base of plants to assist in the stability of plants and to provide protection from fires and hot weather. • Seed collected from the cleared areas must be propagated in pots using standard horticultural methods or direct seeded in areas to be rehabilitated. • Translocation and propagation operations must be supervised by a suitably trained horticulturalist or arborist.
Post-Operation
The following measures should be employed following mining operations:
• Translocation of individuals held in the temporary storage area back to the original area of extraction must follow similar procedures as outlined above. Each plant must be watered about once a month (10-20 L) depending on rainfall for six months after replanting or as appropriate and any new expanding leaves must be sprayed with insecticide. • Plants must be monitored for new growth, death, insect attack, reproduction, gender etc. for a period of at least two years after planting in the ground.
Monitoring and Reporting
Monitoring will be the responsibility of CXO’s Exploration Manager to ensure the health of translocated individuals in accordance with the performance indicators outlined above. This person will be responsible for reporting the number of individuals found on areas to be cleared (if any) to the DPIR upon completion of the pre-clearing search. Further reports will be submitted on completion of the initial translocation and once again on completion of replanting of the translocated stock on completion of mining and revegetation operations.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 61
Figure 11 Vegetation mapping in the EL29699 area showing the areas of Drainage Open Woodland. MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 62
Figure 12 Vegetation mapping in the EL30015 area showing the areas of Drainage Open Woodland.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 63
Figure 13 Vegetation mapping in the EL30012 area showing the areas of Drainage Open Woodland.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 64
5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS For every drilling program undertaken CXO monitors explorations environmental impacts throughout disturbance activities. This is done by keeping registers and a visual record through photography of the natural environment before, during and after work and rehabilitation has been completed. This is done by implementing specific “Environmental Monitoring Sites” (EMS) and using them to evaluate the success of clearing and rehabilitation methods. EMS are put in place on RAB/AC lines, RC and DDH pads, tracks and creek crossings to capture all categories of disturbance. CXO aims to achieve a minimum of 10% of all holes drilled across the tenement being EMS. An EMS register is in place and maintained with data on EMS location, site and hole ID and the dates that before clearing, after clearing, after rehab and after 12-month photos have been taken. The after 12-month photos ensure rehabilitation has been successful, is naturally progressing and to allow any remediation issues to arise and be addressed. Due to the nature of the seasons in the NT one seasonal cycle, a wet and dry season, after rehabilitation has been completed is deemed an acceptable length of time, rather than a full 12 months. Throughout the monitoring process if any areas are identified as requiring further rehabilitation CXO completes this and documents and photographs accordingly The Exploration Manager will be responsible for environmental audits and inspections. CXO employed a full- time Environmental Geologist during the reporting period, who now overseas this directly, but reports to Exploration Manager. During the current reporting period, CXO undertook a series of drill programs and the results of monitoring inspections are tabulated and described in the following sections, including Section 6 (Exploration Rehabilitation: Exploration Records and Registers). No NT DPIR inspections were carried out during the reporting period. As well as ongoing monitoring, CXO implemented blanket inspections targeted at reviewing RAB hole plug status, RC pad rehabilitation progress and categorising track status to evaluate the effectiveness of the rehabilitation process, particularly after a seasonal cycle has concluded. A summary of the findings and recommendations from these checks are outlined in Table 18. Detailed data can be provided on request. CXO also undertook an audit of actual hole placement with regards to approved drilling polygons and drilling lines. Overall, there is very good match up, with the only apparent errors being from data entry errors with gps coordinates after drilling rather than with actual hole location.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 65
Table 18: Bynoe Project Inspection Summary
Inspection Checking Date Checked Findings Comments Recommendations for
Existing Blanket 29/09/2017 All Majority of Separate Rehabilitation be inspections Liontown rehabilitation register to CXO performed as soon as Liontown Pads assessing holes and successful. Few hole rehab and possible, and monitoring to and drillholes rehabilitation pads across sites identified EMS register continue as per CXO rehab status of holes EL30015 requiring full commitments in MMP and pads on and rehabilitation tenement EL30012 as well as a few requiring monitoring
Pre and post Flagging of Ongoing All EMS "Before Vital to ensure lines and throughout sites, lines Clearing" effective Clearing pads. project and pads photos, and monitoring is Inspections. Placement of adjustment of successful by Tracks, RAB, Environmental clearing to providing 'base Monitoring minimise level' before AC, RC and Site (EMS) disturbance any disturbance diamond pegs. occurs
12 Month Evaluating 11/10/2017 26 EMS Rehabilitation Sites Nil success of sites (Hang progressing rehabilitating inspections rehabilitation Gong, RAB well successfully. 12 months or lines of Photos taken one seasonal Central cycle after track) rehab of site carried out Number of LTR holes
Post Rehab Assessing and Ongoing All Rehab being Ensure associated photographin after rehab rehabbed performed paperwork filled out, more inspections g of sites after completed sites satisfactorily. frequent audits of data to rehabilitation (or hole pick up missing sites activities capped)
5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
5.6.1 Objectives and Targets
Performance targets relevant to this phase of exploration are the rehabilitation of tracks, drill pads and collars, the removal of waste from sites and, where appropriate, back-filling of drill sumps within 3 months after completion of the drill holes. In regards to the management of Armstrong’s Cycad where individuals of the species cannot be avoided, the performance target is that all individuals are successfully translocated and remain healthy for a further two years.
The Site Geologist will be responsible to ensure the tracks and drill sites are fully rehabilitated before the onset of the next wet season.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 66
If exploration results are sufficiently encouraging and indicate that further work is warranted during the next field season in the same prospect areas, then existing tracks and drill pads, if any, maybe required for this work. In this eventuality, they will not be rehabilitated until work has been finalised in the area. These have the status of “open” in the Rehabilitation register.
Control and reporting on the rehabilitation work will be managed by establishing a Rehabilitation Register (see Section 6), in which the nature of the disturbance and the state of rehabilitation efforts will be recorded. The Exploration Manager will verify the completeness of rehabilitation before signing off. A periodic review will ensure that steady progress on rehabilitation is maintained and no areas are overlooked.
To provide a measurable basis for the rehabilitation works a photographic record will be started and maintained throughout the exploration program. Photographs of tracks and areas that have previously been cleared will be taken. Prior to any ground disturbing work occurring photographs of the area to be affected will be taken. The photographs will be used as base line data against which the effectiveness of the rehabilitation work will be assessed. Additional photographic evidence will be collected at designated monitoring sites to monitor the progress of the rehabilitation; these will also include photos at the time of drilling, at completion of rehabilitation, and 12 months after completion of rehabilitation.
Table 19: Performance Objectives for Environmental Management for the Bynoe Project
Management Issue Performance Objective Timeframe Responsibility Minimal clearance of vegetation to a level that allows for a safe work Clearing of vegetation and place. No removal of Assessment 12 months other types of disturbance to Exploration Manager topsoil and preservation after drilling completed fauna of roots systems to allow quick regeneration of flora. No observed soil erosion Assessment 12 months Soil erosion and stream or stream sedimentation after drilling completed Exploration Manager sedimentation as a result of exploration or after the wet season. activities No spread of weeds from Assessment 12 months Spreading of weeds outside or within the after drilling completed Exploration Manager tenement or after the wet season. Noise, light and dust levels to be within acceptable limits Ongoing assessment Noise, light and dust levels according to Government through program and Exploration Manager Regulations (Work review at completion. Health and Safety Act – NUL, 2011). Prior to commencement Identification of all Disturbance to culturally of works within the area. culturally sensitive sites Exploration Manager significant sites Walk new tracks and drill within the tenement pads prior to “clearing”. No disruption to the Ongoing assessment Disruption to other land normal activities of the through program and Exploration Manager users general public, review at completion. landowners or tourists MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 67
Management Issue Performance Objective Timeframe Responsibility No adverse Assessment 12 months Contamination of soil and contamination of soil or after drilling completed Exploration Manager water water due to exploration or after the wet season. activities Injury to, or detrimental Zero lost time due to effects on the health and Ongoing assessment injuries from employees wellbeing of employees, through program and Exploration Manager and contractors and no other persons at work and review at completion. effect on the public. the public
5.6.2 Performance Reporting
The findings of all monitoring and audit/inspection programs undertaken during each reporting period, including any DPIR corrective actions, are documented above in Section 5.5.
With respect to Performance Objectives identified in 5.6.1 Objectives and Targets: • Findings of the post-drilling Field Inspection conducted by CXO indicate Objectives 1 to 3 were met. • CXO confirms that no adverse health effects or lost time due to injuries (“LTIs”) resulting from drilling and rehabilitation activities (Objectives 4 & 8). • CXO confirms that the conditions and restrictions placed on the company as stipulated in Heritage searches obtained prior to the commencement of field work were adhered to (Objective 5), and • No disruption to the normal activities of the general public, landowners or tourists were identified (Objective 6). Given that some of the performance objectives in 5.6.1 Objectives and Targets involve a 1-year timeframe (including Performance Objectives 1, 2, 3 & 7), and drilling and rehabilitation activities have taken place regularly during the Reporting period, further and on-going monitoring is required by CXO prior to close-out of all work areas. Those areas that are considered ready for close out are identified in the Security Deposit Application which will follow this MMP. Future results and analysis of any relevant data will be presented in subsequent MMP updates or security applications. In respect to threatened species, CXO can confirm the local abundance of Cycad species in EL 29698, as they are throughout the region. However, CXO have not undertaken any form of mapping as the company was able to avoid them through careful planning and access surveying ahead of track/pad implementation. There appears to be several species present, including Armstrong’s Cycad, but discrimination is not simple in respect of regional mapping. To date, CXO has conformed to the Cycad management plan outlined in Section 5.4.5, in respect of access tracks and drill pads. No other threatened species have been identified during the work programs. During the reporting period, CXO undertook contractor Inductions, recording of daily site activities and tool box meetings (via a Daily Diary), rig inspections and incident reporting as required in this MMP. CXO has consulted with workers regarding HSE issues and communicated with staff on a regular basis. Documentation, including Inductions and Daily Diary, is maintained in the CXO HSE system. No reportable environmental incidents or emergencies occurred, as defined in Section 5.7.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 68
5.7 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AND INCIDENT REPORTING
5.7.1 Potential Environmental Emergencies
Table 20: Potential Environmental Emergencies and Associated Requirements
Environmental incident or Responsibility: CXO: CXO: emergency CXO Management actions/ procedures Monitoring and reporting procedures Risk Rating Assessment
To avoid causing outbreak of 1) Clear access tracks of ignition source fire during exploration (grass) prior to program. 1) Liaise with stakeholders in event of activities. 2) Park on clear areas. fire. FIRE To minimise personal safety 3) Field vehicles to carry fire 2) Liaise with Bushfires NT in relation to Risk rating - 5 risk associated with wild extinguisher and shovel. fires. planned burns and in the event of wild 4) Area is prescribed to be burnt by fire. To prevent loss of equipment Bushfires NT each year and if this is due to wild fire. carried out, it will limit bushfire risk.
1) MSDS sheets available for all hydrocarbons used. To avoid hydrocarbon Substantial spillage to be reported to the HYDROCARBON 2) Bulk hydrocarbons stored within self- spillage. CEO, of the NT DPIR in accordance to the (FUEL) SPILLAGE bunded tanks. To contain any hydrocarbon procedures set out in the Guideline at Risk rating - 2 spillage. 3) Hydrocarbon spill kit to be employed the first practical opportunity. in case of hydrocarbon spillage, with appropriate PPE used.
1) Chemicals stored within certified containers and stored in appropriate location. 2) MSDS sheets available for all CHEMICAL To avoid chemical spillage. chemicals used. Substantial spillage not currently SPILLAGE anticipated, owing to a maximum of <1L To contain any chemical 3) Chemical use to be conducted of any chemical to be used for current Risk rating - 1 spillage. according to safe handling procedure, operations. using appropriate PPE. 3) Chemical spillage to be contained, removed for disposal at approved site using appropriate PPE. Maintain awareness for artefacts during earthworks via Fact sheets. Damage to 1) Review AAPA survey. undocumented sites to be reported to To avoid damage or 2) Plan field program to avoid AAPA Heritage Branch of DENR, plus reported SIGNIFICANT destruction of significant and other delineated sites (1km buffer to the CEO, of the NT DPIR in accordance HERITAGE SITES sites (including zone). to the procedures set out in the Risk rating - 1 undocumented heritage Guidelines. Cease work in area if sites) 3) No sites recognised in the work area from DENR heritage register search. suspected site encroached upon, and alert Heritage Branch on 08 89995039 (Darwin) or 89519247 (Alice Springs). 1) Establish drilling sump at drill site if groundwater becomes a problem (on a CONTAINMENT OF To restrict discharge of case by case basis). Substantial damage to be reported to EXCESS GROUND potentially contaminated 2) Contain/direct all ground water flow the CEO, of the NT DPIR in accordance to WATER ground water. to drillhole sump. the procedures set out in the Guidelines Risk rating - 2 To contain all ground water. 3) Contain any additional spillage or at first opportunity. residues and contain within the drill sump.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 69
5.7.2 Emergency Procedures – Safety
CXO’s emergency procedures for this program are outlined in Appendix 9.
5.7.3 Emergency Procedures – Environmental
In the event of an environmental emergency, the following general procedures are to be followed:
1. Ensure the safety of workers and anyone else present. 2. Prevent, control and stop the incident and its impact from spreading 3. Advise the Exploration Manager or Site Geologist and seek their assistance 4. Advise the Chief Executive of the NT DPIR by telephone of the incident and the steps undertaken to mitigate the impact and control the source of the incident if the incident rating is Class 2 or above, according to Guidelines “AT8-006_S29_Reporting_Guideline” (Appendix 7). 5. Record the incident. 6. Submit a written report on Form “CF7-001 Notification of an Environmental Incident” (Appendix 7) to the Chief Executive as soon as practical after assessing the incident 7. Undertake all instructions as issued by the mining officers.
5.7.4 Incident Reporting
Environmental Incidents must be reported to the NT DPIR in accordance with Section 29 of the Mining Management Act.
The appropriate form to report an environmental incident is NT DPIR Form CF7-001, which is included in Appendix 7.
The following guide to Incident assessment and reporting has been sourced from the NT DPIR advisory note AT8-006 “Environmental Incident Reporting”, which is included in Appendix 7.
Incidents likely to be the subject of a Section 29 incident report may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Escape (by any means such as a spill or leak) of a fuel, chemical, product or residue in solid, liquid or gaseous form including fumes, smoke, vapours, contaminated water, or dust; b) Emissions of noise (beyond reasonable permitted levels); c) Uncontrolled or accidental fire on any land, structure or infrastructure; d) Unauthorised, uncontrolled, or both, discharge of controlled waters to surface or ground waters; e) Damage to a Sacred Site, Aboriginal Protected Area, other protected area, archaeological or heritage site; f) Unauthorised mining, whether the activity is undertaken on or off an authorised mining site; g) Unauthorised clearing of vegetation or disturbance of the ground on or off an authorised mining site; and, h) Harm to human well-being.
In accordance with Section 29 of the MMA operators are required to report an environmental incident or serious environmental incident:
(1) As soon as practicable after the operator for a mining site becomes aware of the occurrence of an environmental incident or serious environmental incident on the site, the operator must notify the Chief Executive Officer of the occurrence. MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 70
Section 29 also states:
(2) An operator who gives notice orally must, as soon as practicable after doing so, give a written notice to the Chief Executive Officer.
Operators should also be aware of Section 33 of the MMA, which states:
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person releases waste or a contaminant that is from a mining site; and (b) the release is not authorised by the mining management plan for the site.
5.7.5 Incident Assessment
When assessing an incident and making decisions about reporting on an environmental incident or serious environmental incident an operator should have regard to the definition of “environment” in the MMA.
“Environment” is defined under Section 4 of the MMA as follows:
land, air, water, organisms and ecosystems on a mining site and includes:
(a) the well-being of humans; (b) structures made or modified by humans; (c) the amenity values of the site; and (d) economic, cultural and social conditions.
Operators should conduct an appropriate assessment of the incident in order to determine the severity of the incident and whether the operator will be required to report the incident to the Chief Executive Officer of DPIR. For the purpose of classifying the severity of an incident and determining whether a report is required an operator may be guided by the assessment matrix above.
Operators should also have regard to the obligations set out in Section 16 of the MMA, the conditions of authorisation, the permitted activities and the relevant procedures contained in the operator’s own management plan, including its associated systems.
It is not always necessary for there to have been an environmental impact for the requirement to report an incident to be triggered. The potential for any incident to have an impact on the environment should also be taken into account when considering whether to make a report to the Chief Executive Officer. The definition of “environment” is broad and careful consideration should be given to each aspect of the environment before a determination is made.
5.8 CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION Core Exploration needs to ensure that the WHS Plan and company Policies have been communicated to all workers and that they understand their obligation to cooperate with that policy (via an Induction).
5.8.1 Communication
Communication on WHS matters need to be in place at all levels of the organisation. This is carried out at Core Exploration operations through:
• The induction process • Conducting regular toolbox talks to ensure transfer of information. All workers should attend the project toolbox meetings • Involving our site workers in workplace inspections MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 71
• Having in place hazard reporting systems which allows immediate hazards to be raised outside of regular meetings • Management Review Meetings • Notice Boards & E-mail
5.8.2 Consultation
Consultation between all workers will be facilitated during the development, implementation and regular review of plans, policies, procedures & SWI’s.
The Core Exploration workers are to be consulted regarding the following health and safety matters that could affect their health and safety:
• when identifying hazards and assessing risks to health and safety arising from the work carried out; • when making decisions about ways to eliminate or minimise those risks; • when making decisions about the adequacy of facilities for the welfare of workers; • when proposing changes that may affect the health or safety of workers; • when making decisions about the procedures for— • consulting with workers; • resolving work health or safety issues at the workplace; • monitoring the health of workers; • monitoring the conditions at any workplace; • providing information and training for workers.
Meeting minutes, documentation and other relevant WHS information & communications will be disseminated via notice boards & email.
5.8.3 Health and Safety Representatives
If the workers are represented by a health and safety representative, the consultation must involve that representative.
5.8.4 Reporting
The Exploration Manager will ensure Contract companies who are part of the work force participate in all communication processes undertaken on Core Exploration projects.
This includes reporting of incidents and all necessary information to comply with regulations. This can be completed by the contractor supervisor.
5.8.5 Key Deliverables
• Regular toolbox meetings shall be held and minutes recorded on the toolbox meeting form. • Workers are consulted regarding proposed changes that could affect their health and safety. • Relevant WHS information shall be communicated during meetings, via noticeboards and email.
Relevant WHS information shall be completed and sent through to Core Exploration office for review and recording purposes. 6. EXPLORATION REHABILITATION
CXO is committed to Industry Best Practice in all aspects of field activities. Relevant DPIR guidelines for the avoidance, minimization, mitigation or rehabilitation of environmental impacts during field operations that MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 72 require exploration tracks and drilling are provided in Appendix 7. Various sections of this MMP also outline more site-specific undertakings in this regard.
Disturbance associated with the Exploration drilling programs on EL 30012, EL 30015 and MLN16 to date was subject to rehabilitation as described in this MMP (Section 5.4.6). Utilisation of existing historic mining/exploration tracks was as expected and provided access to many of the prospects in the tenement. Minor pruning of trees was required, and grass root mass was generally left as it was. Newly implemented access tracks have been established where existing tracks did not exist and have received mostly light surface trafficking, but obviously drill rigs and support equipment traversed these at various times. Most of these main tracks have not been closed out yet, as further exploration and rehabilitation is expected in 2019. It is not known if these will require scarification at close out, but over the wet season it was noted that regrowth of vegetation was profound, and some tracks were difficult to recognise. Drill lines implemented for access of the RAB rig across open, lightly vegetated ground required light clearing using blade-up technique in the most part. Certain heavily-vegetated areas required greater disturbance and removal of bushes and grass. Lines were cleared to the minimum width to enable exploration to take place safely. Large trees were generally avoided by constructing lines along a rough corridor, rather than a strict straight path. This was sufficiently accurate for this type of drilling. Minimal rehabilitation was deemed necessary, as the disturbance was not enough to hinder regrowth, in some cases immediately. The entrances to many of these were blocked by vegetation or trees, but others were subtle enough to not warrant any disguising. Recent inspections of lines established in 2017, prior to the wet season, showed that rehabilitation was excellent, and compaction was negligible. Passage of vehicles by the general public, post- rehabilitation, has been remarkably minimal, but most of these areas are inaccessible during the wet season. Drill pads were not required for the RAB holes themselves – the drill line itself was enough for this purpose. Drill pads for the higher-impact RC and RCD drilling were prepared and cleared with minimum possible disturbance to the environment, using blade-up method and clearing the minimum width for safety. Given the high risk of fire in the area, pads were sometimes cleared more intensely to remove all dry vegetation and trip hazards, but in the most part, the root mass of grasses and shrubs were left in place. Rehabilitation associated with holes drilled in the Reporting Period was performed immediately and as per the process detailed in the MMP. Holes were backfilled as much as possible with spoils, but often there were residual spoils that would not fit back down the hole, due largely to collapse of the hole soon after drilling. These spoils were buried in nearby sumps. As per the MMP undertakings, RC and RCD holes were temporarily plugged upon completion until assays results were returned from the laboratory and additional detailed sampling was no longer required. Once the RC hole was deemed completed, sample spoils from the green RC bags were used to backfill the hole. This was found to be largely unsuccessful, because most holes collapse near-surface and limited material could be put back down the hole. Consequently, most of the spoils were buried in the sump before it was filled in and topsoil replaced. As mentioned in the previous MMP this initially raised concerns towards safety and manual handling of the heavy green bags. However, CXO continued to trial different methods and equipment to transport green bags, rather than carrying them and have currently found utilising a Bob-cat to be the most ergonomic and efficient to move spoils to the sump. The PVC collars were cut to >40 cm below ground level and the hole plugged as described for the RAB holes. Once the pad was clear of sample spoils, the sump was infilled with the stored soil, attempting to stratify the sump to a natural profile. Unfortunately, this was not always possible because the top-soil and sub-soil became mixed as the sump was dug, and because the process of pushing the excavated material back into the sump led to mixing of the two components. Storing these separately is generally impractical and leads to greater disturbance when rehabilitation takes place. In any case, many sumps were returned to a natural surface profile with negligible
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 73 visible difference to the surroundings. Revegetation was found to be better where the mixing of soil materials took place, due to the improvement of permeability and surface water storage. None-the-less, CXO will inspect RC pads prior to close-out and determine if rectification is required. Waste or rubbish generated during clearing, drilling or rehabilitation activities was removed from site and disposed of at an appropriate facility. Numerous passes were made of the pads to eliminate the presence of rubbish. CXO also focussed heavily on this aspect during Inductions with the drilling contractor and CXO support staff. Rubbish bags were supplied and regularly emptied. A search was also made for leaked hydrocarbons on the pads, which if found were dug out and disposed of at the Waste station at Shoal Bay or Humpty Doo. Absorbent spill mat was used by the contractors and no bulk fuel was kept at site – a benefit of operating near to refuelling facilities. Accommodation was off-site at commercial facilities. To assess the effectiveness and success of rehabilitation processes, CXO carried out ongoing monitoring of the rehabilitation status of disturbed areas through site inspections, maintaining up-to-date Registers and photographic records (Section 6.1). CXO established unique Environmental Monitoring Sites (“EMS”) at various drill locations and along new and existing tracks prior to earthworks. These were planned to cover a ratio of at least one in ten of the total drillholes, and cover each of the polygons. This enables photographing of the EMS at various points following clearing – after clearing, after drilling/rehabilitation, and 12 months after rehabilitation. The relevant data has been entered into Registers in both a database and spatial form (Appendix 12). CXO can report that EMS account for 14.8% of the holes drilled which is a better outcome than proposed in the Rehabilitation methods. They are also widely spread in the tenement, across all drilling polygons. There is a certain amount of rehabilitation that has not been carried out at present, as detailed in the Registers (Appendix 12) and summarised in Table 22. The following is an explanation: • A number of RC pads and sumps in EL30012 have been left partly-rehabilitated largely due heavy rainfall events at the beginning of November. Even if the ground conditions allowed machinery to be operated in the now boggy areas, attempting to take the equipment used in the rehabilitation process in to these sites would result in extensive damage to tracks. • The RAB line at Bilatos which has incomplete rehabilitation is due to access being lost as a result of the mentioned rainfall events • Some RC PVC collars have been left in place on EL30015 to enable potential re-entry by a drill string, to extend the hole deeper (i.e. a “diamond tail”). These holes are temporarily capped and secure. • Of course, CXO has on-going exploration and is maintaining detailed records of that, which will appear in the next renewal of this MMP. This report is effectively a “snap shot” of the data available at the end of the Reporting Period.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 74
Table 21: Description of Rehabilitation Methods for the Bynoe Project
Disturbance Rehabilitation Activities Schedule (Timing) Closure Objectives / Targets Monitoring Techniques
• Cement plugs at the interface of any significant aquifers encountered • Photograph and record site conditions prior to drilling. • Return drill hole as close as possible to • Photograph and record site conditions immediately • Remove PVC casing >40 cm below surface Within 3 months of Drill holes pre-drilling conditions after rehabilitation. • Backfill hole with cuttings/spoils if possible completion of drilling • All holes filled, plugged and stable • Photograph and record site conditions 12 months after • Plug collar >40 cm below surface rehabilitation. • Cover over collar with top soil • Photograph and record site conditions prior to drilling. • Remove all rubbish and waste from site • Photograph and record site conditions immediately • Spread or rake excess cuttings into soil • Return drill pads as close as possible to Within 3 months of after rehabilitation. Drill pads • If needed, scarify dill pad with bucket combs and pre-drilling conditions completion of drilling • Photograph and record site conditions 12 months after hand tools and distribute any dead vegetation • All drill sites cleaned and rehabilitated. rehabilitation (approximately 1 in 10 drill holes available to encourage regrowth nominated as “environmental monitoring site”). • Photograph and record site conditions prior to drilling. • Remove all rubbish and waste from sump (plastic • Return sumps as close as possible to • Photograph and record site conditions immediately liners will not be used) Within 3 months of pre-drilling conditions including the Sumps after rehabilitation. • Backfill sumps with stockpiled soil, restoring the completion of drilling separate stockpiling and appropriate • original soil horizons replacement of topsoil Photograph and record site conditions 12 months after rehabilitation (environmental monitoring sites). • Remove all rubbish and waste from sites • Photograph and record site conditions prior to drilling. • If needed, scarify tracks with bucket combs and Within 3 months of • Return tracks as close as possible to • Photograph and record site conditions immediately Tracks and hand tools and distribute any dead vegetation completion of drilling pre-drilling conditions. after rehabilitation. Gridlines available to encourage regrowth (unless to be utilised • All tracks prepared for natural • Photograph and record site conditions 12 months after • Block off entrances from public tracks to on the next program) regeneration and stable. rehabilitation (representative sites). discourage use
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 75
6.1 EXPLORATION REHABILITATION RECORDS AND REGISTERS The following registers are in place to monitor the rehabilitation status of disturbances at selected drill holes/pads and selected track points – these are referred to as Environmental Monitoring Sites – “EMS”): • Hole Rehabilitation Register (Appendix 12; Summarised in Table 22) • Track Status Register (Appendix 12; Summarised in Table 23) • Environmental Monitoring Site Register (Appendix 12; Summarised in Table 24) • Each register includes relevant data such as Hole/Site ID, MMP reference, relevant dates to activity, site coordinates, location and status of the site. Appendix 12 contains a copy of the following for the reporting period in the following formats: • PDF copy of Hole Rehabilitation Register, and an associated spatial file; • PDF copy of Track Status Register, associated maps and spatial file showing tracks and status; • PDF copy of Environmental Monitoring Site Photograph Register and spatial file showing EMS locations; • PDF copy of CXO’s Report on Rehabilitation Activities for the 2017-2018 Reporting Period.
Table 22 Breakdown of Hole Rehabilitation status
Calculations in the above table used the drill pad sizes that were cleared, based on approved sizes: • RC pads have one sump and were 500m²; • DDH pads have two sumps and were 500m² Note ATV Auger drilling is not included in the “total” row due to its very low impact and immediate rehab.
Table 23: Breakdown of Track Rehabilitation Status
Bynoe Length of Track Length of existing Length of track kept Length of track Length req rehab Track cleared (km) track utilised (km) open (km) rehabbed (km) (km) Balance end 2017/18 34.38 46.56 12.97 21.02 0.39
(Since tracks continue to be used after the year they were implemented this register will operate as a cumulative total of track status rather than just what occurred during the reporting period.)
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 76
Table 24: Drillhole EMS summary
Environmental Monitoring Sites (EMS) at Drillholes
Total No of No of EMS's % Drillholes at Drillholes
2017-2018 989 146 14.76
6.2 COSTING OF CLOSURE ACTIVITIES For details of the costing for closure activities associated with exploration and post closure management, refer Appendix 10A.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 77
7. REFERENCES
Bamford, M.J. (1988). Kakadu National Park: A Preliminary Survey of Migratory Waders, October/November 1987. RAOU Report Series. 41:1-34. Melbourne: Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union.
Blakers, M., S.J.J.F. Davies & P.N. Reilly (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. Melbourne, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
Braby, M. and Woinarski, J. 2006. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Ogyris iphis doddi. Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts.
Clugston, J.A.R and Nagalingum, N.S. 2016. Conservation genetics of wild populations and botanic garden collections of Australian cycads. Conservation genetics of Australian cycads. Progress Report 19 Apr 2016.
Cogger HG (2000). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia: 6th edition. Reed Books. Melbourne.
Cowie, I. (2015). Personal communication, 19 August 2015. Chief Botanist, Northern Territory Herbarium, Darwin.
Cowie, I. and Kerrigan, R. 2012. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Utricularia singeriana. Department of Land Resource Management.
Cowie, I. and Westaway, J. 2012. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Clausena sp. Tipperary. Department of Land Resource Management.
Cowie, I. and Westaway J. (2012). Threatened Species of the Northern Territory Stylidium ensatum Information Sheet. Department of Land Resource Management Northern Territory. Compiled December 2012.
DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy). 2016. EPBC Act Protected Matters Report. http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/, Accessed 9 September 2016. Australian Government, Canberra. del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., & Sargatal, J., (eds) (1996). Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 3, Hoatzin to Auks. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions
Dixon D., (2004). The Gymnosperms of the Northern Territory. The Beagle, Records of the Museum and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory. 20: 1-24.
DME (NT Department of Industry and Resources), 2016. Mining Management Plan and Public Report Structure Guide for Exploration Operations. Updated 29 August 2016. Northern Territory Government, Darwin, NT.
DoE (Department of the Environment), 2016. Lucasium occultum in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 13 Sep 2016 21:50:52 +1000.
Fisher,A., Mahney, T., Mackay, L., Tynan,C., Dostine, P., Young, S. and Fegan, M. (2011). Assessmentof the terrestrial vertebratefauna of theWeddell area. Final Report, July 2011.
Fraser, F.J. (2001). The impacts of fire and grazing on the Partridge Pigeon: the ecological requirements of a declining tropical granivore. PhD thesis. Australian National University, Canberra.
Hempel, C.J., (2003). The application of Landsat imagery to land cover mapping in the greater Darwin region. Technical report number 74, ISBN 1 9207 7217 0. Biodiversity Unit, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Darwin.
Hill, K. and Osborne R. (2001). Cycads of Australia. Kangaroo Press, Sydney.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 78
Hill, K.D. (1996). A taxomomic revision of the genus Cycas (Cycadaceae) in Australia. Telopea 7: 1-63.
Jones, D.L. (2002). Cycads of the World. 2nd Edition. Reed. Sydney, NSW.
Kerrigan, R. and Cowie, I. 2006. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Monochoria hastata. Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts.
Kerrigan, R. and Cowie, I. 2012. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Utricularia dunstaniae. Department of Land Resource Management.
Kerrigan, R., Cowie, I. and Liddle, D. 2006. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Cycas armstrongii. Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts.
Liddle, D.T. (2004) The ecology of Cycas armstrongii and management of fire in Australia’s tropical savannas. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory.
Liddle, D.T. (2009). Management Program for Cycads in the Northern Territory of Australia 2009-2014. Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, Darwin.
Marchant, S. & P.J. Higgins, eds. (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 2 - Raptors to Lapwings. Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.
NR Maps. 2017. NR Maps Database, http://nrmaps.nt.gov.au/. Accessed 3 August 2017. NT Government, Darwin.
NRETAS, (2008). Darwin Harbour Sites of Conservation Significance (SOCS) Factsheet. NT Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport.
NRM Infonet. 2017. NT NRM Report. http://www.infonet.org.au/infonet2/#. Accessed 3 August 2017.
Origin Energy (2014). Cycas megacarpa Management and Translocation Plan. Origin Energy.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2015b, Threatened Species Status Assessment Manual, Department of the Environment, online (28 July 2015).
Ward, S. 2012b. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Varanus mitchelli. Department of Land Resource Management.
Ward. S., Woinarski, J., Griffiths, T. and McKay, L. 2006. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Varanus mertensi. Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts.
Ward. S., Woinarski, J., Griffiths, T. and McKay, L. 2012. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Varanus panoptes. Department of Land Resource Management.
Woinarski JCZ (2004). ‘National multi-species 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 novaehollandiae kimberli; and Masked Owl [Tiwi Islands subspecies] Tyto novaehollandiae melvillensis, 2004–2009’. Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Darwin.
Woinarski, J. and Ward, S. 2012. Threatened Species of the Northern Territory – Masked Owl (north Australian mainland subspecies) Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli. Department of Land Resource Management.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 79
8. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
TERM MEANING Audit Means any systematic investigation or appraisal of procedures or operations for the purpose of determining conformity with prescribed procedures. Bynoe Project Tenements EL29699, EL30012, EL30015, MLN16 CEO Means the Chief Executive Officer, within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, of the Agency administering this Act. CXO Core Exploration Ltd Contractor Means a person who under a contract performs work or supplies a service in connection with an exploration activity on a site. Critical Incidents Means an event on a mining site that has the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. Emergency Response A plan for the minimisation of environmental harm in the event of an emergency. Employee Means a person employed by a company. Environment Means land, air, water, organisms and ecosystems on a site and includes: • the well-being of humans; • structures made or modified by humans; • the amenity values of the site; and • economic, cultural and social conditions Environmental Aspects The elements of an organisations activities or products or services that can interact with the environment. Environmental Impacts Any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organisation’s environmental aspects. Hazardous Material A substance having properties capable of having adverse effects on the environment. Issues An important topic of discussion or point in question i.e. management of risk. HSE Health, Safety & Environment MMA Mining Management Act. MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet. It is provided by manufacturer or supplier of hazardous materials, and describes the properties and nature of the material. Operator Means the operator for a mining site referred to in Mining Management Act Section 10. Plant Includes machinery, pressure vessels, equipment, appliances, implements, scaffolding and tools, any component of the plant and anything fitted or connected to the plant. Serious Accidents Means an event on a site that causes material environmental harm.
MMP – Bynoe Project ELs 29699 30012 30015 & MLN16 - Renewal November 2018 80