Tarcoola Gold Project Mining Proposal for Mineral Lease ...

Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd (a 100% owned subsidiary of WPG Resources Ltd)Tarcoola Gold ProjectMining Proposal for Mineral Lease ApplicationAugust 2015

Document information

Client: Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd (a 100% owned subsidiary of WPG Resources Ltd)Title: Tarcoola Gold ProjectSubtitle: Mining Proposal for Mineral Lease ApplicationDocument No: 14-0312-04-2200005ADate: 6 August 2015

Rev Date Details

00 20/02/2015 Draft

01 06/03/2015 Revised Draft



04 06/08/2015 Final

Author, Reviewer and Approver details

Prepared by: Alex Eadie Date: 06/08/2015 Signature:

Reviewed by: Alex Eadie Date: 06/08/2015 Signature:

Approved by: Geoff Sampson Date: 06/08/2015 Signature:

Distribution

Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd (a 100% owned subsidiary of WPG Resources Ltd), Parsons Brinckerhoff file

©Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Limited 2015

Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded in this document (the information) is the property of ParsonsBrinckerhoff. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this documentmay not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied byParsons Brinckerhoff. Parsons Brinckerhoff makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts noresponsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.

Document owner

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty LimitedABN 80 078 004 798Level 14 1 King William StreetAdelaide SA 5000GPO Box 398Adelaide SA 5001AustraliaTel: +61 8 8405 4300Fax: +61 8 8405 4301www.pbworld.comCertified to ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001

Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd (a 100% owned subsidiary of WPG Resources Ltd) Tarcoola Gold ProjectMining Proposal for Mineral Lease Application

Parsons Brinckerhoff | 14-0312-04-2200005A i

ContentsPage number

Abbreviations and definitions x

Measurements and symbols xiii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Declaration of accuracy 1

1.2 General description and location of project 1

1.3 Proponent details 5

1.4 Project history 5

1.5 Exploration licences and land tenure 6

1.6 Purpose and report structure 11

2. Legislative framework 12

2.1 South Australian legislation 12

2.2 Commonwealth legislation 19

3. Description of the existing environment 20

3.1 Local community 20

3.2 Land use 26

3.3 Proximity to infrastructure and housing 30

3.4 Amenity 33

3.5 Noise and vibration, dust, air quality 34

3.6 Topography and landscape 38

3.7 Climate and meteorology 41

3.8 Geohazards 44

3.9 Hydrology 51

3.10 Groundwater 53

3.11 Flora and fauna 65

3.12 Topsoil and subsoil 76

3.13 Heritage 77

3.14 Proximity to conservation areas 82

3.15 Pre-existing site contamination and disturbance 82


ii 14-0312-04-2200005A | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Contents (Continued)

Page number

4. Description of operations 90

4.1 General description and summary 90

4.2 Geology and mineral resources 92

4.3 Exploration activities 109

4.4 Mining plan 113

4.5 Mining operations 117

4.6 Heap leach and processing plant overview 123

4.7 Heap leach operation 132

4.8 Wastes 149

4.9 Stockpiles 158

4.10 Supporting surface infrastructure 160

4.11 Resource inputs 164

4.12 Greenhouse gas emissions 166

5. Description of potential benefits 169

5.1 Social 169

5.2 Economic 170

5.3 Environmental 171

6. Stakeholder consultation 172

6.1 Objectives 172

6.2 Approach 172

6.3 Stakeholder identification 172

6.4 Consultation undertaken 173

6.5 Tarcoola Gold Project issues appreciation 179

6.6 Ongoing consultation 179

7. Environmental components 181

7.1 Methodology 181

7.2 Vegetation 184

7.3 Fauna 201

7.4 Weeds, pests (animals) and pathogens 211

7.5 Groundwater 217

7.6 Surface water 230


Parsons Brinckerhoff | 14-0312-04-2200005A iii

Contents (Continued)

Page number

7.7 ARD 243

7.8 Air quality 254

7.9 Noise 268

7.10 Soil and land disturbance 276

7.11 Traffic 283

7.12 Aboriginal and European heritage 287

7.13 Visual amenity 293

7.14 Radiation, asbestiform minerals and silica 297

7.15 Waste (commercial and industrial) 301

7.16 Blasting 306

7.17 Public safety 311

7.18 Land use, third party property and infrastructure 315

7.19 Consolidated summary of draft outcomes and measurement criteria 322

8. Mine closure and post completion 331

8.1 Introduction 331

8.2 Objectives 331

8.3 Context 331

8.4 Stakeholder involvement and issues 332

8.5 Scope and description of closure domains 332

8.6 Closure strategies – proposed ML 335

8.7 Environmental risk assessment current disturbance (historical workings ML4650,ML4667, ML5179 and ML5300) 360

8.8 Post completion outcomes and completion criteria 364

8.9 Post-completion landform 394

8.10 Post completion monitoring 394

8.11 Mine completion schedule 394

9. Management systems and capability 396

9.1 Commitment and leadership 396

9.2 Organisation, resources and documentation 400

10. References 401


iv 14-0312-04-2200005A | Parsons Brinckerhoff

List of tablesPage number

Table 1.1 Tarcoola Gold contact details 5Table 1.2 Land ownership in Tarcoola 8Table 2.1 Other relevant legislation and policies related to the project 16Table 3.1 ABS 2006 and 2011 – Regional population 22Table 3.2 Accident data – Stuart Highway (Port Augusta to Coober Pedy) 31Table 3.3 Accident data – Glendambo to Tarcoola road 31Table 3.4 Current average daily traffic volumes 31Table 3.5 Approved heavy vehicle routes 32Table 3.6 Operator attended day time noise survey results 34Table 3.7 Historical meteorological data for Tarcoola Aerodrome (station number 016098)

weather station (1997 to 2014) and ARI chart 43Table 3.8 Average seasonal and annual change relative to 1990 44Table 3.9 Information on operational pastoral bores 55Table 3.10 Summary of tested wells 60Table 3.11 Slug testing results 61Table 3.12 Test pumping analysis summary 63Table 3.13 Water quality 63Table 3.14 Vegetation associations, condition rating and number of hectares recorded 69Table 3.15 Terrestrial mammal species recorded (autumn and spring) 73Table 4.1 Key project characteristics 90Table 4.2 Project components and footprints 91Table 4.3 JORC Mineral Resource for Tarcoola Gold Project 98Table 4.4 Production rates 98Table 4.5 Acid forming potential classification criteria 100Table 4.6 Acid forming potential screening test results 101Table 4.7 Results of chemical analysis and GAI values for rock samples 103Table 4.8 Waste rock volumes 108Table 4.9 LOM In-situ material movement summary 113Table 4.10 Proposed bench slope angles 116Table 4.11 Annual explosive tonnages 118Table 4.12 Adopted analytical parameters 120Table 4.13 Likely groundwater inflow into Perseverance open pit 123Table 4.14 Process plant annual reagent and consumable use 130Table 4.15 Heap leach operating parameters 132Table 4.16 Heap leach pad liner details 133Table 4.17 Size of heap leach ponds 134Table 4.18 Shear strength parameters 134Table 4.19 Summary of factors of safety 138Table 4.20 Total waste rock production schedule 150Table 4.21 PAF rock types mined within Tarcoola Schedule 150Table 4.22 Shear strength parameters 151Table 4.23 Topsoil and subsoil stockpile details 159Table 4.24 Workforce breakdown 164Table 4.25 Summary of 1987 test production borefield 165Table 4.26 Total Scope 1 emissions during clearing, construction and operation 167Table 4.27 Scope 3 emissions during construction and operation 167Table 6.1 Stakeholder identification 173Table 6.2 Tarcoola Gold project consultation tools 174Table 6.3 Government agency meetings 175Table 6.4 Directly impacted landowner issues 177


Parsons Brinckerhoff | 14-0312-04-2200005A v

List of tables (continued)

Page number

Table 6.5 Stakeholder and community issues 177Table 6.6 Aboriginal liaison 179Table 6.7 Ongoing consultation approach 180Table 7.1 Likelihood categories 182Table 7.2 Severity/consequences 182Table 7.3 Risk determination and categories 183Table 7.4 Impact event analysis – vegetation 185Table 7.5 Vegetation disturbance footprint 186Table 7.6 Risk assessment – vegetation 190Table 7.7 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – vegetation 194Table 7.8 Significant environmental benefit (SEB) calculations – using weighted average for

SEB value 197Table 7.9 Impact event analysis – fauna 202Table 7.10 Risk assessment – fauna 206Table 7.11 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – fauna 210Table 7.12 Impact event analysis – weeds, pests and pathogens 212Table 7.13 Risk assessment – weeds, pests (animals) and pathogens 214Table 7.14 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – weeds, pests and pathogens 216Table 7.15 Impact event analysis – groundwater 218Table 7.16 Information on pastoral bores 223Table 7.17 Risk assessment – groundwater 226Table 7.18 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – groundwater 229Table 7.19 Groundwater monitoring program 229Table 7.20 Impact event analysis – surface water 230Table 7.21 Risk assessment – surface water 234Table 7.22 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – surface water 240Table 7.23 Impact event analysis – ARD 244Table 7.24 Risk assessment – ARD 248Table 7.25 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – ARD 252Table 7.26 Adopted baseline air quality concentrations 254Table 7.27 Ambient air quality goals 255Table 7.28 Impact event analysis – air quality 255Table 7.29 Total Scope 1 emissions during clearing, construction and operation 257Table 7.30 Risk assessment – air quality 260Table 7.31 Predicted impact for maximum 24 hour average PM10 concentrations for all

scenarios (µg/m3) 262Table 7.32 Predicted impact for maximum 24 hour average and annual average PM2.5

concentrations for scenarios 1 and 3 (µg/m3) 265Table 7.33 Predicted impact for annual average TSP concentrations for all scenarios (µg/m3) 265Table 7.34 Predicted impact for monthly deposited dust for all scenarios (g/m2/month) 266Table 7.35 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – air quality 267Table 7.36 Sensitive receiver information 268Table 7.37 Impact event analysis – noise 270Table 7.38 Risk assessment – noise 272Table 7.39 Predicted construction noise emission levels 273Table 7.40 Predicted operational noise emission levels 274Table 7.41 Impact event analysis – Soil and land disturbance 277Table 7.42 Risk assessment – Soil and land disturbance 280Table 7.43 Environmental outcomes and measurement criteria – soil and land disturbance 282Table 7.44 Impact event analysis – Traffic 284


vi 14-0312-04-2200005A | Parsons Brinckerhoff

List of tables (continued)

Page number

Table 7.45 Risk assessment – traffic impacts 285Table 7.46 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – traffic 286Table 7.47 Impact event analysis – Heritage 288Table 7.48 Risk assessment – Aboriginal, European and geological heritage 290Table 7.49 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – Aboriginal, European and geological

heritage 292Table 7.50 Impact event analysis – visual amenity 293Table 7.51 Risk assessment – visual amenity 295Table 7.52 Impact event analysis – Radiation, asbestiform and silica minerals 298Table 7.53 Risk acceptance – asbestiform minerals 299Table 7.54 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – asbestiform materials 300Table 7.55 Impact event analysis – waste 302Table 7.56 Risk assessment – waste 304Table 7.57 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – waste 305Table 7.58 Impact event analysis – Blasting 306Table 7.59 Risk assessment – Blasting 309Table 7.60 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – blasting 310Table 7.61 Impact event analysis – Public safety 311Table 7.62 Risk assessment – public safety 313Table 7.63 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – public safety 314Table 7.64 Impact event analysis – land use, third party property and infrastructure 316Table 7.65 Risk assessment – adjacent land use, third party property and infrastructure 319Table 7.66 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – adjacent land use, third party property

and infrastructure 321Table 7.67 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria for construction, operation and closure 322Table 8.1 Closure strategies for closure of Domain 2 (conceptual) 340Table 8.2 Closure strategies for closure of Domain 3 (conceptual) 343Table 8.3 Closure strategies for closure of Domain 4 (conceptual) 344Table 8.4 Materials balance for the conceptual cover of Domains 2, 3 and 4 350Table 8.5 Summary of potential impacts, draft outcome and measurement criteria current

disturbance (historical workings ML4650, ML4667, ML5179 and ML5300) 360Table 8.6 Summary of potential impacts after mine closure 363Table 8.7 Risk assessment – Post completion 365Table 8.8 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria 388Table 8.9 Monitoring activities – rehabilitation and post completion 394Table 8.10 Rehabilitation strategy and schedule 394


Parsons Brinckerhoff | 14-0312-04-2200005A vii

List of figuresPage number

Figure 1.1 Tarcoola Gold Project location 2Figure 1.2 Proposed Mineral Lease and Project layout 3Figure 1.3 Location of mining leases and mineral claim 7Figure 1.4 Land ownership 9Figure 3.1 ABS Glendambo region 21Figure 3.2 Noise monitoring locations and receptors 35Figure 3.3 Regional topography and surface water catchments 39Figure 3.4 Project area and surface water catchments 40Figure 3.5 Annual and seasonal wind roses for Tarcoola Aerodrome weather station (2010) 42Figure 3.6 Earthquake locations 45Figure 3.7 Earthquake hazard map 47Figure 3.8 Kingoonya Palaeochannel and sediment thickness 54Figure 3.9 Location of existing groundwater wells 57Figure 3.10 Pre-mining standing water levels and indicative groundwater contours 59Figure 3.11 Location of investigation groundwater wells 62Figure 3.12 Piper tri-linear plot of major cations and anions 65Figure 3.13 Vegetation monitoring locations 67Figure 3.14 Threatened flora and fauna (region) 68Figure 3.15 Vegetation condition – operations area 71Figure 3.16 European heritage sites 79Figure 3.17 Location of geologic monuments and conservation areas 83Figure 3.18 Location of site contamination investigations 87Figure 4.1 Project layout 93Figure 4.2 Regional geology 94Figure 4.3 Site geology 96Figure 4.4 Perseverance east-west cross section 6602 800 N 97Figure 4.5 Perseverance north-south cross section 454 860 E 97Figure 4.6 Acid-base account plot and geochemical classification by rock type 105Figure 4.7 Total sulphur versus sulphide sulphur and total sulphur versus NAPP 106Figure 4.8 Significant intersection from the Wondergraph Area, labelled in yellow (TARC-

series) (the pale yellow transparency marks the outline of a calcrete anomaly) 110Figure 4.9 Distribution of drilling over the Tarcoola Blocks Reef systems and location of

historical tailings (down-hole gold assay values are shown in plan view along thehole trace) 111

Figure 4.10 Regional exploration targets on EL5355, showing calcrete sample sites andassociated anomalies, and target corridors defined through structural modellingand fluid flow studies 112

Figure 4.11 Tarcoola conceptual open pit design (plan view) 114Figure 4.12 Tarcoola conceptual open pit design (perspective) 114Figure 4.13 Blast exclusion zone 118Figure 4.14 Predicted area of influence from pit dewatering 121Figure 4.15 Predicted drawdown levels from pit dewatering 122Figure 4.16 Process flow sheet 126Figure 4.17 Geochemical conditions in heap leach operations (NICNAS 2012) 131Figure 4.18 Typical cross-section of heap leach pad 133Figure 4.19 Heap leach and processing plant footprint 135Figure 4.20 Heap leach water balance 137Figure 4.21 Stability of heap leach stockpile at completion – shallow surface failure with static

loading conditions 139


viii 14-0312-04-2200005A | Parsons Brinckerhoff

List of figures (continued)

Page number

Figure 4.22 Stability of heap leach stockpile – failure along HDPE liner with static loadingconditions 140

Figure 4.23 Stability of heap leach stockpile – failure through foundations with static loadingconditions 141

Figure 4.24 Stability of heap leach stockpile – shallow surface failure with 0.04 g seismicloading conditions 142

Figure 4.25 Stability of heap leach stockpile – failure along HDPE liner with 0.04 g seismicloading conditions 143

Figure 4.26 Stability of heap leach stockpile – failure through foundations with 0.04g seismicloading conditions 144

Figure 4.27 Cumulative volume for WRF construction at Tarcoola 151Figure 4.28 Waste rock factor of safety for static loading 152Figure 4.29 Waste rock factor of safety for 0.04 g earthquake loading 153Figure 4.30 Cross section of WRF at northing 6602950N (MGAZ53) 154Figure 7.1 Vegetation monitoring locations 195Figure 7.2 Predicted cumulative impacts for monthly deposited dust for Year 1 (g/m2/month) 199Figure 7.3 Predicted cumulative impacts for monthly deposited dust for Year 3 (g/m2/month) 200Figure 7.4 Location of pastoral bores, drawdown area of influence and monitoring locations 219Figure 7.5 Cross section alignment 220Figure 7.6 Cross sections 221Figure 7.7 Surface water monitoring 241Figure 7.8 Predicted cumulative impacts for maximum 24 hour average PM10 for Year 1

(µg/m3) 263Figure 7.9 Predicted cumulative impacts for maximum 24 hour average PM10 for Year 3

(µg/m3) 264Figure 7.10 Blast exclusion zone 308Figure 8.1 Closure domains 333Figure 8.2 Machine dump state heritage area 337Figure 8.3 Geologist’s well, North and Well No. 2 state heritage areas 338Figure 8.4 Safety signage 339Figure 8.5 Bund location for open pit wall in weathered and unweathered rock 340Figure 8.6 Approximate location of abandonment bund (shown in white) around the

Perseverance and Last Resource Open Pits 342Figure 8.7 Conceptual cover for WRF and spent heap leach stockpile 348Figure 8.8 Site layout after closure and rehabilitation 351Figure 8.9 Cross section A post closure 352Figure 8.10 Cross section B post closure 353Figure 8.11 Cross section C post closure 354Figure 8.12 Cross section D post closure 355Figure 8.13 Cross section E post closure 356Figure 8.14 View looking north from railway line at Tarcoola (Perseverance pit visible) 358Figure 8.15 View of final landforms looking SE from railway line (Perseverance pit visible) 359


Parsons Brinckerhoff | 14-0312-04-2200005A ix

List of photographsPage number

Photo 3.1 Tarcoola Ridge viewed from the southwest 33Photo 3.2 Noise monitoring 37Photo 3.3 Minor planar slope failure on southern side of Tarcoola Ridge 49Photo 3.4 Surface cover of colluvium 52Photo 3.5 Stormwater culvert through railway embankment south of project site 52Photo 3.6 Headframe from 1980s 85Photo 3.7 Former tailings/heap leach pads 86Photo 3.8 Mullock from mine adit with sulphide staining 89Photo 4.1 Typical layout of heap leaching operations 124Photo 4.2 Grasshopper conveyor 125Photo 4.3 Typical agglomeration and stacking operation 128Photo 8.1 Existing landscape at Tarcoola 349

List of appendicesAppendix A Tarcoola Gold Project – Noise and vibration assessmentAppendix B Tarcoola Gold Project – Preliminary soil investigation and geotechnical

investigationAppendix C Tarcoola Gold Project – Tarcoola groundwater assessmentAppendix D EBS Flora and fauna reportsAppendix E Austral Archaeology Pty Ltd – Heritage assessmentAppendix F Tarcoola Gold Project – Initial acid rock drainage assessmentAppendix G PSM ReportAppendix H Tarcoola Heap Leach processing studyAppendix I Tarcoola Gold Project – Greenhouse gas assessmentAppendix J Risk assessment registerAppendix K Tarcoola Gold Project – Air quality impact assessment


x 14-0312-04-2200005A | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Abbreviations and definitionsAbbreviations Definition

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

AHD Australian Height Datum

ALA Atlas of Living Australia

ALARP as low as reasonably practicable

AMD acid mine drainage

AMG Australian Map Grid coordinate

AN/HANFO ammonium nitrate/heavy ammonium nitrate fuel oil

ANFO ammonium nitrate fuel oil

ANZECC Australian New Zealand Guidelines for Water Quality

ARD Acid Rock Drainage

AS Australian standard

BIF banded iron formation

BHP Broken Hill Proprietary

BoM Bureau of Meteorology

DAC Development Assessment Commission

DoD Department of Defence

DD diamond drilling

DDG dust deposit gauge

DEWNR Department of Environment. Water and Natural Resources

SEWPaC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

DMITRE Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (now DSD)

DPTI Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

DSD Department of State Development

ECG (Whyalla) Environment Consultation Group

EH Ecological Horizons

EL Exploration Licence

EML Extractive Mineral Lease

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EMS Environmental Management System

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation

ESR Environmental and Social Responsibility


Parsons Brinckerhoff | 14-0312-04-2200005A xi

Abbreviations Definition

Fe Iron

FEL front-end loader

FDR Fugitive Dust Ranking

FY financial year

GCMP Ground Control Management Plan

GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem

GDP gross domestic product

HDPE high density polyethylene

HE high explosives

HGO high grade ore

HV heavy vehicle

IBRA Interim Bio-geographical Regionalisation for Australia

ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement

LFA Landscape Function Analysis

LGO low grade ore

LoM life of mine

MARP Mining and Rehabilitation Program

MC Mineral Claim

MIC mass instantaneous charge

MIK Multiple Indicator Kriging

MGO medium grade ore

ML Mineral Lease

MLA Mineral Lease application

MMU manned manoeuvring unit (i.e. an explosives truck)

MPL Miscellaneous Purpose Licence

MPLA Miscellaneous Purpose Licence application

NAF Non Acid Forming

NGO non-government organisations

NNTT National Native Title Tribunal

NPW National Parks and Wildlife

NRM Natural Resource Management

NVC Native Vegetation Council

OCA Outback Communities Authority

OL Licence to Occupy

PEPR Program for Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation


xii 14-0312-04-2200005A | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Abbreviations Definition

PAF Potential Acid Forming

PIRSA Department of Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia

RC reverse circulation

ROM run of mine

RC reverse circulation

SA South Australia or South Australian

SAAL South Australian Arid Lands

SANTS South Australian Native Title Services

SACOME SA Chamber of Mines and Energy

SAGRN SA Government Radio Network

SANTS South Australian Native Title Services

SARIG South Australian Resource Information Geoserver

SEB significant environmental benefit

SES SA State Emergency Services

TMP Traffic Management Plan

U-Th uranium-thorium

UHF ultra-high frequency

WDE Water Dependent Ecosystem

WGS World Geodetic System coordinate

WRF waste rock facility

4WD four-wheel drive


Parsons Brinckerhoff | 14-0312-04-2200005A xiii

Measurements and symbolsUnit Definition

B375 a Habitat Significance Rating for a vegetation community, as compared with original vegetation

BCM bank cubic metre(s)

Cfm cubic feet per minute

dBL decibels

FY financial year

Ha Hectares

kBCM kilo bank cubic metre(s)

kL Kilolitre

kL/d kilolitres per day

Km Kilometre

Kt Kilotonnes

kV Kilovolt

l Litre

L/t litre per tonne

M Metre

m3/h cubic metres per hour

mBCM million bank cubic metre

mBGL metres below ground level

mg/L milligrams per litre

ML megalitre

mm Millimetres

mm/s millimetres per second

mRL metres reduced level

Mt million tonnes

Mtpa million tonnes per annum

MVA megavolt ampere

PN pressure nominal

Psi pounds per square inch

Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 financial quarters 1, 2, 3 and 4

RL reduced level

S/R strip/ratio

TDS total dissolved solids

SWL standing water levels


2 14-0312-04-2200005A | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Figure 1.1 Tarcoola Gold Project location

Tarcoola Gold is applying for a Mineral Lease (ML) over the area for the mine and primary infrastructure(Figure 1.2). Project components within the ML area will include the open pit, crushing facilities, a heap leachpile, gold processing plant, waste rock storage, accommodation village and other minor infrastructure(Figure 1.2).

The initial project will involve a 250,000 tpa open pit mining operation with a maximum depth of about 110 mbelow surface.

Subject to approvals and funding, site works are projected to commence in early 2016 and mining inmid-2016. The project has a projected mine life of 4 years.

Data Source: DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map No: 2200005A_GIS_026_C

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 250 500

Metres Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 1.2

Proposed Mineral Lease and Project layout

Last Resource

PerseveranceWaste Rock Dump

Heap LeachProcessing

Gold Process Plant

Administration offices and workshopCrushing Plant

ROM PadHaul Road and Access

AccommodationCamp Airstrip

TARCOOLA

Production water boreSite layout featureHaul and access roadRoadTrack/roadRailWater pipeline access trackWater pipelineNextgen fibre optic cableTelstra cableProposed mineral lease boundary

Haul and access roadROMOfficesCrusher and agglomerateCamp areaHard standSubsoil stockpileTopsoil stockpileWater alignmentPondHeap leach processingPit outlineWaste rock dump

1:25,000

Date: 28/07/2015Scale correct when printed at A3 Landscape

Projection: Transverse MercatorCoordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 53

www.pbworld.com

© Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd ("PB") Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded("the information") is the property of PB. This document and the information are solely for the use of theauthorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for anypurpose other than that which it was supplied by PB. PB makes no representation, undertakes no dutyand accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.NCSI Certified Quality System to ISO 9001. © APPROVED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ParsonsBrinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd.

WPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_026_C.mxd


Parsons Brinckerhoff | 14-0312-04-2200005A 5

1.3 Proponent detailsTarcoola Gold Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of WPG Resources Limited (WPG) which is listed on theAustralian Stock Exchange (ASX:WPG). WPG is an Australian mineral resources company with explorationprojects in South Australia.

Contact details for Tarcoola Gold are provided in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Tarcoola Gold contact details

Contact person Contact address

Name Martin Jacobsen

Position Managing Director & CEO

Phone 02 9251 1044

Fax 02 9247 3434

Email [email protected]

1.4 Project historyIn May 2014, WPG announced an agreement to acquire the Tarcoola Gold Project from MunganaGoldmines. Under the terms of the agreement, WPG acquired Mungana’s subsidiary company Tunkillia GoldPty Ltd with the following assets:

n Mineral Leases ML4650, ML4667, ML5179 and ML5300n the rights to explore for and exploit gold, silver, and copper within EL5355 (with Tarcoola Iron, a

subsidiary of Stellar Resources, remaining the registered holder)n the rights to explore for and exploit all commodities within a designated area of EL5355, referred to as

the “Exclusive Area”.

The existing leases and mineral claim (MC 4376) that covers the project is shown in Figure 1.3.

The Tarcoola goldfield was discovered in 1893 and produced 77,000 ounces of gold at an average grade of37.5 g/t by small scale underground mining targeting mineralised narrow vein quartz lodes. Major producingmines included Tarcoola Blocks, Perseverance, Welcome Home and Curdnatta.

Gold production was mainly from auriferous quartz veins that cross carbonaceous siltstone and interbeddedquartzite of the Palaeo-Proterozoic Tarcoola Formation. Gold was also mined from the adjacent Hiltaba Suitegranite which is generally considered to be the source of mineralisation.

At Perseverance and Tarcoola Blocks there is substantial surface evidence of former mining, includingcosteans, vertical shafts, inclined shafts and stoping and other workings which have broken through to thesurface. The Tarcoola Blocks area also has a headframe, last used as part of an exploration andunderground development program in the 1980s and small tailings dams/heap leach operations.

Other local mining areas and prospects include Wondergraph, Soyuz, Boomerang and Warburton.

The Tarcoola district was not tested by drilling until 1985. Exploration by BHP and later by GrenfellResources established a measured resource of 620,000 tonnes containing 3.0 g/t Au from the Perseveranceprospect, and total indicated and inferred resource of 220,000 tonnes at 1.6 g/t Au for the adjacent LastResource prospect.

mailto:[email protected]



A drilling program at the Perseverance and Last Resource deposits at Tarcoola was completed by MunganaGoldmines in December 2012 and resulted in a Resource Estimate of 0.97 million tonnes at 3.12 grams pertonne containing 97,500 oz of gold. Tarcoola Gold has relied on the JORC figures calculated for MunganaGoldmines by H & S Consultants.

1.5 Exploration licences and land tenure

1.5.1 Tenements

The proposed Mineral Lease (ML) has an area of 724.8 ha and is situated completely within EL 5355(Figure 1.1).

EL 5355 was owned by Tarcoola Iron Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Stellar Resource Limited (SRZ)which is a company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. Under an “Exploration & DevelopmentAgreement” with Tarcoola Iron Pty Ltd whereby Tunkillia Gold Pty Ltd had the right to explore and developgold, silver and copper projects within EL 5355, and in relation to an area described as the “exclusive area”,the right to explore for and develop for all minerals. Tunkillia Gold Pty Ltd has assigned its rights to TarcoolaGold. Tarcoola Gold recently purchased EL5355 from Tarcoola Iron Pty Ltd and the transfer of the tenementis awaiting ministerial approval.

WPG acquired Tunkillia Gold Pty Ltd from Mungana Goldmines Limited. At the time of acquisition a numberof existing historical Mineral Leases were in the process of being transferred into the name of Tunkillia GoldPty Ltd and this process was completed post acquisition. As a result of this transfer the South AustralianDepartment of State Development (DSD) reviewed the MLs and bond conditions and a revised bond wasposted by Tunkillia Gold Pty Ltd in relation to these four MLs. The existing mining leases are ML4650,ML4667, ML5179 and ML5300 (as shown in Figure 1.3). These four MLs cover the historic Tarcoola Blockmining area and have some European archaeological heritage value with certain areas being declared StateHeritage Areas (see Figure 1.3). The MC encompassed these MLs.

WPG incorporated a new wholly owned subsidiary company, Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd (Tarcoola Gold), to holdits interests in the Tarcoola Gold Project. Consent was granted by Tarcoola Iron Pty Ltd for the MCapplication to be made by Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd rather than Tunkillia Gold Pty Ltd. As a consequence of thisdecision Tunkillia Gold Pty Ltd withdrew its MC application and Tarcoola Gold has subsequently sought andreceived approval to peg a Mineral Claim in excess of 250ha (Figure 1.3). MC 4376 was granted on 9 April2014.

At the bequest of DSD, Tunkillia Gold Pty Ltd has elected to transfer the existing four MLs into the name ofTarcoola Gold. DSD has determined that this transfer will not trigger any change in the lease or bondconditions given that these were both altered recently when these MLs were transferred into the name ofTunkillia Gold Pty Ltd. It is the intent of Tarcoola Gold to relinquish these four MLs as a condition precedentto the grant of the new larger ML to Tarcoola Gold which will encompass the area of these four existing MLs.DSD has confirmed that the existing bond held over these four tenements will be credited against the newbond required for the new ML which includes the area covered by these four existing MLs.

Tarcoola Gold does not intend to undertake mining within these tenements. Information on the proposedrehabilitation of ML4650, 4667, 5179 and 5300 is included in Section 8.



Figure 1.3 Location of mining leases and mineral claim

1.5.2 Land ownership

The project area is wholly located within land classified as “unoccupied Crown land, Tarcoola Township” andis mainly surrounded by the Coladding (CL1605/68) and Pinding (CL1275/42) Crown Leases which form partof the greater Wilgena Station (Figure 1.4). These leases were granted by the Crown for pastoral activitiessuch as sheep and cattle grazing. A condition of the Crown lease is that the lessee must allow access to theland by authorised persons (those holding mineral tenements) to carry out exploration and miningoperations. The Mulgathing pastoral lease is located west of the project site and Tarcoola township.

The closest housing structures are located on the western side of Tarcoola township (Figure 1.4) andTable 1.2. There are no permanent residents in Tarcoola and some of the houses are used infrequently byexploration personnel, the majority of the houses and buildings are dilapidated and not fit for habitation.



Table 1.2 Land ownership in Tarcoola

Certificate of title Ownership Proposed mining activity

CT5382/722 Tarcoola Gold Nil

CT5405/490 Giovanni Pilla (Wilgena Hotel) Nil

CT5456/319 Wayne John Stapleton Nil

CT5715/129 Tarcoola Medical Fund (Tarcoola Hospital) Nil




CT6016/2 Australian Rail Track Corporation (Police Station) Nil


1.5.3 Native title

The project area is held by the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara people represented by the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation (AMYAC) previously known as the Antakirinja Land ManagementAboriginal Corporation (ALMAC). A minerals exploration Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) wasformalised between the State Government, SA Chamber of Mines and Energy, the Aboriginal Legal RightsMovement, Antakirinja Native Title Claim Group and ALMAC for the granting of exploration tenements andexploration of the tenements. Exploration activities undertaken by Tarcoola Gold have been undertakenunder the provisions of the ILUA.

A Native Title Mining Agreement will be required to be negotiated with AMYAC prior to the granting of amineral lease by the Department for State Development (DSD).

1.5.4 European heritage

The Heritage Places Act 1993 provides for the identification, recording and conservation of places andobjects of non-Aboriginal heritage significance. Section 16 of the Act provides the criteria of what isconsidered to be Heritage Significance. The proposal to make an entry into the South Australian heritageregister is provided in Section 17 of the Act.

There are a number of areas within the proposed ML which have been confirmed as a State Heritage Placein the SA Heritage Register, given the Tarcoola goldfield's importance to the evolution of the State's history.Additional details are provided in Section 3.13.2 and locations indicated in Figure 1.3.

Proposed mining activities are not expected to impact on any heritage areas though there is potential to (witha State Heritage permit) remove and utilise existing tailings as within the lining system for the heap leachpads (cushion layer between the geosynthetic liner and drainage layer) and remove a number of derelictmetals objects. Further exploration may be undertaken in the future over heritage areas with the necessarypermissions having first been obtained.

It is anticipated that photography and cataloguing would be the usual practice if heritage areas are to bedisturbed by future exploration or mining activities. Only significant items would be relocated for preservation.Following discussion with DSD and the State Heritage Unit it may be feasible for selected items to berelocated to the “Machinery Dump" where there is machine equipment. Ongoing preservation of such itemswould be the responsibility of the State Heritage Unit.

Data Source: DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map No: 2200005A_GIS_007_B

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 5 10

km Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 1.4

Land ownership1:500,000



www.pbworld.comWPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_007_B.mxd


YellabinnaRegional Reserve

WILGENA

MULGATHING

Tarcoolamine site

WILGENABON BON

OORAMINNA OUTSTATION

YERDA

BULGUNNIAMT EBA

MULGATHING

YELLABINNA RR

NORTH WELLWILGENA

TARCOOLATOWNSHIP

WHYMLET

WILGENA

BULGUNNIA

LYONS CAMP

NORTH WELL

MULGATHINGJOHNS OUTSTATION

CARNE OUTSTATION

DURKIN OUTSTATION

MENTOROUTSTATION

WARRIOR OUTSTATION

EALBARAOUTSTATION

BRADMAN OUTSTATION

BIG TANKOUTSTATION

MALBOOMAOUTSTATION

AMBROSIA OUTSTATIONGIBRALTAR OUTSTATION

MUCKANIPPIEOUTSTATION

CARNDING ROAD OUTSTATION STUART HIGHWAY

HomesteadTrackCadastre boundaryPastoral leaseNational park

Proposed MineralLease Area

CT6016/2ARTC - Police Station

CT5456/319Wayne John Stapleton

CT6073/768Tarcoola Gold




CT5405/490Giovani Pilla

(Wilgena Hotel)

CT5405/490Giovani Pilla

(Wilgena Hotel)

CT5724/928Tarcoola Medical Fund

(Tarcoola Hospital)

CT5729/388Tarcoola Medical Fund

(Tarcoola Hospital)CT5715/129

Tarcoola Medical Fund(Tarcoola Hospital)

TARCOOLA ROAD

Properties within Tarcoola township0 25 5012.5

m



1.6 Purpose and report structureThis report provides the supporting documentation for the application of a ML for the Tarcoola Gold Projectand primary infrastructure. This documentation provides the regulatory authority, DSD, with informationregarding the environmental aspects of the project, including the likely impact of the mining operations on thenatural and cultural environment, and the proposed protection and management measures.

This document has been prepared using the Ministerial Determination dated 12 July 2012, Minimuminformation required to be provided in a mining proposal or management plan for a mineral lease (ML) andany associated miscellaneous purposes licence (MPL) applications for metallic and industrial minerals(excluding extractive minerals, coal and uranium).

The requirements of this document have been applied in order to:

n provide an appropriately comprehensive and detailed description of the existing environment and theproposed operation

n identify environmental risks associated with the operationn develop a set of environmental outcomes based on the risk assessment, for constructing, operating,

progressively rehabilitating and completing the minen develop measurement criteria for the environmental outcomesn provide information on the proposed management and monitoring measures in order to achieve the

environmental outcome.

In addition this document has been prepared with the aim of allowing DSD and all relevant stakeholders tomake an informed decision about the environmental risks associated with the proposed operation, and as aninformation and management tool for the operators of the mining operation.

Following assessment of this document by DSD and other key government stakeholders, and the granting ofthe ML there will be a requirement to prepare a Program for Environment Protection and Rehabilitation(PEPR) and obtain the necessary EPA licences prior to the commencement of development of the project. Anumber of aspects that are discussed in general terms in this ML application will be provided in more detail inthe PEPR.



2. Legislative frameworkMining in South Australia is governed by the SA Mining Act 1971 and Regulations, the Offshore Minerals Act2000 and the SA Opal Mining Act 1995. In addition to the primary approval and regulation of mining projectsvia the Mining Act 1971, there are a number of other South Australian and Commonwealth Acts andregulatory processes that may affect the project.

2.1 South Australian legislation

2.1.1 Mining Act 1971

Approval for the Tarcoola Gold Project is been sought via the SA Mining Act 1971, as this is the guidinglegislation for mine development in South Australia. The Act is administered by DSD.

2.1.1.1 Mineral lease

Construction and operation of a mining operation can only be undertaken within an approved ML. All ML’srequire the mining operation to be carried out in an orderly and skilful manner, in accordance with anapproved PEPR and with an appropriate rehabilitation bond in place.

2.1.1.2 Miscellaneous purpose licence (MPL)

In addition to the requirement of an ML for the mining operation, construction of infrastructure associatedwith a mining development (but not within the ML area) requires an application for MPLs. MPLs (under Part 8of the Mining Act 1971) may be used for ancillary purposes such as:

n for the carrying on of any business that may be conducive to the effective conduct of mining operationsor provide amenities for persons engaged in the conduct of mining operations

n for establishing and operating plant for the treatment of ore recovered in the course of mining operationsn for drainage from a minen for the disposal of overburden or any waste produced by mining operations; and/orn for any other purpose ancillary to the conduct of mining operations.

The Tarcoola Gold Project may require MPLs for future water supply wells and distribution pipelines. Theapplication for these elements of the project would be addressed in separate documentation which would besubmitted to DSD.

2.1.1.3 Extractive minerals lease

In addition to the requirement of an ML for the mining operation, extractive mineral leases (EML’s) arerequired for surface quarrying of materials such as sand, gravel, stone or clay (excluding some particularclays) to be used for construction purposes.

The Tarcoola Gold Project may require EML’s for upgrading of the access road. A separate application toDSD would be required.



2.1.1.4 Program for Environment Protection and Rehabilitation (PEPR)

The PEPR is the key document used by DSD to regulate the operation of mines. The key elements of thePEPR have been defined in the Ministerial Determination dated 12 July 2012 and provided the minimumrequirements including:

n a detailed physical specification of surface and underground infrastructure and installationsn a description of how the operation will be managed to control impactsn an indication of how achievement of agreed commitments will be managed; andn a description of how the operation will be managed to ensure compliance.

A PEPR for the Tarcoola Gold Project will be prepared as a separate document following issue of the ML.DSD needs to approve the PEPR prior to the proponent commencing mining activities. The approved PEPRwill be used as the key operational document for the environmental management of the Tarcoola GoldProject.

2.1.2 Natural Resources Management Act 2004

The abstraction and use of groundwater and the diversion of any watercourses for the Tarcoola Gold Projectwill be governed by the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (NRM Act). The NRM Act promotessustainable and integrated management of the State's natural resources and provides for their protection.The NRM Act consolidates three previous Acts, the Animal and Plant Control (Agricultural Protection andOther Purposes) Act 1986, Soil Conservation and Land Care Act 1989 and Water Resources Act 1997 and isadministered by the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR).

2.1.2.1 Groundwater

The Tarcoola Gold Project area is not within a “Prescribed Wells Area”. Approval for the installation ofgroundwater extraction wells (water well permits) is required. While there is no formal water allocationTarcoola Gold has to demonstrate that the abstraction and use of groundwater for the project will not impactexisting users and result in detrimental environmental impact.

2.1.2.2 Surface water

Surface water in the project area is not prescribed, however, permits under the NRM Act are required for‘water affecting activities’, such as the diversion of an ephemeral watercourse, or implementing surfacedrainage structures that may impact water resources.

2.1.3 Environment Protection Act 1993

The Environment Protection Act 1993 (EP Act) provides for the protection of the environment. This Act isadministered by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

2.1.3.1 General environmental duty

In addition to the various lease conditions that have been applied to the project area, Tarcoola Gold will alsohave a ‘general environmental duty’ under the EP Act.

This general duty (as detailed in Part 4 (Section 25)) specifies that a person must not undertake an activitythat pollutes, or might pollute, the environment unless the person takes all reasonable and practicablemeasures to prevent or minimise any resulting environmental harm.



In determining what measures are required to be taken, consideration must be given to:

n the nature of the pollution or potential pollution, and the sensitivity of the receiving environmentn the financial implications of the various measures that might be taken as those implications relate to the

class of persons undertaking activities of the same or a similar kind; andn the current state of technical knowledge and likelihood of successful application of the various

measures that might be taken.

2.1.3.2 Authorisations

Approvals are required for any activity associated with the Tarcoola Gold Project which is classified as aprescribed activity of environmental significance under Schedule 1 of the EP Act. Approvals for prescribedactivities under the EP Act are in the form of a works approval and/or licence from the EPA. Prescribedactivities that are relevant to mining projects include:

n Power generation using diesel fuel – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (8)(2)(a) of theEP Act as ‘Fuel Burning’, at a rate of heat release exceeding 5 megawatts.

n Storage of diesel fuel – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (1)(5)(a) of the EP Act as‘Petroleum Production, Storage or Processing Works or Facilities’ at which petroleum products arestored in tanks with a total storage capacity exceeding 2,000 cubic metres.

n Landfill – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (3)(3) of the EP Act under which a licence fora separate landfill will be required. New EPA guidelines for landfills were issued in early 2007 and areapplicable for any landfill proposed for the Tarcoola Gold Project.

n Extractive industries – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (7)(7) of the EP Act underwhich the conduct of operations involving extraction, or extraction and processing (by crushing,grinding, milling or separating into different sizes by sieving, air elutriation or in any other manner), ofsand, gravel, stone, shell, shale, clay or soil, being operations with an extraction rate exceeding 100,000tonnes per year.

n Crushing, Grinding or Milling – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (7)(3)(c) of the EP Actunder which the processing (by crushing, grinding or separating into different sizes by sieving, airelutriation or in any other manner) of rock, ores or minerals occurs at a rate in excess of 1,000 tonnesper year.

n Mineral works – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (2)(9) of the EP Act under whichprocessing mineral ores to produce mineral concentrates. EPA interprets this to include tailings storagefacilities.

n Chemical works – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (8)(6)(a) of the EP Act under whichthe carrying out of a chemical reaction that produces more than 100 tonnes/year of product, andincludes CIL processing of gold ores.

n Sewage Treatment Works or Septic Tank Effluent Disposal System – a prescribed activity asdescribed in Schedule 1 (2)(6)(b, c) of the EP Act.

n Activities that produce Listed Waste – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (3)(4) of theEP Act under which wastes are as defined in Part B of Schedule 1.

n Desalination Plants – a prescribed activity as described in Schedule 1 (8)(6)(a) of the EP Act underwhich a plant that has a production capacity of 200 kilolitres of desalinated water per day, but not for aplant where waste water is disposed to a waste water management system that is the subject of alicence.

The procedure to obtain an SA EPA Works Approval to facilitate the construction of infrastructure associatedwith a prescribed activity, involves submitting an Authorisation (Works Approval) Application underSection 38 (1) of the EP Act, with appropriate supporting documentation. The EPA will not grant a Works



Approval until such time as the PEPR has been approved by DSD. Subsequently a Licence will be requiredfor prescribed activities.

2.1.4 Development Act 1993

The South Australian Development Act 1993 provides land use approval for the life of the operations of adevelopment and until such time that another application is approved to change or amend the standingapprovals. It is unlikely that provisions under this Act will be required.

2.1.5 Native Vegetation Act 1991

The Native Vegetation Act 1991 regulates the clearance, and provides for the management of, nativevegetation throughout the State. It also ensures that areas of high conservation value are protected and thatminor vegetation clearance is subject to a thorough assessment process. Under the Act, the clearance ofnative vegetation requires the consent of the Native Vegetation Council, which is advised by the NativeVegetation Branch of the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR). HeritageAgreements are also covered and protected by this Act.

For mining projects DSD currently has delegated authority for the administration of the Native Vegetation Act1991.

A Native Vegetation Management Plan (NVMP) will also need to be prepared as part of the PEPR and wouldbe assessed against the requirements of the Native Vegetation Act 1991, including arrangements forcompensation (provision of a Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB)).

2.1.6 Heritage Places Act 1993

The Heritage Places Act 1993 provides for the identification, recording and conservation of places andobjectives of non-Aboriginal heritage significance. Section 16 of the Act provides the criteria of what isconsidered to be Heritage Significance. The proposal to make an entry into the South Australian HeritageRegister is provided in Section 17 of the Act.

If a non-Aboriginal heritage site is found or is present on the site and needs to be disturbed during the projectTarcoola Gold will be required to consult with the South Australian Heritage Council.

2.1.7 Other relevant State legislation

There are a number of other South Australian Acts and policies that are, or may be, relevant to the project.

Details of these Acts and policies are provided in Table 2.1 below.



Table 2.1 Other relevant legislation and policies related to the project

Act Objective/purpose Relevant section(s) How it applies to the project

SA AboriginalHeritage Act 1988

To provide for the protection and preservation ofAboriginal sites, objects and human remains(including burials).

Authorisation under Section 23 must beobtained before disturbing a known Aboriginalsite. Section 12 provides a process fordetermining if a site or object is an Aboriginalsite or object. Section 20 controls the discoveryand search for Aboriginal objects and remains.

Appropriate Work Area Clearances have beenundertaken for the exploration, mining and ancillaryoperations. If an Aboriginal heritage site is found orneeds to be disturbed during the project, TarcoolaGold will be required to consult with the traditionalowners (AMYAC).

SA Mines andWorks InspectionAct 1920

To improve the regulation and inspection of minesand associated works.

Schedule 5 – Responsibilities and duties ofowners and persons employed within minesand associated works.

The Act allows for the inspection of the Tarcoola GoldProject (by DSD) throughout the life of the project.

SA Explosives Act1936

An Act to consolidate and amend the law relatingto explosives.

Various provisions including:n Section 22(1).

The Director may license any person to storeexplosives upon any premises subject to this Act.

Explosives will be stored on site by an appropriatelylicensed sub-contractor. Any blasting will beundertaken by a sub-contractor.

Country Fires Act1989

Provides for the prevention, control andsuppression of fires; to provide for the protectionof life and property in fire and other emergencies.

Various provisions including:

n Section 36(1)n Section 39(1).

Prohibits (subject to subsection provisions) thelighting of fires in the open air during fire dangerseason.

The Country Fire Service (CFS) can direct TarcoolaGold to extinguish or manage a fire or may undertakeextinguishment/management of a fire themselves.

SA OccupationalHealth Safety andWelfare Act (1986)

To secure the health, safety and welfare ofpersons at work; to protect the public against risksto health or safety arising out of, or in connectionwith, the activities of persons at work or the use oroperation of various types of machinery.

Part 3 – General Provisions related tooccupational health, safety and welfare.

Tarcoola Gold is required to comply with all aspectsof the Act relating to occupational health, safety andwelfare.

SA National Parksand Wildlife Act1972

This State Act was designed to allow for theestablishment and maintenance of a system ofreserves, as well as the protection of threatenedspecies of flora and fauna.

The Act identifies and protects certain specieslocated within conservation parks andreserves, as well as any species listed underSchedules 7, 8 and 9 of the Act.

Project area not in a National Park.




SA Native Title(South Australia)Act 1994

To outline the existence of native title, native titlerights, compensation for extinguishment orimpairment of native title and acquisition of nativetitle in land, or entry to/ occupation of native titleland or any other matter related to native title.

Section 39 – confirms Crown ownership of allnatural resources within South Australia.Section 43 also establishes alternative right tonegotiate provisions for mining activity throughamendments to the SA Mining Act 1971.

Relates to the negotiation of native title rights overvacant Crown land.

Under the provisions of the Act Tarcoola Gold isrequired to negotiate (and have agreements in place)prior to commencement of mining operations.

Native Title Agreements for the project are in place.

SA Pastoral LandManagement andConservation Act1989

To make provision for the management andconservation of pastoral land; and for otherpurposes.

Section 22 – lessee’s obligation to comply withSA Natural Resource Management Act 2004 &SA Mining Act 1971 and any regulations underthose Acts.

Under the provisions of the Act Pastoral Lessees areobliged not to hinder or obstruct any person who isexercising, or attempting to exercise, a right ofaccess to the land pursuant to this Act or any otherAct.

Climate Changeand GreenhouseEmissionsReduction Act 2007

Provides for measures to assist in theachievement of ecologically sustainabledevelopment in the State by addressing issuesassociated with climate change; to promotecommitment to action within the State to addressclimate change.

N/A Various requirements relating to State targets toaddress climate change. Tarcoola Gold hasincorporated suitable planning to minimise fuel use.

SA EnvironmentProtection (AirQuality) Policy 1994

No specific objective is established for the policy. N/A Ground level nitrogen dioxide from the diesel motorexhaust (from all generators) conforms to the limitsas outlined in the policy.

Tarcoola Gold will take reasonable measures tomaintain fuel-burning equipment (generators) to:

n be used in an efficient conditionn operate in a proper and efficient mannern carry out maintenancen process, handle, move or store goods or materials

in or on the premises in a proper and efficientmanner.

SA EnvironmentProtection (Noise)Policy 2007

No specific objective is established for the policy. Section 3(a) definition of non-domesticpremises includes “a mine within the meaningof the SA Mines and Works Inspection Act1920”.

Sections 4–7

Tarcoola Gold (as the occupier) of a non-domesticpremise must not cause or permit excessive noise tobe emitted from the project area.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ma197181




SA EnvironmentProtection (WaterQuality) Policy 2012

Protection of South Australia’s water resources. N/A Tarcoola Gold must not cause contamination ofgroundwater and surface water within the projectarea and off-site.

SA EnvironmentProtection (WasteManagementQuality) Policy 2007

Control and management of waste in SouthAustralia to address potential environmental risk.

N/A Tarcoola Gold must not operate a waste storagefacility without authorisation from the EPA.



2.2 Commonwealth legislationA referral of a proposal to the Australian Government for assessment under the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is required for actions that are likely to have a significantimpact on matters of national environmental significance. The EPBC Act identifies eight matters of nationalenvironmental significance:

n World Heritage propertiesn National Heritage placesn Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar wetlands)n Threatened species and ecological communitiesn Migratory speciesn Commonwealth marine areasn Nuclear actions (including uranium mining); andn Water impacts of Coal seam gas and large coal mining development.

Determination of the applicability of the EPBC Act on a project is by the Australian Government Departmentof the Environment (DoE).

Following a referral, DoE make a determination regarding the status of a proposal as a Controlled Action orNot a Controlled Action. If it is Not a Controlled Action, no further Australian Government approvals arenecessary. If it is deemed a Controlled Action, approval under the EPBC Act will be required. This may be bydeferral to the local State processes, or by the requirement of additional information to the satisfaction of theAustralian Government. The additional information may be requested directly by the DoE, or be subject topublic review as a Public Environment Report or an Environmental Impact Statement.

As neither spring nor autumn fauna and flora surveys identified any items of significant impact on matters ofnational environmental significance, no referral under this legislation has been deemed necessary.



3. Description of the existingenvironment

3.1 Local communityThe ‘local community’ has been defined to include the townships of Tarcoola, Kingoonya and Glendambo.The ‘Region’ includes the nearby towns of Coober Pedy, Roxby Downs, Woomera, and the townships ofPimba and Andamooka.

This section of the MLA is based on information obtained from technical studies and desktop studies andstatistical information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006 and 2011 Census data(ABS 2012).

The analysis of the existing environment in the area has been conducted by considering the area’s socialcharacteristics using population and demographic data and its social infrastructure through the types offacilities and support available. This information provides an understanding of baseline conditions with whichto measure any changes that may potentially occur.

This section details the socio-economic profile of both the local community and the region through analysis ofpopulation, income, education levels and labour participation. The profile highlights age, gender compositionand household characteristics of the area, and how these aspects have changed over time.

3.1.1 Social setting and community function

The proposed mine site is located on ‘unoccupied Crown land’ and is mainly surrounded by Wilgena stationwhich is part of the greater Wilgena pastoral lease. The Mulgathing pastoral lease is located west of theproject site. The nearest dwellings are at Tarcoola township which is located 3 km east of the major projectcomponents. Wilgena station homestead is located a further 19 km east of Tarcoola.

Power for Tarcoola township was supplied by Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) owned dieselgenerators, but this service has subsequently been suspended and thus all residents have now left the area.Water is obtained from rain water tanks and a nearby reservoir, although at the time of preparation of theMLA water levels in the reservoir were low.

The project site falls within the ABS Glendambo region (Figure 3.1) which includes the townships ofTarcoola, Kingoonya, Glendambo and Pimba, and accounts for a total of 661 people. In addition within thegeneral region are the townships of Roxby Downs, Coober Pedy, Woomera and Andamooka. The combineddata of these communities make up approximately 0.04% of the South Australian total population.



Figure 3.1 ABS Glendambo region

The area is made up of very small communities, large scale pastoral properties, and a number of miningprojects that add significant social and economic growth values. The community has a strong connectionwith the region’s agricultural land, and historical value of supporting major transport routes through theirtowns such as the railway line and the Stuart Highway. The local area is supported by the Kingoonya AreaProgress Association whose aims are to:

n promote the town of Kingoonya and surrounding areas, local business and tourismn preserve Kingoonya’s history and historical sites for future generationsn provide services and support for Kingoonya residents and visitors to the area that are sustainable and

environmentally friendlyn protect the surrounding bush habitat.

The communities depend on the nearby established regional towns, specifically Woomera, Roxby Downsand Andamooka to access community services and amenities including police stations; schools; healthservices; groceries; hospitals; leisure, shopping, sporting and cultural facilities.

The regional area is used for agricultural purposes (usually a mix of sheep and cattle production), miningoperations (copper, uranium, gold and mineral sands), defence industry operations, outback 4WD tourism,and conservation reserves. The regional landscape environment consists of uplands, sand plains, salt lakesand associated drainage systems, sand dunes and gibber flats. The non-indigenous cultural heritage

Tarcoola Gold Project



associated with the outback environment is held in high regard and the community bases much of its tourismactivities on this heritage.

3.1.2 Population and demographics

The population for the ABS Glendambo region recorded a total of 661 persons in the 2011 Census data. Thearea’s Indigenous community, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is a population of 48 people(38 men and 10 women).

Since 2006 the Region’s population increased by almost 19%. The population growth has been significant inthe Kingoonya, Glendambo and Pimba townships (excluding Tarcoola), and the median age is 36 years old.

The area has a higher population of 25 and 34 year olds, and the demographic profile shows that more than55% of the population are couples without children. The study area has a higher percentage of couplefamilies without children, compared to the State.

Table 3.1 shows the number of residents and gender representation in each township in the ABSGlendambo region (Tarcoola, Kingoonya, Glendambo and Pimba) and other nearby towns, recorded duringthe 2006 and 2011 census. It should be noted that there was a change to the region encompassing thetowns between the 2006 and 2011.

Table 3.1 ABS 2006 and 2011 – Regional population

Community 2006 2011

Male Female Total Male Female Total

Kingoonya

71 59 130 466 195 661Glendambo

Tarcoola

Pimba

Roxby Downs 2,277 1,777 4,054 2,766 1,936 4,702

Coober Pedy 1,082 831 1,913 953 742 1,695

Woomera 162 131 293 119 97 216

Andamooka 287 239 526 327 265 592

Total 6,916 7,866

3.1.3 Employment

In the Glendambo region there is 1.6% unemployment, and almost 80% of people aged 15 years and overare employed. Mining represents the industry with the highest employment participation at 44%.

The occupations most represented in the region are managers, machinery operators and drivers, labourers,technicians, trade workers and professionals. Machinery operators and drivers are the most prevalentoccupation in the region at almost 21%, and managers represent 18%. This is opposite to South Australianfigures where professionals are the most prevalent occupation at almost 20%, and clerical and administrativeworkers are next at 14.3%.

Other major employment industries include sheep, beef cattle and grain farming; mining support services;fishing and, hospitality (accommodation/food services).



3.1.4 Income

The median weekly household income in the Glendambo region is $1,255–$1,300, compared to the State’shousehold weekly median of $1,044.

The high proportion of employment opportunities and workforce in the mining industry is likely a key reasonthe median weekly household income is higher in the region compared to the overall State. This supports theperception that the mining industry is a highly paid employment sector when compared to other occupations,and that it will be a major competitor for local businesses and employers by impacting the skills andworkforce available for hire all year round.

Research undertaken by one of Australia’s leading employment agencies shows that in South Australiaduring July and September 2012, the collective average annual wage for employees in the mining, oil andgas industry was $164,537. This average was calculated from salary information provided in job listings andthe result includes figures that may include the total package salary.

Wilgena station employs about 4 to 5 people throughout the year, and employment opportunities mayincrease specifically around shearing time. The Tarcoola Gold Project and other potential future miningprojects in the region may impact the employment opportunities in the region. In general this will be furtheramplified by the existing mining industry in neighbouring established townships such as Roxby Downs andWoomera.

3.1.5 Accommodation and housing

Accommodation and housing in the study area has a higher percentage of 4-bedroom homes at 39.5%compared to the State’s higher percentage of 3-bedroom homes at 53.1%. It is important to note the majorityof Glendambo homes are separate houses at 82.4%, however 69% of the private dwellings are occupied.While the median rent is $20 per week, there is only a limited availability of rental properties for workforce forthe Tarcoola Gold Project, should they choose to reside outside of the accommodation village and potentiallyavailable housing at Tarcoola which, in the main, are dilapidated.

In Glendambo there is one roadhouse and at Tarcoola the hotel has closed whereas the Kingoonya Hotelhas recently re-opened. The next closest established accommodation services would be in Woomera andRoxby Downs. Some housing may also be available in Kingoonya.

3.1.6 Tourism

The district enjoys an isolated rural lifestyle and is typically an area where people pass through rather thanstay long-term. The key tourism activity in the region focuses on 4 Wheel-Drive activities, hiking trails, adesert golf course and scenic flights in the Australian outback.

3.1.7 Social infrastructure and services

Roxby Downs is the key township for social infrastructure for the Tarcoola, Kingoonya, Glendambo andPimba area.



3.1.7.1 Health and emergency services

The key health and emergency services in the region are located in regional townships including:

Coober Pedy (3 hour drive from Tarcoola)

n Community Hospital and SA Health Service.n Royal Flying Doctor Service.

Woomera (3 hour drive from Tarcoola)

n Woomera Community Hospital and SA Health Service (currently unmanned).n Royal Flying Doctor Service.

Roxby Downs (4 hour drive from Tarcoola)

n Country Health SA.n Roxby Downs Hospital.

Andamooka (5 hour drive from Tarcoola)

n Community support service and respite care centre.

Port Augusta (5 hour drive from Tarcoola)

n Hospital and regional health services.n Royal Flying Doctor Service.

3.1.7.2 Education and training

Access to local schooling in the region is limited, and the closest access to schooling is located at CooberPedy, Woomera and in Roxby Downs. Woomera has an area school catering for reception to year 12. RoxbyDowns has an area school catering for reception to year 12, a Catholic Primary School from reception toyear 7 and three child care centres. Andamooka has a Children’s Centre and Primary School which alsoincludes a multi-use library and resource centre, swimming pool and multi-use sports court.

Access to higher education opportunities is limited and there is a TAFE institution located in Roxby Downs.As a result online e-learning is a tool used to reach out to children in the region.

3.1.7.3 Community services and infrastructure

Community amenities are limited in the area and established services are offered in nearby townships.These include:

Tarcoola

n Wilgena Hotel (currently closed).

Kingoonya

n Kingoonya Hotel (open as at December 2014).

Glendambo

n Roadhouse.n Hotel.n Caravan Park.n Licensed restaurant.n General store.



n Outback resort.n Petrol Stations.

Coober Pedy

n Nine hotels/motels.n Four caravan parks.n Banking.n Post office.n Supermarket.n Library.n RSL, Lions, Motor and Rifle Club.n Sporting facilities – swimming, badminton, basketball, football, cricket, soccer, golf course, Skate Park,

oval, bowling green, BMX track, playgrounds, motor sports clubs and tracks.

Roxby Downs

n Roxby Downs Tavern.n Caravan Park.n Library – shared between the community and school.n Youth Centre.n Cultural Centre.n Leisure Centre – including indoor basketball, squash courts, tennis courts, swimming pool, and gym.n Sporting facilities – golf course, Skate Park, oval, bowling green, BMX track, playgrounds, motor sports

clubs and tracks.

Andamooka

n Supermarket.n Post Office (also agency for various banks).n Two hotels/motels and caravan park.n Swimming pool.

Woomera

n Eldo Hotel Motel.n General store.n Post Office.n Banking.n Theatre and youth centre.n Caravan Park.n Sporting facilities – golf course, tenpin bowling alley, playing fields and parks swimming pool, gym and

fitness centre.n Heritage and visitor information centre.

3.1.7.4 Utilities, water, power and transport

Details of the utilities, power and transport are provided in Section 3.3.



3.2 Land use

3.2.1 Land use

3.2.1.1 Pastoral

Currently pastoral activities (cattle and sheep grazing) are the major land use in the region surrounding theTarcoola Gold Project.

The original pastoral leases in the area were taken up in the 1870s but many expired or were abandoned inthe 1880s. Wilgena pastoral lease, which surrounds the Tarcoola Gold Project, was previously abandoned in1888. The pastoral leases were re-offered to the public but due to the costs of reinstating improvements theleases were un-occupied for years.

The proposed mine site is wholly located in ‘unoccupied Crown land, Tarcoola Township’ and is mainlysurrounded by the Coladding (CL1605/68) and Pinding (CL1275/42) Crown Leases which form part of thegreater Wilgena station owned by AJ & PA McBride Pty Ltd (refer Figure 1.4). The Wilgena pastoral leasewas acquired by the company in 1924 and at one stage Wilgena pastoral lease was the largest totally fencedsheep run in the world. Wilgena station operates as merino wool and meat enterprise. East of the proposedoperations is North Well station which is also owned by AJ & PA McBride Pty Ltd and operated as a cattle,merino wool and meat enterprise.

The Mulgathing pastoral lease which is owned by the Jumbuck Pastoral Company is located west of theproject site and Tarcoola township. Mulgathing was acquired in the late 1920’s and runs in excess of 30,000merino sheep and on average produces about 800 bales of wool annually.

Settlements in the wider region follow the major transport routes of the Stuart Highway and the TransContinental railway line. The closest townships to the project site are Tarcoola (currently uninhabited),Kingoonya and Glendambo located 3.4 km to the east of the proposed open pit, 80 km to the east and120 km to the east respectively (refer Figure 1.1). However populations are low, with the Tarcoola townshipdeserted, Kingoonya with a population of 12 people and Glendambo having about 30 people.

In addition to the township there are residences located on the pastoral leases surrounding the project area.The closest residence is Wilgena homestead located 22 km to the east of the open pit.

3.2.1.2 Mining

The Tarcoola Goldfield was discovered in 1893 and produced 77,000 ounces of gold at an average grade of37.5 g/t by small scale underground mining targeting mineralised narrow vein quartz lodes. Major producingmines included Tarcoola Blocks, Perseverance, Welcome Home and Curdnatta.

Gold production was mainly from auriferous quartz veins that cross carbonaceous siltstone and interbeddedquartzite of the Palaeo-Proterozoic Tarcoola Formation. Gold was also mined from the adjacent Hiltaba Suitegranite which is generally considered to be the source of mineralisation.

At Perseverance and Tarcoola Blocks there is substantial surface evidence of former mining, includingvertical shafts, inclined shafts and stoping and other workings which have broken through to the surface. TheTarcoola Blocks area also has a headframe, last used as part of an exploration and undergrounddevelopment program in the 1980s and small tailings dams/heap leach operations. The former gold mines atTarcoola are currently not operating.

The closest current mining operation is the Challenger Gold Mine, located about 130 km to the northwest.Other mining operations within 250 km of the Tarcoola Gold Project include Arrium's Peculiar Knob Mine



(iron ore) now under care and maintenance, Oz Minerals’ Prominent Hill Mine (copper-gold); and IlukaResources Jacinth-Ambrosia Mine (mineral sands).

In addition there are small, intermittently operated MLs in the Glenloth Gold Province located 70 kmsoutheast of the project site.

3.2.1.3 Exempt land

Section 9 of the Mining Act 1971 provides details of land that is exempt from mining operations, unless awaiver is sought under Section 9A. Of particular relevance is Section 9(1)d which relates to the proximity ofbuildings or residences to the proposed ML and groundwater wells.

Buildings require an exclusion zone of 400 m from mining operations and groundwater wells, springs anddams require an exclusion zone of 150 m. There are disused bores located in the Heritage areas which arenot deemed to be exempt land as they are no longer in use and only of historical value.

The nearest unoccupied residence is located 350 m southeast of the eastern boundary of the proposed MLand a disused school building is located 240 m east of the eastern boundary (Figure 1.4). The closest activityto the residence on the proposed ML is a water extraction well which is located 620 m from the nearestresidence. The proposed accommodation village and the water extraction well are located 450 m and 480 mrespectively from the disused school building.

3.2.1.4 Other land uses or interests

The Trans Australia and the Central Australian Railway Line at their closest point are located approximately100 m to 200 m to the south and 100 m to the west respectively from the ML site boundary. One of thegroundwater bores proposed for the mine water supply is located within the ARTC owned land (17 m fromthe toe of the rail embankment) and will be operated under a separate licence agreement with ARTC (refer toFigure 4.1). Other proposed mining activities are not located within close proximity to the railway property.

The proposed ML is not within the Woomera Prohibited Area (WPA). At its closest the southern boundary ofthe WPA is located 5.9 km from the northern boundary of the proposed ML. Therefore the proposed activitieswill have no impact on the WPA.

There are no overlapping or adjacent tenements under the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Act 2000. Thenearest tenement (PEL124) is located about 30 km northeast of the northern boundary of the proposed ML.

3.2.2 Local government zoning

The project area is located wholly within ‘unoccupied Crown land, Tarcoola Township’ and is surrounded byland that is defined in the development plan “Land Not Within a Council Area, Eyre, Far North, Riverland andWhyalla (consolidated 18 October 2012)”. The Development Assessment Commission (DAC) is the relevantplanning authority. Tarcoola Gold is not aware of any proposed changes to the Development Plan.

Under this Development Plan, the ML is within the Remote Area Zone. The objectives of the zone are toaccommodate a range of uses that are consistent with remote areas, including pastoral, conservation,mining, remote townships, settlements, Aboriginal lands and also accommodating defence related facilities,consistent with the protection of environmental and cultural significance.

Development of ‘Prescribed mining activities’ are allowed in the Remote Area Zone. The followingDevelopment Plan Objectives apply:

n development of mining activities in a way that contributes to the sustainable growth of the industryn protection of mineral deposits against intrusion by inappropriate forms of development



n areas with scenic or conservation significance protected from undue damage arising from miningoperations

n mining operations undertaken with minimal adverse impacts on the environment and on the health andamenity of adjacent land uses

n minimisation of the impacts from mining activities upon the existing groundwater level and the quality ofgroundwater resources

n mining operations that make adequate provision for site rehabilitation.

In addition there are a number of principles of development control which are relevant:

n Mining in scenic or native vegetation areas should only be undertaken if:

4 the proposed location is the best site in regard to minimising loss of amenity, degradation of thelandscape and loss of native vegetation

4 there are a limited number of known reserves of the minerals in the area or elsewhere in the State4 the extraction and transportation of materials from alternative sites to principal centres of

consumption carry significantly higher costs4 the site is capable of restoration with locally indigenous plant species to counter the long term

impact on the landscape and biodiversity.

n Stormwater and/or wastewater from land used for mining should be diverted into a silt retentionstructure so that it can be reused on-site for purposes such as truck wash-down, dust control, washingof equipment and landscape irrigation or for disposal off-site in an environmentally responsible manner.

n Access to land used for mining should be sited and designed to accommodate heavy vehicle traffic andensure the safety of all road users.

n Mining operations should:

4 ensure that minimal damage is caused to the landscape4 minimise the area require for operations, and provide for the progressive reclamation of disturbed

areas4 minimise disturbance to natural hydrological systems.

n Mining development should be sited, designed and sequenced to protect the amenity of surroundingland uses from environmental nuisance such as dust, noise or vibration emanating from miningoperations.

n Mining operations that are likely to impact upon amenity of the locality should incorporate a separationdistance and/or mounding/vegetation between the mining operation (including stockpiles) and adjoiningallotments to help minimise exposure to those potential impacts.

n An area of densely vegetated and/or mounded land should be established around the perimeter ofmining sites in order to screen excavated land and mineral processing facilities from all of the following:

4 residential areas4 tourist areas4 tourist routes4 scenic routes.

n Screen planting around mining operations should incorporate a mixture of trees and shrubs that:

4 contribute to an attractive landscape4 suit local soil and climatic conditions4 are fast growing and/or have a long life expectancy4 are locally indigenous species.

n Borrow pits for road making materials should be sited so as to cause the minimum effect on theirsurroundings.



The ‘unoccupied Crown land, Tarcoola Township’ has been defined as a designated place of archaeologicalsignificance and includes the Tarcoola Goldfield, Government Battery and Township. Tarcoola Gold isseeking clarification as to the specific areas and sites that are covered by the State Heritage Listing.

The land ‘Not within a Council Area’ also coincides with the area governed by the Outback CommunitiesAuthority, newly established under the Outback Communities (Administration and Management) Act 2009,replacing the Outback Areas Community Development Trust. The role of the Authority is to manage andpromote improvements in the provision of public services and facilities to outback communities. As such, itqualifies as a local government authority for this purpose (Outback Areas Community Development Trust,2010).

To achieve its objectives the Authority will (Outback Areas Community Development Trust, 2010):

n provide support to outback communities for the provision of public services and facilitiesn consider long-term requirements for the maintenance, replacement or development of infrastructure for

public services and facilities in outback communitiesn work with all levels of government to plan and deliver appropriate public services to outback

communitiesn commit to undertaking regular community consultation to ensure that community needs and wants are

fully understoodn advocate on behalf of outback communities at State and national forumsn be accountable and efficient in the way it conducts its businessn effectively manage resources and continue to maintain public assets.

3.2.3 State government policy

3.2.3.1 South Australia strategic plan

The State Strategic Plan 2011 provides an overarching policy that seeks to deliver economic, environmentaland social outcomes for South Australia.

The plan contains a number of key objectives:

n growing prosperityn improving wellbeingn attaining sustainabilityn fostering creativity and innovationn building communitiesn expanding opportunity.

Associated with these objectives are a number of targets that are relevant to mining projects:

n Economic growth: exceed the national economic growth rate over the period to 2020.n Jobs: Increasing employment by 2% per annum over the period 2010 to 2016.n Exploration expenditure in South Australia to be maintained in excess of $200 million per annum until

2015.n Minerals production and processing: increase the value of minerals production and processing to

$10 billion by 2020.n Aboriginal employment: halving the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal unemployment rates by

2018.n Regional population levels: Increase regional populations, outside of Greater Adelaide, by 20,000 to

320,000 or more by 2020.



3.2.3.2 Far North Region Plan

The Far North Region Plan 2010 (FNRP) is part of the South Australian Planning Strategy which provides forintegrated and coordinated land use and development in the Far North.

The plan broadly identifies where housing, population and industry growth should occur in the region. TheFNRP also seeks to safeguard mineral resources and support the exploration, extraction and processing ofminerals.

In addition the plan seeks to retain and strengthen the economic potential of pastoral land by making townsthe focus of housing development, preventing land fragmentation and managing the interface betweenpastoral and other uses.

3.3 Proximity to infrastructure and housing

3.3.1 Housing

The density of housing in the region is sparse and is typical of the semi-arid pastoral land use. The closestresidences are in the township of Tarcoola, which is currently deserted and which are, in the main,dilapidated and unsuitable for habitation. Until recently there were two permanent residents in Tarcoola andthere are other houses and unit accommodations used from time to time by railway workers and explorationpersonnel. The nearest unoccupied houses are located 350 m southeast of the eastern boundary of theproposed ML (Figure 1.2).

Wilgena homestead is located 22 km to the south east of the proposed open pit and Malbooma outstation islocated 33 km to the west, Mulgathing homestead is located 73 km to the northwest and North Wellhomestead 77 km to the east, just north of Kingoonya. Malbooma, Ambrosia, Carnding Road, Ealbara,Gibraltar and Mentor outstations are located 33 km west, 47 km northwest, 18 km north northwest, 32 kmnorth northeast, 34 km north northwest and 41 km northeast respectively from the proposed open pit. Theoutstations are used infrequently during mustering and other pastoral activities. The locations are shown inFigure 1.4.

The township of Kingoonya (although there are only a few residents) is located 80 km east of the proposedopen pit.

3.3.2 Electricity

The nearest access points to the electricity grid are the 132 kV transmission lines operated by ElectraNet atWudinna (about 150 km to the south) and at Pimba (about 200 km to the east). It is understood that theWudinna transmission line is constrained due to current demands. Power for the few former residents inTarcoola was previously obtained from generators owned by ARTC.

3.3.3 Transport

3.3.3.1 Roads

Access

The Tarcoola Gold Project is currently accessed by road using Highway 1 between Adelaide and PortAugusta and thereafter the Stuart Highway to Glendambo. From Glendambo access is by the un-sealed'Tarcoola Road' through Kingoonya to Tarcoola and thereafter by an un-sealed local road. The Stuart



Highway and the road from Glendambo to Tarcoola are maintained by the Department for Planning,Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).

The road distances to the nearest towns are 310 km to Roxby Downs and approximately 260 km to CooberPedy. The smaller townships of Kingoonya, Glendambo and Pimba are 80, 120 km and 237 km respectivelyby road.

Accident history

The accident history between 2007 and 2011 for the Stuart Highway between Port Augusta and CooberPedy) and the Glendambo to Tarcoola road is detailed in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3. The data was sourcedfrom the Road Crash Unit of DPTI in January 2013.

Table 3.2 Accident data – Stuart Highway (Port Augusta to Coober Pedy)

Severity Totals 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Property damage 156 14 18 20 22 33 30 19

Minor injury 49 6 4 8 10 12 7 2

Serious injury 39 6 7 11 4 5 5 1

Fatal 7 2 0 0 3 2 0 0

Table 3.3 Accident data – Glendambo to Tarcoola road

Severity Totals 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Property damage 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Minor injury 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Serious injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vehicle traffic counts

DPTI collects information on road traffic volumes. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) estimaterepresents the total two way volume of traffic which passes a roadside observation point in a 12 monthperiod, divided by the total number of days in the year and accounts for traffic travelling in either direction.The existing traffic volumes for the proposed access route are outlined in Table 3.4 including the percentageof AADT contributed by Heavy Vehicles (HV). AADT and HV data was obtained from the DPTI website on29 September 2013.

Table 3.4 Current average daily traffic volumes

Road From To AADT HV

Augusta Highway Port Wakefield Snowtown 3,200-3,800 21–22%

Augusta Highway Snowtown Port Pirie 3,000–5,900 19–25%

Augusta Highway Port Pirie Port Augusta 3,500–4,100 20.5–27%

Stuart Highway Port Augusta Pimba 900 26.5%

Stuart Highway Pimba Glendambo 440 29.5%

Tarcoola to Glendambo Road Glendambo Kingoonya 31 NA

Tarcoola to Glendambo Road Kingoonya Tarcoola 15 NA



Road classifications

Port Wakefield Road (Adelaide to Port Wakefield), the Augusta Highway (Port Wakefield to Port Augusta)and the Stuart Highway (Port Augusta to Glendambo) are all part of the National Land Transport Networkand funded by Federal and State Government. The Glendambo to Tarcoola road is within the South AustraliaNorthern and Western region maintained by DPTI.

Most sections of these roads are gazetted to permit their general use by Restricted Access Vehicles (RAV’s).The approved heavy vehicle routes are included in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Approved heavy vehicle routes

Vehicle type Adelaide –Port Augusta

Port Augusta –Glendambo

Glendambo –Tarcoola

23 m B-Double (GML & HML) Yes Yes Yes

25 m B-Double (GML & HML) Yes Yes Yes

32 m Double road train (GML & HML) Yes Yes Yes

36.5 m Double road train (GML & HML) Yes Yes Yes

53.5 m Triple road train (GML & HML) No Yes* No

Road train converter dolly (GML & HML) Yes Yes Yes

35 m B-Triple (GML) Yes Yes Yes

19 m network (HML) Yes Yes Yes

23 m 42.5 t Low loader (24 hr) (OSM) Yes Yes Yes

23 m 42.5 t Low loader day only (OSM) Yes Yes Yes

25 m 49.5 t Low loader (OSM) Yes Yes No

25 m 59.5 t Low loader (OSM) Yes Yes No

* It should be noted that 53.5 m triple road trains are only approved for travel from the northern side of Port Augusta.GML = general mass limit, HML = higher mass limit, OSM = over mass loads.

Road condition

Adelaide to Glendambo

The proposed site access route via Port Wakefield, Port Pirie (bypassing the township itself), Port Augustaand Glendambo is a major sealed transport route which carries a significant volume of traffic of both light andheavy vehicles.

Glendambo to Tarcoola road

This is an unsealed and relatively wide road that appears to be well maintained. Rail crossings of theAdelaide to Perth/Darwin rail line are located about 1.8 km east of Kingoonya; 12.7 km, 37.8 km and 44.2 kmeast of Tarcoola and 19.9 km, 30.1 km and 35.3 km west of Kingoonya. The roads have been realigned atthe rail crossings to improve the angle of the crossing and maximise sight distance. The rail crossings arepassively controlled with a stop sign. There are three cattle grids between Glendambo and Kingoonya andeleven cattle grids between Kingoonya and Tarcoola. The DPTI data indicates only minor traffic volumes onthis section of the road.

The intersection with the Stuart Highway is located approximately 1 km north of Glendambo in a flat, openarea that provides good visibility in all directions. There are no turning lanes for the intersection.



3.3.3.2 Rail

The Trans Australia and the Central Australian Railway Line at their closest point are located approximately100 m to 200 m to the south and 100 m to the west respectively from the ML site boundary.

3.3.3.3 Airport

The closest commercial airport to the site is located at Coober Pedy approximately 260 km by road and thesecond closest is at Roxby Downs approximately 310 km by road. Private airstrips are maintained foremergency and private use on various pastoral properties. These airstrips provide access for the RoyalFlying Doctor Service.

The closest airstrip to the project site is located in Tarcoola approximately 5 km east of the proposed open pitand there is also an airstrip at Kingoonya. The Tarcoola airstrip is approximately 1,350 m long by 80 m widewith a pavement of 23 m and is under the control of ARTC.

3.3.4 Communication

A Telstra network is present at Tarcoola which provides high speed access to the standard Telstra data andvoice services and NextG. NextGen Network’s main backhaul optical fibre runs along the railway line fromAdelaide to Perth via the towns of Kingoonya and Tarcoola.

3.4 AmenityThe landscape of the ML area is dominated by the east west trending Tarcoola Ridge which has a maximumelevation of about 165 mAHD (Photo 3.1).

Photo 3.1 Tarcoola Ridge viewed from the southwest



Vegetation in the project’s area includes open shrubland (western myall, salt bush and blue bush) and veryopen woodland (black oak). There is no direct line of sight from the township of Tarcoola to the proposedmine site and process plant area (including the waste rock storage and heap leach area). The proposedwaste rock storage and heap leach areas would be visible from portions of the public road west of Tarcoolaand from railway traffic on the Darwin to Adelaide railway line.

As indicated previously the proposed ML incorporates sections of State Heritage Areas within Tarcoola StateHeritage Place. The site contains remnants of historical mining activities, the most prominent being a mineheadframe (Photo 3.1) and mining excavation activities along the Tarcoola Ridge. Further details areincluded in Section 3.13.2.

3.5 Noise and vibration, dust, air quality3.5.1 Noise and vibration

There are no significant anthropogenic sources of noise located within the project area. Noise activities in theproject area include the limited existing traffic along the road west of Tarcoola (some of which is related torailway line maintenance), the generator that provided power to Tarcoola and rail activity along both theTrans Australian and Adelaide to Darwin rail lines (including shunting in Tarcoola). In addition the infrequentexploration activities undertaken by Tarcoola Gold on the EL generate noise associated with drilling.

A preliminary survey on 5 to 7 February 2013 (Appendix A) involving attended measurement of noise levelsover a 15 minute interval was undertaken at six locations (refer to Figure 3.2 and Table 3.6).

The attended noise measurements were undertaken during clear skies with a slight breeze and nilprecipitation, which is considered to be satisfactory meteorological conditions. The results of the attendednoise surveys are presented in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Operator attended day time noise survey results

Location Date/Time Measured 15 minute noise level, dB(A)

LA90 LAeq LA10 LA1

Location A:Western end of Tarcoola town

5/02/1320:30

≤ 30 49 ≤ 30 37

Location B:Adjacent headframe from formerunderground mine

6/02/1314:03

≤ 30 ≤ 30 33 40

Location C:Proposed waste rock storage area

6/02/1315:21

≤ 30 33 ≤ 30 36

Location D:North of proposed open pit

6/02.1315:53

≤ 30 36 41 45

Location E:Eastern end of Tarcoola town

6/02/1317:15

≤ 30 40 39 53

Location F:North-west part of Tarcoola town

7/02/1308:43

≤ 30 60 37 69

NoteAll noise levels in dB(A) to nearest decibelLAeq = equivalent continuous (energy average) A-weighted sound pressure levelLA90 = sound pressure level which is exceeded for 90% of the time interval; the background noise levelLA10 = sound pressure level which is exceeded for 10% of the time intervalLA1 = sound pressure level which is exceeded for 1% of the time interval.


Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 5 10


Noise monitoring locations and receptors1:500,000



www.pbworld.comWPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_027_C.mxd


YellabinnaRegional Reserve

WILGENA

MULGATHING

See inset

WILGENABON BON

OORAMINNA OUTSTATION

YERDA

BULGUNNIAMT EBA

MULGATHING

YELLABINNA RR

NORTH WELLWILGENATARCOOLATOWNSHIP

WHYMLET

WILGENA

BULGUNNIA

LYONS CAMP

NORTHWELL

MULGATHINGJOHNS OUTSTATION

CARNE OUTSTATION

DURKIN OUTSTATION

MENTOROUTSTATION

WARRIOR OUTSTATION

EALBARAOUTSTATION

BRADMAN OUTSTATION

BIG TANKOUTSTATION

MALBOOMAOUTSTATION

AMBROSIA OUTSTATIONGIBRALTAR OUTSTATION

MUCKANIPPIEOUTSTATION

CARNDING ROAD OUTSTATION STUART HIGHWAY

Noise monitoring locationSensitive receptorHomesteadMine site layoutNational parkPastoral leaseInset map

TARCOOLA

E

DC

B FA



A-weighted noise levels were measured on the ‘Fast’ response setting with the microphone positioned at1.2 metres above ground level and fitted with a wind sock (Photo 3.2).

Photo 3.2 Noise monitoring

Based on the attended noise surveys the day time noise environments at the nearest potential residentialreceptors on the western side of Tarcoola are influenced by intermittent road traffic noise, the local fauna(birds), the town generator and intermittent rail traffic and shunting.

The night-time background noise levels in the project area are in the main likely to be less than 30 dB (A) onnon-windy days as the project site is well away from the Tarcoola power generator but could experienceincreased levels during night time/early morning due to railway operations (including shunting).

There are no significant vibration sources within the project area. Intermittent vibration sources are limited toexploration activities (drilling) and trains along the Trans Australian and Adelaide to Darwin railway lines.

3.5.2 Dust and air quality

The existing air quality in the vicinity of the project site is typical of a semi-arid environment with dust beinggenerated by wind erosion of exposed surfaces, from unsealed roads and tracks near the project site andpotentially through ash of bushfires.

No specific air quality monitoring was undertaken however discussions were held with the EPA to assessappropriate background levels and these have been used in the impact assessment (Section 7.8).



Dust storms occur in dry and semi-arid inland regions of Australia. The storms can result in a blanket ofwind-blown dust covering extensive areas. The frequency of dust storms increases during drought periodsand in arid areas during summer.

The average frequency of dust storms in the region is summarised below:

n Roxby Downs – 2 per yearn Woomera – 2 per yearn Port Augusta – 1 per year.

3.6 Topography and landscapeOn a regional scale the land is generally gently sloping up to the elevated Tarcoola ridgeline which has amaximum elevation of about 165 mAHD. The localised fall of the land in the project area varies from 1:20 to1:25 (vertical:horizontal) to the south and 1:25 to 1:50 to the north. Small hills are present in the region,including Wilgena Hill at 259 m above sea level and Tarcoola Ridge 165 m above sea level.

Numerous small playa lake deposits (ranging in area from 2.4 to 6.8 hectares) occur 3.7 km to 5 km to thenorth and northwest of the project site. Peela Swamp and Lake Moolkra are located 25 km northeast and30 km east southeast respectively of the project site. These features are considered to be part of the surfaceexpression of the underlying Kingoonya Palaeochannel (refer to Figure 3.3).

The proposed mine site is located on the northern side of the Tarcoola Ridge which varies in height from140 to 165 mAHD. Surface water catchment areas are indicated in Figure 3.4).

www.pbworld.com

PEELA SWAMP

Tarcoolamine site

130

135125

145

150

155

115

110

165

170

175

185

105

190

195

20095

105

155

130

145

175

105

125

145

195

155

110

155

165

165

145125

165

105

135

150

145

145

110

170

105105

145

175

130

145135

125125

125

130

145

125

110

155

145

105

135

135

155155

155

150

110

125

110

130

165

125

175170

135

175

150

175

125

125

125

150

110

155110

165

150

105

125

110

145

115

155170

150

150

110

105

145

165

145

135

145

170

150

125

165

145

105

135125

150

190

155

175

165

150

135

135

155

130

125

125

13513512

5

175

135

110

110

145

125125

170

170

155

105

155

155

105

185

145

185

150

155

150

170

145

135

150

130

145

155

175

125

155

130

105

175

150

130

110

130

145

170

110

125

155

135

165

175

105

125

150

130

115

105

155

170

105

185

170

155

105

165

125

105

125

105

105

125

150

150

150

135

150

115

155

155

125

140

120

160180

100

120

160

140

140

160

160

120

140

12012

0

160

180

120

160

140

120

120

160

120160

120

120

120

120

120

120

160

140

140

120

120

120

180

180

140

140

120

160

140

180

TARCOOLA

LegendSurface water flow directionCatchment divide20m contour5m contourProposed mineral lease areaNational park

Client Name

Data source: DEWNR, DPTI, DSD Map no: 2200005A_GIS_022_B

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

Date: 16/07/2015

0 1 2

km1:150,000

Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 3.3

Regional topography and surface water catchmentsProjection: Transverse Mercator

Coord sys: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 53

Scale ratio correct when printed at A3

© Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd ("PB") Copyright in the drawings, informationand data recorded ("the information") is the property of PB. This document and theinformation are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may notbe used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that which itwas supplied by PB. PB makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts noresponsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.NCSI Certified Quality System to ISO 9001. © APPROVED FOR AND ON BEHALF OFParsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd.

\\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_022_B.mxdWPG Resources

www.pbworld.com

0601

09

08

07

05

04

03

02 120

140

160

120

120

140

120

160

120

120

140

120

140

120

120

120

120

140120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

140

120120

120

120

120

120

140

TARCOOLA

LegendDrainSurface water flow directionCatchment divide20m contourProposed mineral lease area

Client Name

Data source: DEWNR, DPTI, DSD Map no: 2200005A_GIS_008_B

Author: RP

Approved by: -

Date: 4/08/2015

0 300 600

m1:30,000


Project area and surface water catchmentsProjection: Transverse Mercator




\\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_008_B.mxdWPG Reources



3.7 Climate and meteorology

3.7.1 Wind speed and wind direction

The latest Bureau of Meteorology annual and seasonal wind roses data at Tarcoola Aerodrome is for 2010(Figure 3.5).

On an annual basis, the prevailing wind direction originates from the eastern and western quadrant. Duringsummer the prevailing wind directions are dominated by winds originating from the south western quadrant,and to a lesser extent the east. In autumn winds continue to come from the southwest quadrant and withcontributions from the northeast. The winter months show the same pattern as autumn. Spring shows atransition of winter to summer, with the inclusion of more winds from the south.

The annual percentage of calms (when wind speeds are less than 0.5 m/s) at Tarcoola Aerodrome (located3.8 km east of the open pit) was recorded as 3.4%. The annual average wind speed was 4.5 m/s.

3.7.2 Temperature

The data collected at Tarcoola Aerodrome weather station commenced in 1997, providing 17 years ofmeasurement. A summary of this data is included in Table 3.7. In general, Tarcoola Aerodrome experienceshigh maximum temperatures that range between 18.8°C (June and July) and 36.8°C (January). The lowestmean minimum temperatures fall to 4.6°C in July and reach 19.8°C in January.

3.7.3 Rainfall

As indicated in Table 3.7 the majority of rainfall occurs from October to February however the rainfallrecorded is extremely low. The wettest month on average is February, with a monthly average rainfall of28.90 millimetres (mm) and the driest is July, with a monthly average of 10.1 mm.

The annual average rainfall experienced at Tarcoola Aerodrome is 188.20 mm, which falls over an averageof 51 days over the course of the year.

On the basis of potential risks the concept design for the process ponds is based on a 1 in 100 year, 24 hraverage recurrence interval (ARI) event and the 1 in 100 year, 5 day ARI event and surface watermanagement has been based on the 1 in 100, 24 hr average ARI (refer to chart in Table 3.7).

3.7.4 Relative humidity

Relative humidity (RH) data is presented in Table 3.7 and indicates that the 9 am readings are higher incomparison to the 3 pm readings. The mean monthly RH peaks in June and dips in the summer months. Thehighest 9 am relative humidity reading is recorded in June, with a reading of 73%, and ranges down to 43%in January. The 3 pm readings range from 20% to 41% and reach the maximum and minimum recordings inthe same months as 9 am.



Annual

Summer Autumn

Winter Spring

Figure 3.5 Annual and seasonal wind roses for Tarcoola Aerodrome weather station (2010)



Table 3.7 Historical meteorological data for Tarcoola Aerodrome (station number 016098) weather station (1997 to 2014) and ARI chart

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

Tarcoola Aerodrome weather station 30.71 S, 134.58 E, 123 m elevation

Mean maximum temperature (ºC) 37.0 35.2 31.5 27.1 22.6 18.8 18.8 21.3 25.6 28.0 31.6 33.8 27.6

Mean minimum temperature (ºC) 19.9 19.3 16.1 12.3 8.4 5.3 4.7 5.6 9.1 11.7 15.5 17.4 12.1

Mean rainfall (mm) 11.6 26.4 15.0 12.1 12.0 13.0 12.7 10.7 9.3 15.9 19.1 22.4 180.1

Mean number of days of rain >1mm 1.4 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.6 2.2 2.1 1.7 2.6 3.3 2.8 26.6

Mean 9 am wind speed (km/hr) 20.2 18.3 16 16.2 12.8 11.5 12.7 15.4 19.8 20.8 20.3 20.2 17

Mean 3 pm wind speed (km/hr) 18.4 17.5 17.4 16.3 16.4 18.6 19.3 20.6 22 20.9 19.4 19.1 18.8

Mean 9 am relative humidity (%) 43 47 52 52 63 73 69 60 49 44 45 45 53

Mean 3 pm relative humidity (%) 20 24 25 30 35 41 39 32 27 24 24 23 29



3.7.5 Potential impact of climate change

Predicted climate change scenarios have been documented in the Climate Change Australia – Technicalreport (CSIRO 2007). The document provides summaries of predicted changes for seasonal and annualrainfall which have been reproduced in (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8 Average seasonal and annual change relative to 1990

Season 2030 range (best estimate) 2050 (range/best estimate) 2070 (range/best estimate)

Annual -10% to +5% (-2%) -20% to +10% (-5%) -20% to +20% (-10%)

Summer -10% to +20% (+2%) -20% to +40% (-2%) -40% to +40%(-2%)

Autumn -10% to +20% (+2%) -20% to +40% (+2%) -20% to +40%(+2%)

Spring -20% to +10% (-5%) -20% to +20% (-10%) -40% to +40%(-20%)

Winter -10% to +10% (-5%) -20% to +20% (-10%) -40% to +20%(-10%)

Note: The range is for the 10% percentile where the bottom of the range was selected and the 90 th percentile where the top of the rangewas selected

The current climate change predictions suggest a wide range of potential rainfall scenarios. Therefore theeffect of climate change on land use, final landforms, water resources and revegetation cannot be accuratelypredicted.

The Bureau of Meteorology has indicated (www.bom.gov.au/water/design) that climate change research isnot sufficiently developed to provide the advice necessary to develop Intensity-Frequency-Durationestimates.

Based on the climate change predictions Tarcoola Gold considers the most appropriate approach is todesign management measures on the current climatic conditions. In terms of rehabilitation if there wereeffects on landforms and rehabilitation from climate change these would reasonably be expected to begradual and would be experienced across the region, including adjoining un-mined areas.

By undertaking rehabilitation on current climatic conditions the mine site would be compatible and blend inwith the surrounding region in terms of landforms, drainage and vegetation, notwithstanding climate change.

3.8 Geohazards

3.8.1 Earthquakes

Information on historical earthquakes in South Australia was obtained from the DSD SARIG earthquake database. The largest earthquake (magnitude 4.3) occurred at Margaret Creek on 14/02/1942, about 190 kmnortheast of the project site. There are other earthquakes of between magnitude 3 and 4 located 196 km to216 km northwest, northeast east, south west and south of the project site (Figure 3.6). The closest recordedearthquake of magnitude 1.6 occurred on 27/05/1983 and was located 102 km south southeast of the projectsite.

The design of structures in Australia is governed by Australian Standard, AS 1170.4–2007 which provideshazard factors for a 1 in 500 year probability of exceedance. For the Tarcoola area the hazard factor is0.04 g (refer to Figure 3.7). For comparison the published hazard factors for Adelaide and Melbourne are0.10 g and 0.08 g, respectively and for Meckering in Western Australia the hazard factor is 0.22 g.

http://www.bom.gov.au/water/design


Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 20 40

Kilometres Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 3.6

Earthquake locations

Lake Everard Lake GairdnerSTUART HIGHWAY

Gawler RangesNP

Tarcoolamine siteMC 4376

CEDUNA

Yellabinna

Nullarbor

Tallaringa

Yellabinna

Yumbarra

Pureba

Gawler Ranges

CEDUNA

WOOMERA

TARCOOLA

GLENDAMBOKINGOONYA

WILGENA

COOBER PEDY

Earthquake locationMagnitude

Less than 11.0 - 1.92.0 - 2.93.0 - 3.9Greater than 4Proposed mineral lease boundary

1:1,750,000



www.pbworld.com


WPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_023_B.mxd



Figure 3.7 Earthquake hazard map

There is a major northeast trending basement fault located west of the proposed open pit. In addition reversefaults occur parallel to the strike of the Tarcoola Formation sediments. There are other east northeast andnortheast trending faults in the project area. There is no causative information that indicates that these faultsare active and there are no recorded earthquakes ascribed to the faults.

Geoscience Australia has recently revised the earthquake risk zoning for Australia (Geoscience Australia2012). This indicates a hazard factor of 0.02 for a return period of 500 years for the Tarcoola area.Geosciences Australia has indicated that there should be a revision of Australian Standard 2007 to take intoaccount the revised hazard factors.

Tarcoola Gold Project



In low seismicity areas and during early stages of the project it is reasonable to use the hazard factor derivedfrom the Australian Standard. For this assessment the current Australian Standard hazard rating of 0.04 ghas been adopted as it provides a more conservative result than that prescribed by Geoscience Australia.

3.8.2 Fires

The dry and arid conditions prevalent in the region of the Tarcoola Gold Project can result in bush firesoccurring (with greater frequency in the summer months). Generally this is related to the growth of grassesfollowing significant rainfall and subsequent dieback during dry conditions.

Annual fire restrictions (generally from mid-October to the end of March) are imposed to try and minimise therisk of bushfires.

3.8.3 Radioactive minerals

A review of the SARIG geological data base indicated that uranium analysis had been undertaken on4 samples of granitic rocks from stratigraphic borehole TD2 SADME and one sample of siltstone fromborehole TD4 SADME, both located in the Tarcoola area.

Concentrations of uranium ranged from less than 4 ppm to 6 ppm in TD2 SADME and 4 ppm in TD4SADME.

The results are comparable to other granites in the region (MESA Journal 34, July 2004) which indicateduranium concentrations ranging from 0.83 ppm to 6.56 ppm.

On the basis of this information no further assessment was undertaken for the presence of radioactiveminerals. It is concluded that risk associated with potential exposure to radioactive minerals are insignificant.

3.8.4 Asbestiform minerals

As indicated in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.22, the sedimentary rocks at Tarcoola have been intruded bymicrodiorite rocks of the Lady Jane Diorite. The dyke is fine grained and comprises pyroxene or hornblendein a groundmass of K-feldspar, fine pyroxene or hornblende, magnetite, apatite and quartz. No asbestiformminerals have been observed in the dyke(s) at the Tarcoola Gold Project.

The Wilgena Hill Jaspilite which outcrops 15 km east of Tarcoola contains subordinate amounts ofinterlayered carbonate, calc-silicate and quartzite. Jaspilite typically consists of alternating layers of jasperand iron oxide. In other parts of Eyre Peninsula and interstate metamorphosed banded iron formationscontain asbestiform minerals such as riebeckite (asbestiform crocidolite).

Geological mapping by Hein et al identified a banded iron formation (jaspilite) about 4.7 km northeast of theproposed Perseverance open pit, which is similar to the Wilgena Hill Jaspilite, although no direct correlationhas been established. The Wilgena Hill Jaspilite has not been identified within the project site however theupper part of the Peela Conglomerate contains occasional jaspilite clasts.

The potential for asbestiform minerals to be present at the project site is considered to be low, given thecomposition of the jaspilite. However, if present there could be a risk to human health which would need tobe managed.

Routine use of the Terraspec scanner will be undertaken during the development of the open pit to assesswhether asbestiform minerals are present and the need for specific management measures, such asencapsulation within the waste rock storage area. If asbestiform materials are detected through the on-sitetesting, a Fibrous Minerals Management Plan would be developed.



3.8.5 Slope stability, landslips and karst features

Topographical plans indicate that the Tarcoola Gold Project area is characterised by the Tarcoola Ridgewhich has a maximum elevation of about 165 mAHD.

Inspection by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff indicated there was no evidence of major slope instabilityobserved of existing rock faces within the Tarcoola Gold project area. Minor planar slope instability wasnoted on the southern side of the Tarcoola Ridge where rock surfaces dip out of the slope (Photo 3.3). PSMhas undertaken a stability assessment of the open pit development and the information is discussed inSection 4.4.3 and details provided in Appendix G.

The geological investigations in the proposed ML area have not indicated the presence of caves or karsticlimestone.

Photo 3.3 Minor planar slope failure on southern side of Tarcoola Ridge

3.8.6 Geochemistry

3.8.6.1 Acid rock drainage

Experience at other mines in South Australia and other jurisdictions has shown that mining of ore or wasterock that contains sulphides can result in acid rock drainage (ARD) and potential environmental impacts ifnot managed. As some of the rocks at the Tarcoola Gold Project contain sulphides there is a possibility thatacid, heavy metals and other contaminants could result in an impact on plants, surface water, groundwaterand corrode concrete and steel if exposed and stockpiled by mining.



Investigations and analytical testing were undertaken to assess the geochemistry of rock units within themining sequence and the potential for generation of ARD. As this information is a component of thegeological conditions at the site details are provided in Section 4.2.5.

3.8.6.2 Potential for acid sulphate soils

Acid sulphate soils (ASS) occur naturally in both coastal (tidal) and inland or upland (freshwater) settings. Ifundisturbed the soils are not a problem. When excavated or drained the sulphides in the soil react withoxygen, forming sulphuric acid. The acid and heavy metals and other contaminants can result in an impact toplants, surface water, groundwater and corrode concrete and steel. A review of the CSIRO data baseindicated there are no areas of acid sulphate soils on the proposed Tarcoola ML (CSIRO ASRIS data base).

Investigations of the topsoil within the proposed ML area of the waste rock storage facility, process plant andopen pit areas is alkaline with pH ranging from 7.3 to 9.3 and averaging 8.7. The NEPM (2013) indicates thatfor the protection of buildings and concrete structures from sulphate impacts (acid attack) should be >4.5. Onthe basis of the test results it is considered that there is an acceptably low risk of acid sulphate soils beingpresent.

Based on the results of soil sampling within the area of the waste rock storage facility, process plant andopen pits and analysis (Appendix B) the concentrations of heavy metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn) donot exceed NEPM (2013) environmental investigation levels (EILs). Therefore there is an insignificant risk ofimpact on environmental receptors.

3.8.7 Dispersive soils

The near surface materials comprise colluvium, residual soils and saprolite which have been derived fromthe in-situ weathering of the underlying rock types (historical geological investigations).

The topsoil comprises:

n silty sand, fine to coarse grained, brown, trace low plasticity clay and fine graveln gravelly sand, fine to coarse grained, pale brown to olive brown, fine to medium grained sub-angular

gravel with low plasticity clayn sand, fine to coarse grained, olive brown, with low plasticity clay, trace fine to coarse grained sub-

angular gravel, slight to moderately calcareous.

Below the topsoil layer the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer testing (DCP) (Appendix B) indicates densermaterial which was interpreted as colluvium/subsoil with a thickness varying from 0.4 m to 0.5 m.

This is consistent with geotechnical investigations undertaken as part of the open pit studies (Appendix G)which indicate that the red brown and light grey brown colluvium has a thickness of about 0.4 m and isunderlain by extremely-highly weathered sediments of the Tarcoola Formation.

The sediments (shales and feldspathic sandstones) have been weathered variably to quartz sands andclayey sand to sandy clay. The granite is coarse grained, potassium feldspar and quartz rich, contains biotiteand/or chlorite rich phases and other finer grained derivatives. Gold mineralisation at Perseverance isassociated with kaolin, sericite and goethite alteration of the Tarcoola Formation sediments at or close to thegranite contact.

In terms of dispersion montmorillonitic clays have a higher potential for dispersion due to a higher negativecharge and finer grained texture when compared to other clays. Kaolinitic clays have a lower risk and Illiticclays are mid-range.



While there have not been specific investigations to determine whether the topsoil, subsoil and weatheredrocks are dispersive the risk of there being significant quantities of dispersive soils is considered to be lowgiven that the weathering products at the site contain a high proportion of kaolin.

Investigations will be undertaken as part of the PEPR to confirm the potential for dispersive soils and ifpresent the site risk assessment, management and control measures will be revised accordingly.

3.9 Hydrology

3.9.1 Regional

The Tarcoola Gold Project is situated in the Gairdner surface water management area (Department forWater 2012).

There are no permanent streams, creeks or rivers within the Tarcoola area due to the low rainfall, highevaporation rate and low topography.

There are small playa lakes ranging in area from 2.4 to 6.8 hectares located 3.7 km to 5 km to the north andnorthwest of the project site; and 4 km to the southwest (Figure 3.3). Peela Swamp and Lake Moolkra arelocated 25 km northeast and 30 km east southeast of the project site respectively. These intermittent surfacewater features are thought to be located above parts of the Kingoonya Palaeochannel and consist of claypans and gypsiferous sands.

Regionally bedrock outcrops occur above the alluvial/eluvial plains creating low hills with drainage to lowlying areas. There are two main catchment/drainage areas which are controlled by generally north-southtrending ridges and east-west trending ridges.

The proposed mining site is located on the northern side of the approximately east-west trending TarcoolaRidge which has a maximum elevation of around 165 mAHD. This ridge forms a partial catchment dividebetween the site and areas located to the south and north. The Darwin to Adelaide and Transcontinentalrailway lines (and associated embankments) are superimposed on the natural drainage features (refer toSection 3.9.2).

Surface water runoff from the northern side of the Tarcoola Ridge and other ridges north of the project sitecollect in small playa lakes to the north and northwest of the Tarcoola project or in similar depositsassociated with the Peela Swamp.

Similarly runoff from the southern side of the Tarcoola Ridge and other topographic high areas drains to thesouthern catchment area and collects in playa lakes.

3.9.2 Local

The area surrounding the mine site is characterised by colluvium covered gentle slopes comprising silcreteand rock rubble (refer to Photo 3.4).

The Tarcoola Ridge is the main topographical feature in the project site with runoff from the ridge draining tothe north, northwest and south along several shallow drainage features. The Darwin to Adelaide rail line islocated on an embankment which provides a local barrier to surface water flow. Runoff from the southernand western sides of the project site accumulates in shallow depressions behind the railway embankment.Several drainage pipes/culverts have been installed through the embankment to allow for surface water todischarge to the west and south (Photo 3.5). It is unlikely that the surface water would accumulate over anextended period due to the high evaporation rate.



Photo 3.4 Surface cover of colluvium

Photo 3.5 Stormwater culvert through railway embankment south of project site

Stormwaterculvert



The local natural topography, surface water catchment areas and drains within the Tarcoola Gold Project areindicated in Figure 3.4.

The proposed mine process area, heap leach area and waste rock storage area are located to the west andnorthwest of the proposed open pit. In general the mine process area and associated infrastructure has agently slope to the north of about 2% and a cross-fall of 0.5% to 1%.

In general runoff from the northern side of the Tarcoola Ridge would collect in shallow depressions adjacentto the railway line and drain to the north into the playa lakes.

3.10 GroundwaterGroundwater investigation and assessment was undertaken by Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Jacobs)(previously SKM Pty Ltd) (Appendix C) and a summary is provided in the following sections.

3.10.1 Regional hydrogeology

Groundwater in the area can occur in three aquifer types:

n near surface aquifers in unconsolidated sedimentsn palaeochannels (unconsolidated sediments deposited in ancient river channels)n fractured rocks.

3.10.1.1 Near surface aquifers

Sandy soils may contain water as a result of surface runoff, ponding and infiltration following periods ofprolonged rainfall. Local recharge rates have been estimated to be up to 5 mm per year in theTarcoola/Glendambo area and decreases significantly further north to between 0.1–0.3 mm per year. These“aquifers” are generally discontinuous and are unlikely to contain significant groundwater due to the highevaporation rates in the area.

Exploration drilling data indicates that no groundwater was observed in the surface sediments in the vicinityof the propose mine. This indicates that shallow groundwater in the surface sediments is unlikely to bepresent.

3.10.1.2 Palaeochannels

To the north, east, west and south of the Tarcoola Gold Project is the Tertiary age KingoonyaPalaeochannel, a network of mixed sediments, including clay and gravel. The Kingoonya Palaeochannel hasbeen classified into four units: the Eocene Pidinga Formation (mainly fluvial carbonaceous sediment), KhastaFormation (estuarine sands), Ooldea Sand (coastal barrier sands), and Miocene Garford Formation(dominantly lacustrine clays) (DSD 2001).

The palaeochannels are ancient valleys or old river channels which have been filled with recent sedimentswhich due to their material properties can store groundwater that enters through re-charge either from thesurface or due to discharge from fractured rock aquifers.

Quaternary age sediments and playa lake deposits are superimposed on and obscure the Tertiarypalaeochannels. Palaeochannel widths are stated to range from a few tens of metres to greater than 30 kmwhilst depths can be in excess of 140 m (Figure 3.8). The principal direction of flow is towards the southwestbut there is considerable variation.



Figure 3.8 Kingoonya Palaeochannel and sediment thickness

The water quality of the Kingoonya Palaeochannel is expected to be variable depending on the recharge,and could vary from 7,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS) as indicated in Table 3.9 for the Welcome well,to hypersaline, greater than 30,000 mg/L TDS as indicated by Jacobs in Appendix C. The borehole log inSARIG indicates material properties that are consistent with the palaeochannel. The palaeochannel isoverlain by 5–10 m thick playa lake deposits.

3.10.1.3 Fractured rock aquifers

Groundwater also occurs in the Tarcoola region within structural features which have produced secondaryporosity in basement granitic and sedimentary rocks from the Hiltaba Suite and Tarcoola Formation (shale,slate, quartzite) respectively. As the Tarcoola Formation is highly indurated there is little to no primaryporosity (refer to Appendix C).

The Pug Seam Fault which is located 650 m southeast of the Perseverance deposit near the TarcoolaBlocks mine is reported to be water bearing and dewatering was required to enable mining at depth.

Groundwater generally occurs at a depth of 25 m below ground level (BGL) on the Tarcoola Ridge and10 mBGL in low lying areas. The fracture rock aquifers are characterised by high variability in hydraulicconductivity and are generally saline. Yields are less than 2 L/sec with some higher yielding boresassociated with major shear zones or highly fractured rock. The salinity in the fractured rock aquifers isgenerally high, typically exceeding 20,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS) (refer to Appendix C).

Jacobs (Appendix C) accessed Water Connect to assess existing information. There have been no specificinvestigations to assess the connectivity between the rock aquifers and Kingoonya Palaeochannel in thearea. Recharge to the fractured rock aquifer could occur by infiltration to the exposed rock along theTarcoola Ridge, costeans and excavations from historical mining. In Section 6.3.2 of the Jacobs report(Appendix C) it is indicated that there is likely to be a hydraulic connection between the Tarcoola Formationand the regional palaeodrainage at a small flow rate.

3.10.2 Groundwater use

Development in the region has been restricted by the availability of water supplies. The local townshipsobtain their potable and domestic use water supplies primarily from groundwater or from rainwater tanks.



There is no regional reticulated water supply system and no permanent surface water resources in the regionsurrounding the Tarcoola Gold Project. Pastoralists operating in and around the project area utilisegroundwater resources for stock watering through windmill extraction to tanks and distribution to watertroughs in selected paddocks.

Tarcoola obtains its water supply from two local dams and in the past annual consumption was reported tobe about 1 ML per year (DFW 2012). It is understood that in recent times the dams had dried up with waterbeing transported in.

The water supply for Glendambo is obtained from bores established in the un-confined Eromanga Basinsediments.

Information on local groundwater wells in the surrounding area was obtained from the WaterConnectdatabase with locations, groundwater levels, yield and salinity indicated in Figure 3.9 and groundwatercontours indicated in Figure 3.10.

The freshest groundwater (4,000 to 10,000 mg/L) is in wells located 1.5 km north of Tarcoola within graniticand dolerite/gabbro dykes. Wells adjacent to the railway line were established in the Sullivan ShaleFormation and recorded salinities ranging from 80,000 to 160,000 mg/L.

Groundwater yields as indicated by the WaterConnect database are highly variable ranging from 0.06 L/s to11.6 L/s with lower yields predominantly found in the Hiltaba Suite Granite. Bores adjacent to the railway linehave recorded yields of 5.2 L/s and 7.3 L/s.

In order to determine the environmental value of the resource reference was made to the Australian and NewZealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC 2000). On the basis of the electricalconductivity results groundwater within or immediately adjacent to the proposed mining lease is not suitablefor potable and irrigation uses. The water quality of wells TC001 and TARC029 located 500 m northeast ofthe proposed open pit, on the basis of the measured total dissolved solids, would be suitable for stock use(sheep). The Afghan well which is located about 2 km northeast of the proposed mining lease, on the basisof the total dissolved solids, would be suitable for cattle and sheep. The groundwater would be suitable forindustrial purposes such as mining.

The proposed ML is surrounded by Wilgena and Mulgathing pastoral leases. Consultation with the pastoralstations has indicated six operational groundwater bores within 30 km of the proposed ML (Figure 7.4).

Geological logs from SARIG were used by Jacobs to infer hydrostratigraphic units for each pastoral bore(Table 3.9).

Table 3.9 Information on operational pastoral bores

Well name Boredepth (m)

Depth towater

Availabledrawdown

(m)

Interpreted unit TDS(mg/L)

Yield(L/s)

Welcome well 33 – – KingoonyaPalaeochannel

7,000 0.6

Campbells bore(Peela)

84 44 40 Tarcoola Formation 5,000 –

South bore 90 45 45 Tarcoola Formation 3,400 1.5

Konkaby bore 38 – – Hiltaba Suite Granite 3,400 0.4

Pompeter bore 40 – – Hiltaba Suite Granite 9,000 –

Pinding Westbore

39 26 13 Hiltaba Suite Granite 5,000 –



Konkaby bore and Pompeter bore have been interpreted to be abstracting groundwater from the HiltabaSuite granite and Welcome well is interpreted to be abstracting groundwater from the KingoonyaPalaeochannel. South bore and Campbells bore are interpreted to be abstracting groundwater from theregional Tarcoola Formation. Although these wells are inferred to be in the same aquifer as the proposedproject wellfield (TW1P to TW4P), it is likely that the Kingoonya palaeodrainage (Hou, 2004) provides aseparation in the Tarcoola Formation between the wellfield and pastoral wells. This aquifer separation issupported by the salinity variation, 3,400 to 5,000 mg/L in the pastoral wells and the >100,000 mg/L in theproposed wellfield.

Assuming the worst case scenario and hydraulic connection exists between the pastoral wells and wellfield,Jacobs has concluded that it is unlikely that there would be any drawdown within the operational bores atWilgena and Mulgathing stations as these wells are outside the estimated radius of influence.

Analytical modelling by Jacobs (Appendix C) indicates that post mining, there is a low probability that a pitlake will form due to the high evaporation rate. It is estimated that following significant rainfall, localisedrunoff from within the final open pit bund area and normal seepage that water could accumulate at the baseof the open pit to a depth of less than 5 m. Due to the high evaporation rate it is expected that anyaccumulated water would evaporate over a short time frame (depending on the duration of the rainfall event).

The open pit will be a permanent groundwater sink and over time regional groundwater levels will equilibrateto this scenario. Jacobs has indicated that there would not be any impact on the pastoral bores(Appendix C).

Groundwater quality of the water in the pit lake would be representative of saline groundwater with anypotential acidity likely to be buffered by the Euro Limestone, located at the base of the Perseverance pit.

3.10.3 Groundwater dependent ecosystems

Several playas and salinas occur to the north and south of the site and the current understanding is thatplayas are groundwater discharge features and due to concentrations of salts are very saline environments.There are no permanent water features in the Tarcoola area. The playas are inundated and fill with freshwater following large rainfall events. Jacobs (Section 6.3.2 in Appendix C) has indicated that these areasmay provide, at best, a temporary refuge for migratory birds when flooded. Based on the very saline natureof groundwater Jacobs consider it is unlikely that there are groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE) in thearea. In addition it is unlikely that groundwater discharge to the playas supports significant ecologicalecosystems.

Groundwater recharge is expected to be low due to the low rainfall and high evaporation rate, with rechargeoccurring by local infiltration. Groundwater flow is interpreted to be in a northerly direction north of theTarcoola Ridge and in a southerly direction south of the ridge.

Groundwater in the Tarcoola Formation flows through secondary porosity formed by fracturing and faultingand is thought to discharge to the paleochannel which acts a regional discharge unit. Jacobs (Appendix C)has indicated that due to the low transmissivity it is unlikely that abstraction of groundwater for the miningoperations will have significant, if any, effect on volumes of groundwater held within the palaeochannelsediments. In addition based on the very saline nature of groundwater within the project area it is unlikelythat there are groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE) in the area.

Jacobs (Section 6.2, Appendix C) has indicated that the threat of impact to groundwater-surface waterinteraction does not exist as there are no known surface water systems or groundwater dependentecosystems (GDE) within the predicted zone of influence of the mine water affecting activities. The threatposed to groundwater quality is not considered significant as evaporation from the mine pits will not allow in-pit water (where it exists post-closure) to interact with adjoining groundwater systems.


Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 1,000 2,000


Location of existing groundwater wells

5836-64SWL: 23.13TDS: 9323

5836-3SWL: 24.5TDS: 9942

5836-1215SWL: 4.3

5836-1250SWL: 7.53

5836-33SWL: 24TDS: 15435

5836-92TDS: 6773Yield: 2.55

5836-93TDS: 4329Yield: 3.59

5836-1220SWL: 10.35

Haul road

Heap Leach PadsCrusher

5736-41TDS: 2321Yield: -

5836-28SWL: 2TDS: 67200Yield: 5.05 5836-1

SWL: 24.8TDS: 5739Yield: 0.45836-29

SWL: 5.03TDS: 60483Yield: 0.53

5836-26SWL: 8.04TDS: 47294Yield: 0.06

5836-86SWL: 14.1TDS: 133450Yield: 2.95

5836-1226SWL: 5

5836-1222SWL: 7

5836-1216SWL: 4

5836-1214SWL: 4

5836-1252SWL: 7.4

5836-1223SWL: 7.3 5836-1221

SWL: 6.9

5836-33SWL: 5.2TDS: 49084

5836-21SWL: 26TDS: 10772

5836-67SWL: 23.5TDS: 4102

5836-63SWL: 24.3TDS: 7627

5736-59SWL: 33.6TDS: 10428

Wasterock dump

Perseverance pit

ROM pad

Mine office

TARCOOLA

Water wellWatercourse

1:75,000

Scale correct when printed at A3 LandscapeProjection: Transverse Mercator

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 53

www.pbworld.comWPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_009_C.mxd

Date: 27/07/2015


Data Source: PIRSA 2008, Figure provided by Jacobs,

Map No: 2200005A_GIS_031_A Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 3.10

Pre-mining standing water levels and indicative groundwater contours

www.pbworld.comWPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_031_A.mxd

© Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd ("PB") Copyright in the drawings, information and data recorded("the information") is the property of PB. This document and the information are solely for the use of theauthorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for anypurpose other than that which it was supplied by PB. PB makes no representation, undertakes no dutyand accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.NCSI Certified Quality System to ISO 9001. © APPROVED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ParsonsBrinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd. Trademarks provided under license from ESRI.



3.10.4 Local hydrogeology

Groundwater investigations were undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed mine site (ML area) to assesspotential water supply sources, potential pit de-watering requirements and baseline groundwater conditions(refer to Appendix C).

3.10.4.1 Investigations

Groundwater investigations were undertaken from 4 to 7 February 2013 and in May 2013 and comprised thefollowing:

n review of existing hydrogeological informationn assessment of well condition of existing exploration wells and measurement of depth to watern water sampling and analysis of EC, pH and temperature:n slug testing of 13 exploration holesn pump testing of 6 exploration holesn water quality samplingn laboratory analysis.

A summary of the wells tested is provided in Table 3.10 and locations indicated in Figure 3.11.

Table 3.10 Summary of tested wells

Bore ID Strata Location Waterlevel

(mAHD)

Test type Test duration(min)

Water chemistry

EC(µS/cm)

pH

GP006R TarcoolaFormation

Adjacent toPerseverance

114.35 Slug NA NT NT

PWR001 TarcoolaFormation



PWR015 TarcoolaFormation



QR145A TarcoolaFormation

Perseverance 114.72 Slug NA NT NT

QR182 TarcoolaFormation/Schist/Granitoid


QR186 TarcoolaFormation

Perseverance 113.66 SlugPump/Recovery

NA7/157

32,200 5.47

QR237 TarcoolaFormation/Granitoid


TARC003 Monzonite Perseverance 114.76 Slug NA NT NT

TARC004 Monzonite Perseverance 114.47 SlugPump/Recovery

NA7/1021

27,200 6.73



TARC021 Monzonite Wondergraph 114.22 Slug NA NT NT



Bore ID Strata Location Waterlevel

(mAHD)

Test type Test duration(min)

Water chemistry

EC(µS/cm)

pH

TARC029 Monzonite Wondergraph 114.44 Slug

Pump/Recovery 3/160

7,850 6.94

QR028 TarcoolaFormation/Granitoid

Perseverance 114.40 Pump/Recovery 18/1174 21,520 6.97

QR117 TarcoolaFormation/Schist/Granitoid

Perseverance 114.23 Pump/Recovery 5/255 19,890 6.6

TC001 Granitoid Adjacent toPerseverance

– Pump/Recovery 220/950 8,780 7.03

NA = not applicable, NT = not tested

3.10.4.2 Results of investigations

Slug tests

Slug testing was completed on 13 bores and the data used to derive a value of hydraulic conductivity (K)based on hydraulic response and aquifer model of each well. Results are presented in the Table 3.11 andAppendix C and indicate the hydraulic conductivity of the formations is very low ranging from 10-2 to 10-3 m/d.

Table 3.11 Slug testing results

Bore ID Strata SWL columnheight (m)

Initialdisplacement

K (m/d)

GP006R Tarcoola Formation 96.96 1.56 3.2 x10-3

PWR001 Tarcoola Formation 51.29 0.71 1.4 x 10-3

PWR015 Tarcoola Formation 21.2 0.76 5.6 x 10-3

QR145A Tarcoola Formation 23 0.73 3.2 x 10-3

QR182 Tarcoola Formation/Schist/Granitoid 65 0.69 1.4 x 10-3

QR186 Tarcoola Formation 51.24 0.51 2.8 x 10-2

QR237 Tarcoola Formation/Granitoid 65 0.62 1.0 x 10-3

TARC003 Monzonite 70 0.64 1.9 x 10-3

TARC004 Monzonite 49.25 0.64 1.5 x 10-3

TARC007 Monzonite 50.51 0.57 2.3 x 10-3

TARC010 Monzonite 72 0.59 5.9 x 10-3

TARC021 Monzonite 21.8 0.67 1.5 x 10-3

TARC029 Monzonite 22.61 0.61 6.7 x 10-3

Data Source: Figure provided by Jacobs Map No: 2200005A_GIS_014_A Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 3.11

Location of investigation groundwater wells





Pumping tests

A summary of the results of the test pumping analysis is presented in Table 3.12. Details of the pumpingtests and analysis are provided in Appendix C.

Table 3.12 Test pumping analysis summary

Drill hole/well

Test type Analysis method Transmissivity(m2/d)

Bore depth(m)

Hydraulicconductivity (m/d)

QR028 Recovery Theis Recovery 0.2 32.2 6.3 x 10-3

QR117 Recovery Theis Recovery <0.1 34.6 4.7 x 10-4

QR186 Recovery Theis Recovery 0.2 51.24 2.5 x 10-3

TARC004 Recovery Theis Recovery 0.1 49.25 2.6 x 10-3

TARC004 Recovery Theis Recovery 0.1 22.61 6.3 x 10-3

TC001 Pumping(1 L/s)

Cooper-Jacob(early time)

14.3 40 3.6 x 10-1

Pumping(1 L/s)

Cooper-Jacob(late time)

1.6 40 4.0 x 10-2

Pumping(1.5 L/s)

Cooper-Jacob (all data) 1.0 40 2.5 x 10-2

Recovery Theis Recovery 14.3 40 3.6 x 10-1

Groundwater levels

The groundwater levels were measured in selected existing exploration wells and the recently establishedexploration wells (Table 3.12). Additional monitoring of baseline groundwater levels will be undertaken aspart of the PEPR process.

3.10.4.3 Groundwater chemistry

Groundwater samples were collected as part of the investigations to determine background water quality.Samples were analysed by Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) for pH, electrical conductivity, selecteddissolved metals, cyanide (total and weak acid dissociable), major anions and cations and ferrous iron andresults included in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 Water quality

Parameter Units QR028 QR117 QR186 TARC004 TC001 TARC029 TW2 AfghanWell

pH - 7.09 6.93 5.09 6.6 6.95 6.97 6.64 7.47

EC µS/cm 24200 36500 39600 32000 9260 8700 68200 5320

TDS mg/L 15700 23700 25700 20800 6020 5660 44300 3460

Alkalinity mg/L asCaCO3

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Sulphate mg/L 2160 3080 3320 1220 705 726 3400 5

Chloride mg/L 8000 12200 13300 12500 3150 2840 26100 1580

Calcium mg/L 733 1140 1170 1280 351 342 525 304

Magnesium mg/L 537 949 1030 954 201 169 1770 102

Potassium mg/L 99 173 178 144 60 48 360 28



Parameter Units QR028 QR117 QR186 TARC004 TC001 TARC029 TW2 AfghanWell

Sodium mg/L 4330 6520 7150 6320 1860 1350 14300 624

Fluoride mg/L 3.7 3.4 0.8 2.9 2.4 2.5 0.6 0.4

Iron(II) mg/L <0.05 0.18 22.8 4.13 0.11 <0.05 0.1 0.13

Manganese(II)

mg/L 0.881 6.92 3.54 4.06 0.003 0.116 3.28 2.5

Arsenic mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Barium mg/L 0.01 0.031 0.036 0.022 0.008 0.021 0.092 0.339

Beryllium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.001

Cadmium mg/L 0.0187 0.0552 0.0527 0.0031 0.009 0.0019 0.0954 <0.001

Cobalt mg/L 0.005 0.049 0.294 0.011 <0.001 <0.001 0.014 <0.001

Chromium mg/L <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.01 <0.001

Copper mg/L 0.009 0.049 0.358 0.073 0.004 0.007 0.016 0.001

Nickel mg/L 0.005 0.022 0.339 0.015 <0.001 <0.001 0.037 <0.001

Lead mg/L <0.001 0.002 0.3 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.031 <0.001

Vanadium mg/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Zinc mg/L 3.04 0.672 3.18 0.452 0.058 0.022 1.52 <0.005

Mercury mg/L <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Fluoride mg/L 3.7 3.4 0.8 2.9 2.4 2.5 0.6 0.4

CN total mg/L <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004

CNWAD mg/L <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004

Total Anions mg/L 274 411 444 381 107 98.5 808 51.2

Total Cations mg/L 272 423 459 421 116 90.9 803 51.4

Ionic balance % 0.38 1.38 1.58 4.94 4.32 4 0.32 0.18

The pH of the groundwater was predominantly neutral (pH about 7) except for QR186 which was slightlyacidic (pH 5.47).

The fractured rock aquifer at or near the proposed mine site have varying salinity with EC ranging between8,700 µS/cm and 55,700 µS/cm.

The Piper diagram is used to compare major ion chemistry and to assess whether groundwater sources aresimilar. On the basis of the water chemistry groundwater in the fractured rock aquifers would be classified asa sodium-chloride type. This water type is typical of arid and semi-arid environments where high evaporationrates and low rainfall leads to ion exchange and the dissolution of evaporates which result in higher levels ofsodium and chloride in water. The Piper diagram (Figure 3.12) suggests that different groundwater typesoccur in the Tarcoola Formation and the granitoid/monzonite.



Figure 3.12 Piper tri-linear plot of major cations and anions

3.11 Flora and faunaEBS Ecology was engaged to undertake a baseline flora and fauna surveys of the general mine lease area.The surveys were undertaken in autumn 2013 from 18 to 24 March and spring 2014 from 13 to17 September 2014.

The surveys involved six flora monitoring sites and four fauna monitoring sites in both autumn and spring(Figure 3.13).

Flora survey methods included 100 x 100 m quadrats, Jessup transects and 5 x 2 m quadrats. Generalobservations and condition of vegetation associations were mapped and recorded within the study area.

A range of methods were used for the fauna survey, including pitfall traps, Elliott traps, cage and funneltraps. A passive bat survey was conducted using AnaBat detector and a harp net was installed above an oldopen mine shaft. Spotlighting and opportunistic fauna observations were conducted during the survey.

Targeted bird surveys were undertaken at eight monitoring sites in autumn and spring. Further details of thesurvey methods can be found in the EBS reports (Appendix D).



3.11.1 Data base searches

Database searches were undertaken prior to the autumn survey as part of a desktop study to identify speciesthat may occur in the project area. The review included a search of the online Protected Matters Search Toolto determine matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act and the Biological Databaseof South Australia (BDBSA) (Figure 3.14).

3.11.1.1 EPBC Protected Matters Search

A number of nationally threatened species were identified from the database searches as potentiallyoccurring within the project area, including two flora species, two bird species and two mammal species.Four migratory species were also highlighted in the EPBC Protected Matters Search report. A list of thesespecies and the likelihood of their occurrence in the project area is provided in Appendix D.

No nationally threatened ecological communities are known to occur within the study area. As neither springnor autumn fauna and flora surveys identified any items of significant impact on matters of nationalenvironmental significance, no referral under this legislation has been deemed necessary.

The EPBC protected matters search also identified the following pest plants and animals that could occur inthe study area; Wards Weed (Carrichtera annua), Cat (Felis catus), European Rabbit (Oryctolaguscuniculus) and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes).

3.11.1.2 BDBSA

The BDBSA search identified one nationally threatened plant species, four State threatened plant speciesand four State threatened bird species within a 20 km radius of the project area (Appendix D).

3.11.2 Flora

Broad vegetation mapping was undertaken within the proposed mine lease area and immediate surrounds(Figure 3.13).

Seven broad vegetation associations were identified across the project area in autumn and spring.

n Association 1 – Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) Open Shrubland+/- Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) +/- Acacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle).

n Association 2 – Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia(Bluebush).

n Association 3 – Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Acacia papyrocarpa (Western Myall) OpenShrubland.

n Association 4 – Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush) +/- Maireanaastrotricha (Low Bluebush) Open Shrubland over Sclerolaena obliquicuspis (Oblique-spined Bindyi) andAustrostipa spp. (Spear Grass).

n Association 5 – Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved DesertSenna) Open Shrubland over Rhagodia ulicina (Intricate saltbush), Eremophila spp. (Emu Bush) andAcacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle).

n Association 6 – Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved DesertSenna) Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) and Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder saltbush).

n Association 7 – Maireana appressa (Pale-fruit Bluebush) +/- Sarcozona praecox (Sarcozona)+/- Gunniopsis tenuifolia +/- Tecticornia sp.(Samphire) +/- Eragrostis setifolia (Bristly-love Grass) OpenShrubland.

Data Source: EBS Ecology, DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map No: 2200005A_GIS_011_B

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 200 400


Vegetation monitoring locations

Tarcoola

EBS survey location (2013)

Birds onlyFaunaFlora

Mine site layoutMine site layoutProposed mineral lease area

Vegetation association0. No vegetation1. Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) Open Shrubland +/- Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) +/- Acacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle)2. Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush)3. Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Acacia papyrocarpa (Western Myall) Open Shrubland4. Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush) +/- Maireana astrotricha (Low Bluebush) Open Shrubland over Sclerolaena obliquicuspis (Oblique-spined Bindyi) and Austrostipa spp. (Spear Grass)5. Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) Open Shrubland over Rhagodia ulicina (Intricate saltbush), Eremophila spp. (Emu Bush) and Acacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle)6. Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) and Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder saltbush)7. Maireana appressa (Pale-fruit Bluebush) +/- Sarcozona praecox (Sarcozona) +/- Gunniopsis tenuifolia +/- Tecticornia sp. +/- Eragrostis setifolia Open Shrubland

1:13,000



www.pbworld.com


\\APADLFIL01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_011_B.mxdWPG Resources


Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 1 2

Kilometres Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 3.14

Threatened flora and fauna (region)

Swainsonadictyocarpa

Note: Some locations slightlyoffset for cartographic purposesPeregrine Falcon

Gilbert's Whistler

Restless Flycatcher

White-browed Treecreeper

Sandalwood

Sandalwood

Wild VioletSmooth Wallaby-grass

TARCOOLA

Threatened fauna (BDBSA records)Climacteris affinis (White-browed Treecreeper) SA: RFalco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon) SA: RMyiagra inquieta (Restless Flycatcher) SA: RPachycephala inornata (Gilbert's Whistler) SA: R

Threatened flora (BDBSA records)Austrodanthonia laevis (Smooth Wallaby-grass) SA: RSantalum spicatum (Sandalwood) SA: VSwainsona dictyocarpa SA: VSwainsona microcalyx (Wild Violet) SA: RMine site layoutProposed mineral lease area

1:80,000



www.pbworld.com





The proposed pit area was dominated by vegetation association 4 with vegetation association 3 in thesouthwest portion. The waste rock storage area includes predominantly vegetation association 2 withcomponents of vegetation associations 3 and 4 in the eastern and northern parts respectively.

Overall, the condition of vegetation was generally moderate with much of the Tarcoola area having acondition rating of 4:1 to 6:1. The main open pit area had predominantly a vegetation rating of 3:1 and thenorthern open pit a rating of 6:1 and the area in between a rating of 4:1. The majority of the waste rockstorage had a rating of 4:1 with the northern and western fringe a rating of 6:1. The heap leach operationsand ROM pad had a rating of 6:1 as do part of the access road, workshops and office area. Other portions ofthe proposed access road, the process plant and part of the workshop area had a vegetation rating of 8:1. Adescription and condition rating in the area likely to be impacted by the project for each association isoutlined in Figure 3.15 and Table 3.14. Not all vegetation associations would be directly impacted byclearance for project components.

Table 3.14 Vegetation associations, condition rating and number of hectares recorded

No. Vegetation association Condition rating

1 Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) Open Shrubland+/- Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) +/- Acacia tarculensis(Tarcoola Wattle)

4:1 to 6:1

2 Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia(Bluebush)

4:1 to 6:1

3 Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Acacia papyrocarpa (Western Myall) OpenShrubland

4:1 to 6:1

4 Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush) +/- Maireanaastrotricha (Low Bluebush) Open Shrubland over Sclerolaena obliquicuspis(Oblique-spined Bindyi) and Austrostipa spp. (Spear Grass)

3:1 to 6:1

5 Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved DesertSenna) Open Shrubland over Rhagodia ulicina (Intricate saltbush), Eremophila spp.(Emu Bush) and Acacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle)

Mainly 8:1

6 Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved DesertSenna) Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) and Atriplex vesicaria(Bladder saltbush)

3:1 to 4:1

7 Maireana appressa (Pale-fruit Bluebush) +/- Sarcozona praecox (Sarcozona) +/-Gunniopsis tenuifolia +/- Tecticornia sp.(Samphire) +/- Eragrostis setifolia (Bristly-love Grass) Open Shrubland

6:1

3.11.2.1 Survey results

Flora species

Most of the project area was classified as being in moderate condition (SEB 6:1) with dominant over storeyspecies largely intact with moderate loss of native understorey diversity species.

A total of 140 and 97 flora species were observed across the six flora monitoring sites in autumn 2013 andspring 2014 respectively. Of these 135 native and five exotic species were recorded in autumn and 90 nativeand five exotic species in spring. Twenty nine species were recorded in the spring 2014 survey that were notrecorded in autumn 2013.

Overall flora species richness and abundance was higher in spring than recorded during the autumn 2013survey. This is likely due to the different seasonal conditions with spring being an optimal time to detect themajority of flora species that would be present within the project area.



Most native flora species appeared to be in relatively good health, with grazing damage evident in speciessuch as Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush), Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush) and some annual herbs andgrasses such as Aristida contorta (Curly Wire-grass). Dust accumulation was evident on some plantsadjacent to vehicle tracks and rail corridors. Species such as Maireana sedifolia and Maireana astrotricha(Low Bluebush) are most susceptible to damage from dust. It did not appear that dust accumulation onplants within the project area has caused long-term damage to vegetation, with only minor dieback evidenton some plants.

A full copy of the EBS flora and fauna surveys, including the results from each monitoring site from theautumn and spring surveys is provided as Appendix D.

Conservation significant flora species

No threatened plant species were recorded within the observation plots. The State rare grass Aristida aridawas potentially recorded opportunistically but could not be confirmed by the state herbarium. This specieswas recorded along the railway line in a culvert and EBS concluded it should not be impacted by worksoutside of this area.

There is a possibility that state rated plants such as Austrodanthonia laevis (Smooth Wallaby Grass),Swainsona dictyocarpa and Swainsona microcalyx (Wild Violet) could be found within the project area aftergood conditions, due to the nearby records south the town of Tarcoola (DEWNR 2013).

Exotic and weed species

The incidence of exotic flora species within the project area was low, with most occurrences observed in thevicinity of the rail corridor, mainly in culverts and areas where run-off collects. The exotic species recordedduring the surveys were:

n Century Plant (Agave americana), autumnn Ward’s Weed (Carrichtera annua), autumn and springn Saffron Thistle (Carthamus lanatus), autumnn Buffel Grass (Cenchrus ciliaris), autumn and springn Malta Thistle (Centaurea melitensis), autumn and springn Bitter Melon (Citrulus sp.), autumnn Paddy Melon (Cucumis myriocarpus), autumnn Galenia (Galenia secunda), autumnn Sunflower (Helianthus annuus), autumnn Prickly Pear (Opuntia sp.), autumnn Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora), autumnn Pepper Tree (Schimus molle), autumnn Rosy dock (Acetosa vesicaria), spring.

Three species noted as weeds in the area were those typically found in areas subjected to humandisturbance and planted as windbreaks, shade and other amenity uses due to their hardiness and ability tosurvive under harsh conditions. Pepper trees (Schinus molle) and Athel Pine (Tamarix aphylla) are widelygrown throughout the arid regions for shade trees. Prosopis juliflora (Mesquite) was observed at a ruin in theeastern section of the study area and is a noted weed of the arid regions.

Opuntia spp. (Prickly Pears) was widespread in autumn and found scattered throughout areas where theyhave been distributed both by human activity and through birds eating fruit. Agave americana (Century Plant)was also observed in autumn as a succulent species adapted to the harsh conditions occurring onsite andare most likely garden escapees.


Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 200 400


Vegetation condition - operations area

Tarcoola

454000

454000

454500

454500

455000

455000

455500

455500

456000

456000

456500

456500

457000

457000

457500

457500

458000

4580006602

000

6602

000

6602

500

6602

500

6603

000

6603

000

6603

500

6603

500

6604

000

6604

000

6604

500

6604

500

Mine site layoutProposed mineral lease area

Vegetation condition (SEB ratio)

0:13:14:16:18:1

1:13,000



www.pbworld.comWPG Resources \\APADLFIL01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_024_B.mxd




Cenchrus ciliaris (Buffel Grass) was observed to be widespread and is a weed of high invasiveness andBiosecurity SA (2012) has introduced a strategy for the ongoing removal and control of this species. TheTarcoola project area falls within Buffel Grass Management Zone 2 as identified in the Buffel Grass StrategicPlan. The management aim in Zone 2 is to prevent the ongoing spread of Buffel grass into clean or priorityareas within or beyond Zone 2, aiming for a significant reduction in all populations.

Conclusion

EBS concluded that the project was unlikely to have a significant impact on State threatened plant speciesand flora matters of national significance and therefore a referral under the EPBC Act 1999 should not berequired.

3.11.3 Fauna

Four fauna and eight bird monitoring sites were selected within the project area during the autumn survey.

The diversity and abundance of small mammals and reptiles recorded during the autumn survey were lowerthan for the spring survey.

3.11.3.1 Terrestrial mammals

Nineteen and seven mammals from nine species and five family groups were observed during the autumnand spring surveys. Three and 49 animals were captured at the monitoring sites during autumn and springrespectively. None of the mammal species recorded was of national or State conservation significance. Fox(Vulpes vulpes) and Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) tracks were observed along the proposed haul road andrailway road.

Table 3.15 lists the terrestrial mammal species recorded during the autumn and spring surveys.

Table 3.15 Terrestrial mammal species recorded (autumn and spring)

Common Name Species Name Conservation Status

National State (SA)

Dingo Canis lupus dingo – –

Fox (Red Fox) Vulpes vulpes – –

Fat-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata – –

Little Long-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis dolichura – –

Rabbit (European Rabbit) Oryctolagus cuniculus – –

Western Grey Kangaroo Macropus fuliginosus^ – –

Euro Macropus robustus – –

Red Kangaroo Macropus rufus – –

House Mouse Mus musculus – –

Bolam’s Mouse Pseudomys bolami – –

Southern Hairy-nosed Wombat(autumn)

LasiorhinusLatifrons

– –



Other fauna species that could potentially occur within the area include:

n Kultarr (Antechinomys laniger)n Fat-tailed Dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata)n Striped-faced Dunnart (Sminthopsis macroura)n Mitchell’s Hopping-mouse (Notomys mitchellis).

Conservation significant species that were not observed during the survey but could occur include the PlainsMouse (Pseudomys australis) which is vulnerable under the EPBC Act; the White-browed Treecreeper(Climacteris affinis), Gilbert's Whistler (Pachycephala inornata) and Restless Flycatcher (Myiagra inquieta)which are rare under the NPW Act; Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) which are vulnerable under the EPBC Actand NPW Act; and Slender-billed Thornbill (western ssp.) (Acanthiza iredalei ssp. iredalei) which isvulnerable under the EPBC Act and rare under the NPW Act.

The Plains mouse’s preferred habitat, cracking clays, was not found within the site, consequently it is unlikelyto be found within the project area in most seasons, they could potentially be found when the seasons aregood and populations explode at nearby more favourable locations.

White-browed Treecreeper was not recorded during the survey at Tarcoola, although some areas of potentialhabitat exist on the site. It would be highly unlikely that the species is present, as tree density is low, and assuch could be unfavourable for this species.

Gilbert's Whistler species is widely recorded in mallee in association with an understorey of spinifex and lowshrubs including Acacia sp., Hakea sp. and Senna sp. As none of their preferred mallee habitat exists as theTarcoola site it is very unlikely that this species will inhabit this area.

The Restless Flycatcher is often found in the same habitats as the similarly sized Willie Wagtail, occurring inopen forests, woodlands, farmland, and inland scrub. No Restless Flycatchers were observed at Tarcoola;however as they can be found in a variety of habitats they cannot be discounted.

Malleefowl are principally found in mallee woodland, shrubland and dry forests dominated by eucalypts,Callitris, Mulga and other Acacia spp. It is highly unlikely that Malleefowl occur within the project area basedon the habitats that occur at the site.

Slender-billed Thornbill (western ssp.) generally occur in open habitat such as chenopod shrublanddominated by Samphire, Bluebush and Saltbush associations. Therefore it is unlikely that this species ispresent currently, however the species may move into the area after exceptional breeding events anddispersal from other populations.

EBS concluded that the project was unlikely to have a significant impact on fauna matters of nationalsignificance and therefore a referral under the EPBC Act 1999 should not be required.

3.11.3.2 Pest species

Pest species recorded within the site included foxes, rabbits and the house mouse.

3.11.3.3 Bats

During the autumn survey a total of 22 bat call files were recorded with four bat species detected althoughtwo of the calls were difficult to distinguish to species level. No bat calls were recorded during the springsurvey at the project site, with a single call of the White-striped Free-tail Bat was heard at the Tarcoolatownship.

No bat species of national or State conservation significance were recorded during the surveys.



The highest number of bat call files was recorded for Gould’s Wattled Bat (Chalinolobus gouldii). The highestnumber of bat call files was recorded at site TAR003 and no calls were recorded at TAR001 and TAR004.

Other species that were recorded included Lesser Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus geoffroy) or Central long-eared Bat (N. major tor), Inland Free-tail Bat (Mormopherus species 3) or Southern Free-tail (Mormopherusspecies 4) and the Southern Forest Bat (Vespadelus regulus).

3.11.3.4 Reptiles

Thirty two individual reptiles representing 13 species representing and seven family groups were recorded atmonitoring sites and opportunistically at the Tarcoola Gold Project site during autumn. Three speciesrecorded in autumn were not recorded in the spring survey. In spring nineteen species from seven families (atotal of 52 animals) were recorded in spring, of which nine species were not recorded in autumn.

No reptile species of national or State conservation significance were recorded during the surveys.

The most abundant species recorded was the Sandplain Ctenotus (Ctenotus schomburgkii) with 11 and 17captures in autumn and spring respectively and the Fat-tailed Gecko (Diplodactylus conspicillatus) with 8 and5 captures in autumn and spring respectively. All other species, such as the Central Netted Dragon(Ctenophorus nuchalis), Central Bearded Dragon (Pogona vitticeps), Barking Gecko (DiplodactylusConspicillatus), Sandplain Gecko (Lucasium stenodactylum (revised)), Half-girdled Snake (Brachyurophissemifasciatus), Tree Dtella (Gehyra variegate), Sleepy Lizard (Tiliqua rugosa), Eastern Desert Ctenotus(Ctenotus regius), Broad-banded Sandswimmer (Eremiascincus richardsonii), Great Desert Slider (Leristadesertorum) and Eastern Two-toed Slider (Lerista labialis) occurred in low numbers(generally one to twoobservations).

3.11.3.5 Birds

Three-hundred and twelve (312) birds were observed across the project area in autumn and 542 individualsin spring during dedicated point count surveys at bird survey sites or observed opportunistically within theproject area. The most abundant species recorded during the autumn survey were Southern White-face(Aphelocephala leucopsis) with 76 records, Zebra Finch (Taeniopygia guttata) with 66 records and theWhite-winged Fairy-wren (Malurus leucopterus) with 27 records. Single observations were recorded forRufous Fieldwren (Calamanthus campestris), Spotted Harrier (Circus assimilis), Grey Butcherbird (Cracticustorquatus) and the Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera). The most abundant species recorded duringthe spring survey were Galah (95 records) Southern White-face (70 records), Welcome swallow (68 records)and the White-winged Fairy-wren (53 records). Single observations of 11 species were recorded, includingthe Redthroat (Pyrrholaemus brunneus), Spotted Harrier (Circus assimilis), Horsefield’s Bronze Cuckoo(Chalcites basalis) and Jacky Winter (Microeca fascinans).

Bird abundance in autumn was highest at site TAR005, with 41 individuals observed from eleven differentspecies and TAR003 and TAR004 in spring, with 11 different species recorded and 50 and 49 observationsrecorded at each site, respectively. The autumn site was situated in Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea(Broad-leaved Desert Senna) Open Shrubland with scattered Acacia aneura (Mulga) and Casuarina pauper(Black Oak) and in spring located in Chenopod Open Shrubland. Bird abundance was lowest at site TAR006,with only six individuals recorded from three species. This site was located along the ridgeline, in openchenopod shrubland, consisting of Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) and Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush).

In autumn five out of the total 31 species were recorded only during opportunistic surveying across theproject area, suggesting the potential for nomadic species on site or the fact particular bird species arereliant on favourable habitat and/or food resources across the site which may be limited.



These species were:

n Spotted Harrier (Circus assimilis) (1 record)n Welcome Swallow (Hirundo neoxena) (2 records)n Orange Chat (Epthianura aurifrons) (3 records)n Magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca) (2 records)n Major Mitchell's Cockatoo (Cacatua leadbeateri) (9 records)n Red-capped Robin (Petroica goodenovii) (2 record).

Of the 542 individual birds recorded in spring, 301 of these (37 species) were observed opportunisticallythroughout the project area. The species with the highest number of opportunistic observations was theGalah (Eolophus roseicapilla) (85 individuals). Nineteen of the 45 bird species recorded were recorded onlythrough opportunistic observations within the project area.

The Major Mitchell Cockatoo (Cacatua leadbeateri) which is of State conservation significance was observedin and around the township of Tarcoola. The Major Mitchell may favour the township as it provides a boardrange of tree species (endemic and introduced) for food, as well as the ability to source water from structuresin the town.

No nationally threatened species have been recorded within the project site, and given the relatively goodconditions at the time of the current survey, the likelihood of nationally threatened fauna species occurringwithin the project site is low. Whilst migratory or nomadic species may occasionally utilise the site, theredoesn’t appear to be sufficient high quality habitat for other nationally threatened species to be residentspecies in the area.

3.12 Topsoil and subsoilInitial investigations to assess soil contamination in the surface materials included dynamic conepenetrometer (DCP) testing at selected locations within the waste rock storage area and near the proposedheap leach area (Appendix B). Distinct horizons were interpreted from the DCP testing and near surfacesamples. A topsoil layer is present over most of the area typically 0.10 m thick but in places to 0.15 m thick(Appendix B). The topsoil comprises:

n Silty sand, fine to coarse grained, brown, trace low plasticity clay and fine gravel.n Gravelly sand, fine to coarse grained, pale brown to olive brown, fine to medium grained sub-angular

gravel with low plasticity clay.n Sand, fine to coarse grained, olive brown, with low plasticity clay, trace fine to coarse grained sub-


Below the topsoil layer the DCP testing indicates denser material which was interpreted as colluvium/subsoilwith a thickness varying from 0.4 m to 0.5 m.

This is consistent with the geotechnical borehole logging undertaken by PSM as part of the open pit studies(Appendix G) which indicate that the red brown and light grey brown colluvium has a thickness of about0.4 m and is underlain by extremely-highly weathered sediments of the Tarcoola Formation.



3.13 Heritage

3.13.1 Aboriginal heritage

An Aboriginal heritage assessment was undertaken on 17 November 2013 within the proposed MC area. Inaddition to the site field survey the assessment included review of:

n records of sites from previous clearances in the arean the ethno-historical record of the regionn relevant materials held by the specialists and used for reference throughout the survey.

A report by consultant anthropologists Sandra Jarvis and Tim Cuthbertson documented the findings of theheritage clearance survey of the proposed mine site and mining infrastructure areas.

The heritage clearance survey included both male and female Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjararepresentatives of the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation (AMYAC), the native titleclaimants.

At the request of the AMYAC the report is not available for public comment due to the sensitive andconfidential nature of the information. Permission to view the report may be requested from the AMYAC.

The final outline of the Mineral Claim has taken into account areas of heritage importance.

3.13.1.1 Identified aboriginal heritage sites

The AMYAC representatives have defined four No Go areas within the Mineral Claim area where noonground works of any kind or vehicle access is permitted. Clearance has been granted for the proposedopen pit, waste rock dump, internal access tracks, heap leach pad, processing plant and offices as thesecomponents are not within the No Go areas. Access corridors have been granted within two of the No Goareas to enable access and onground works relating to groundwater bores. The AMYAC has also requestedthat ground disturbance activities be minimised within 100 m of the centreline of the railway lines.

Due to the culturally sensitive nature of the knowledge of these locations to both Aboriginal men and women,specific details of these places are not included in this report.

In addition to the recommendations made for the management of particular cultural sites, the AMYACrepresentatives advised that the lease holder and its contractors are obliged to avoid and report anyAboriginal site or material that occurs within its operations and works.

3.13.2 European heritage

The South Australian Heritage Register listing for Tarcoola (No 20767) includes five places listed assignificant. These are the government battery and township, Geologist’s Well, No 2 Well, Tarcoola Blocksmine and a dump of machinery parts (Figure 3.16).

A European heritage assessment was undertaken by Austral Archaeology from 3 to 5 August 2012(Appendix E).



The SA Heritage Council has established a set of seven criteria to be used in assessing cultural heritagesignificance in South Australia:

1. It demonstrates important aspects of the evolution or pattern of the State's history.2. It has rare, uncommon or endangered qualities that are of cultural significance.3. It may yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the State's history, including its

natural history.4. It is an outstanding representative of a particular class of places of cultural significance.5. It demonstrates a high degree of creative, aesthetic or technical accomplishment or is an outstanding

representative of particular construction techniques or design characteristics.6. It has strong cultural or spiritual associations for the community or a group within it.7. It has a special association with the life or work of a person or organisation or an event of historical

importance.

The “Land Not Within a Council Area Eyre, Far North, Riverland and Whyalla” Development Plan(Consolidated 18 October 2012) listing of State Heritage Places (Table LNWCA/3) defines the TarcoolaGoldfield, Government Battery and Township as a designated place of archaeological significance.

The heritage survey indicates that historical mining activity consisted mainly of shallow vertical and inclinedshafts, small costeans, narrow open cuts and small mullock dumps. There is little evidence of mechanicalequipment except rudimentary winding equipment.

There is considerable evidence of equipment and infrastructure from the main mining period at TarcoolaBlocks which occurred at the turn of the 20th century and these have been state heritage listed.

There is an intact tripod type headframe and a series of timbered shafts and workings of the Perseverancemine from 1909 on the top of the ridge just to the west of the Tarcoola Blocks. The headframe and minewould be considered to be locally significant under some of the criteria in Section 23 (4) of the DevelopmentAct 1993 if it applied.

There are items such as worn out kibbles, pieces of wire rope and stamper screens, broken hand tools suchas picks and wedges, a few pieces of pumps and pipes, a few vehicle components and numerous old 4 and5 gallon (20 litre) kerosene and petrol drums from the 1920s and 30s and 44 gallon (200 litre) drums from thepost-world war two era.

There are the remains of a few buildings with standing galvanized iron chimneys and remnant floors, lowstone fireplaces associated with probable tent dwellers. Debris includes significant tin cans, some bottles onthe ground and minor ceramic fragments. There is a cricket pitch on the flat ground to the northeast of theformer Wondergraph lease.

Austral Archaeology concluded that there were no sites which met the criteria for State Heritage Listingoutside of the heritage area.

The heritage consultant recommended that:

n Mungana should apply for an exemption under Section 27(3)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Heritage Places Act1993 in respect of their activities outside the curtilage of the State Heritage places. This wassubsequently done and all subsequent activities have been conducted under that authority.

n If any works are to take place within the curtilage of the State Heritage places, a permit underSection 26 of the Heritage Places Act 1993 will be required.

n The boundaries of the sites listed in the South Australian Heritage Register which lie within theproposed lease should be demarcated by fencing, flagging or other appropriate means so that noinadvertent impacts occur to these features.

Data Source: EBS Ecology, DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map No: 2200005A_GIS_029_D

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 250 500

m Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 3.16

European heritage sites

Government battery tailingsGovernment battery

ML 4650

ML 5179

ML 4667

ML 5300

North State Heritage Area

Machinery DumpState Heritage Area

Geologist's WellState Heritage Area

Well No 2State Heritage Area

TARCOOLA

Mine site layoutProposed mineral lease areaSouth Australian heritage(Tarcoola goldfields)Existing mineral lease

1:25,000



www.pbworld.com


WPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_029_D.mxd



n Care should be taken to not inadvertently damage the Perseverance Mine headframe and workings ifpossible. This will be relocated and preserved as it is within the proposed open pit area.

n Care should be taken to not inadvertently damage the cricket pitch if possible.

n All Tarcoola Gold staff and subcontractors should be made aware of the heritage values of the TarcoolaGoldfield in inductions and encouraged not to damage sites or remove artefacts anywhere, butespecially from the listed areas, as penalties can apply under the Heritage Places Act 1993.

Tarcoola Gold has commenced discussions with Heritage SA and has received in principal agreement for theremoval of material from the historic Tarcoola Blocks heap leach area which can be used as a base layerwithin the proposed heap leach pads provided necessary permits are obtained. The aim of this strategy is toremove the risk of fugitive emissions and erosion and the potential impact on human health.

Following discussion with DSD and the State Heritage Unit it may be feasible for selected items to berelocated to the “Machinery Dump" where there is discarded machine equipment. Ongoing preservation ofsuch items would be the responsibility of the State Heritage Unit. In addition at the discretion of TarcoolaGold it is intended to remove extraneous material (PVC piping and hoses, loose corrugated iron, etc.) andother objects from the most recent mining activities (circa 1990). Additional details of the proposedrestoration are included in Section 8.

3.13.3 Geological heritage

Geological features or “geological monuments” of importance are protected in South Australia under a rangeof statutory mechanisms. DSD maintains a register of geological monuments. In addition under theobjectives of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 geological monuments that are located in NationalParks, Conservation Parks and Regional Reserves are protected as features of natural or scientific interest.

The South Australian Heritage Places Act 1993 has provisions for the protection of sites that are declared tobe of geological or palaeontological significance. Geological monuments have also been registered in theRegister of National Estate.

A review of the DSD register and State and National Estate registers was undertaken to determine if therewere any geological heritage sites in the region of the Tarcoola Gold project (refer to Figure 3.17). Theclosest geological monuments to the Tarcoola Gold project listed in the three registers are the Kokatha Area(Place ID 6032) and Lake Acraman Area (Place ID 16503).

The Kokatha area, which is located about 90 km southeast of the proposed open pit, contains a completesequence of volcanics from the late Archaen (2,500 million years ago) to the Carpentarian phase of theProterozoic (1,300–1,800 million years ago). The area provides an important source of information forformulating plate tectonic theory and for determining the evolution of the Australian continent.

The Lake Acraman Area, which is located about 145 km south east of the proposed open pit, is the largestasteroid or comet impact structure (astrobleme) known in Australia and one of the largest in the world,thought to have occurred in late pre-Cambrian time (about 500 million years ago).

There are additional geological monuments listed by DSD (refer to Figure 3.17):

n Stuart Creek & Environs (FN 22) – Watchie Sandstone Stratigraphic Unit, located about 236 kmnortheast.

n Arckaringa Hills (FN 8), located about 309 km north.n Mount Anna (FN 47) – Measured section (Bulldog Shale, Algebuckina Sandstone, and Cadna-owie

Formation, located about 264 km northeast.n Algebuckina Area (FN 41) – Algebuckina Sandstone and Cadna-owie Formation, located about 336 km

north.



n Mount Toondina (FN 25) – Stratigraphic Units (Wondillina Limestone, Algebuckina Sandstone, MountToondina Formation and Cadna-owie Formation), located about 318 km northeast.

n Elizabeth Springs (FN 33) – Stratigraphic Unit (Bulldog Shale, Quaternary mound spring carbonate),located about 275 km northeast.

n The Bubbler Mound Spring (FN 322), located about 264 km northeast.

3.14 Proximity to conservation areasThe locations of national parks, regional and conservation reserves and conservation parks in the generalarea of the Tarcoola Gold Project are indicated in Figure 3.17.

The Yellabinna Regional Reserve is the nearest conservation area to the Tarcoola Project and at its closestpoint is located 16.5 km to the southwest of the proposed open pit. Access to the reserve is via Googs trackoff the Eyre Highway near Ceduna. The reserve comprises a wilderness area of sparsely vegetated red sanddunes that provides habitat for the Sandhill Dunnart and Mallee Fowl.

The Lake Gairdner National Park comprising lakes Gairdner, Everard and Harris covers an area of5,507 square kilometres and at its closest point is situated 72 km southeast of the Tarcoola Gold Project.

Lake Gairdner National Park was proclaimed in 1991 because the land was considered to be of nationalsignificance due to its natural features and wildlife. Public access to the general vicinity of the park is via twounsealed roads, from Glendambo in the north and from Iron Knob in the south. The majority of visitorsaccess the park from the south through Mount Ive Station. There is a new public access route fromKingoonya to the north western part of the park, although there is no vehicle access to the lake.

The project will not impact the conservation areas described above.

3.15 Pre-existing site contamination and disturbance

3.15.1 Pastoral activities

The region has been used for pastoral purposes, predominantly sheep and cattle grazing since the 1880’s.The current land use in the surrounding area is low-intensity sheep grazing. The Wilgena station manageradvised that there was no grazing undertaken in the project area due to the project area being locatedoutside of their lease area and the poor water quality in the area.

Given the lack of grazing in the project area it is unlikely that pre-existing site contamination has occurred asa result of pastoral activities.

3.15.2 Exploration activities

Potential sources of contamination associated with exploration activities include:

n hydrocarbon leaks and spills from machinery and drilling equipmentn drilling mud spills and leaksn minor heavy metal contamination from the discharge of ore material through broken sample bags.

Drilling activities also result in disturbance to the ground surface and surrounding vegetation in the vicinity ofdrill pads and tracks.

Tarcoolamine siteMC 4376

STUART HIGHWAY

LakeEyre NP

Simpson DesertRecreation Reserve

Yellabinna RR

Lake Gairdner NP

Yumbarra CP

Tallaringa CP

LakeEyre NP

Lake Gairdner NP

Wabma Kadarbu Mound Springs CP

EYRE HIGHWAY

ARCKARINGAHILLSFN8

STUART CREEKAND ENVIRONS

FN22

KOKATHAFN6

ALGEBUCKINAAREAFN41

MOUNTTOONDINA

FN25

ELIZABETHSPRINGS

FN33MOUND SPRINGS:

THE BUBBLERFN32.2

MEASURED SECTIONNEAR MOUNT ANNA

FN47

WOOMERA

TARCOOLA

GLENDAMBOKINGOONYA

YERDA OUTSTATION

WILGENA

LegendProposed minerallease boundaryGeologic feature-see table for titleNational park

Client Name

Data source: DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map no: 2200005A_GIS_010_B

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

Date: 28/07/2015

0 10 20

km1:1,500,000


Location of geologic monuments and conservation areasProjection: Transverse Mercator



www.pbworld.com


\\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_010_B.mxdWPG REsources



3.15.3 Pre-existing contamination

This section provides a summary of an initial site investigation (refer to Appendix B) in the project area due tohistorical mining operations.

3.15.3.1 Site history

The Tarcoola area has an extensive history of gold mining from 1896 to the late 1970’s.

From 1989 to 1990 (previous company) Tarcoola Gold Ltd re-treated the tailings by a heap leaching andcyanidation process producing 1,000 oz. of gold. The headframe, tanks and other material from the miningactivities are discarded on the site (refer to Photo 3.6). In addition the former tailings/heap leach pads do notappear to have been rehabilitated and contain tailings from previous operations (refer to Photo 3.7).

Sulphides such as pyrite, galena and sphalerite occur in ore from the Perseverance area and lesser amountsof arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite and bornite have been intersected.

The presence of sulphides in the Tarcoola Blocks area was confirmed during the site inspection asdiscolouration on rocks in the vicinity of the headframe (refer to Photo 3.7).

Photo 3.6 Headframe from 1980s



Photo 3.7 Former tailings/heap leach pads

3.15.4 Site investigation

A preliminary investigation was undertaken to assess the potential for significant pre-existing contaminationin the surface soils and included (Appendix B):

n Obtaining surface soil samples from 20 locations, 15 grid locations and 5 targeted locations. The gridlocations were selected to provide broad coverage of the site and the targeted locations were related tothe former tailings/heap leach operations (Figure 3.18).

n Analysis of all soil samples for the following selected chemicals: pH, Metals (arsenic, cadmium,chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total recoverablehydrocarbons (TRH), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), Total Cyanide, Phenolic compounds.

The surface is predominantly covered by colluvium which has cobbles of calcrete and silcrete and exposedrock materials which limited deeper sub-soil sampling using a hand held auger.

The results were compared to the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination)Measure (NEPM, 1999) health-based and ecological investigation guidelines (Schedule B(1) Guideline onthe Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater) for the relevant land use (i.e. commercial/industrial).Where health-based and ecological investigation criteria guidelines are not available in the NEPM alternativeAustralian and international criteria have been adopted.

Based on the results of soil sampling and analysis, the concentrations of contaminants of potential concernwithin the surface soil from the grid samples do not exceed NEPM (1999) environmental investigation levels(EILs) except for zinc in TC012.

Data Source: PIRSA, DPTI, DEWNR, DSD, Google Earth Map No: 2200005A_GIS_025_B

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 100 200


Location of site contamination investigations

HeapLeachpads

Crusher

Haulroad

TC05 TC06 TC07 TC08 TC09

TC04TC03TC02

TC01

TC020

TC019TC013TC018

TC017

TC016

TC012

TC011TC010

TC015TC014

Waste rock dump

Perseverance pit

ROMpad

Mine office

1:10,000

Date: 7/07/2015Scale ratio correct when printed at A3


Soil sample locationMine site layoutSite_layout_polygon

www.pbworld.comWPG Resources \\APADLFIL01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_025_B.mxd




Photo 3.8 Mullock from mine adit with sulphide staining

Elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead and zinc and copper in one sample (TC013) and arsenic, lead andzinc in samples TC017, TC018 and TC019 exceeding the NEPM (1999) EILs were identified in the tailingssamples. The elevated concentrations are likely to be related to the presence of sulphides in themineralisation, such as arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite (copper sulphide), galena (lead sulphide) and sphalerite(zinc sulphide). These contaminants could potentially impact plant growth in these areas however do notpresent a significant health or environmental risk for the proposed mining operations, considered to be anindustrial/commercial site usage.

There are detectable concentrations of total cyanide in the tailings samples and the sample down slope ofthe tailings/heap leach pads. Assuming that all cyanide detected is free cyanide the concentrations arebelow SA EPA waste fill guideline levels for re-use as fill. This preliminary soil investigation has not indicatedsignificant contamination at the locations sampled. Higher natural concentrations of arsenic, copper, lead,and zinc could be expected in mineralised areas.



4. Description of operations4.1 General description and summary

4.1.1 General description

The Tarcoola Gold Project involves conventional open cut mining and heap leach processing of gold bearingore. The project will comprise the following components:

n an open pit developed in the central Perseverance area and a smaller pit at Last Resourcen run of mine (ROM) pad and crushern heap leach pad and process facilities near the ROM pad and crushern waste rock storage west of the open pitn access road linking the project site to Tarcoola townshipn heavy vehicle workshopn borefield to supply water for processing and dust suppression, and for a Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant to

produce potable watern modular power generationn accommodation village in the eastern part of the proposed MLn mine office.

Mining operations will extract approximately 825,000 tonnes of gold bearing ore and 5.85 million tonnes ofunconsolidated material and waste rock over a 4 year period. With the exception of the top overlying 30 m ofcolluvium and weathered rock all other material will require drilling and blasting. Ore will be processed on-site through conventional crushing, and agglomeration; and heap leaching, adsorption, elution andelectrowinning processing to produce gold doré.

The foundations for the waste rock storage and heap leach pad will be established during early work/pit pre-strip phase and then gradually built throughout the life of mine.

Rehabilitation will be undertaken progressively consistent with the requirement of operations. At the end ofmine life, should there be no further mining development proposed, the final rehabilitation will includeremoval of mine infrastructure (unless agreed otherwise with stakeholders), shaping of final landforms andrevegetation in accordance with agreed post-mining land use criteria.

4.1.2 Project characteristics

The key characteristics of the project are summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Key project characteristics

Item Description

Project location 600 km northwest of Adelaide, South Australia

Mineral claim number 4376

Exploration licence number EL 5355

Project area Mining lease application area of 724.8 hectares

Mining method Conventional drill and blast open cut, load and haul operation



Item Description

Open pit dimensions Perseverance open pit – approximately 450 m long x 200 m wide x 110 mdeep

Last Resource open pit – approximately 150 m long x 100 m wide x 35 m deep

Mine life 4 years

Production rate ~250,000 tonnes per annum

Processing method Conventional crush, agglomeration and heap leach processing

Hours of operation 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (crushing on day shift)

Power requirement 1.2 MW (includes 0.3 MW for accommodation village)

Power source Onsite modular diesel power generation

Total raw water requirement 7.5 L/s or 648 K L/day

Raw water source Groundwater from bedrock aquifers

Waste rock volume 5.85 million tonnes

Workforce accommodation Onsite accommodation, 3rd party managed

Workforce number 80 staff (average 37 at any one time)

Capital expenditure $15 million

4.1.3 Project footprint

The major components of the project and their footprints are identified in Table 4.2. The locations of themajor components of the project within the proposed Mining Lease area (MLA) are shown on Figure 4.1. It isanticipated that Miscellaneous Purpose Licences (MPLs) will be sought for supporting infrastructure locatedoutside the ML.

Table 4.2 Project components and footprints

Component Footprint Area (ha)

Within ML area

Open pit 7.76

Waste rock storage 17.65

Heap leach area & Processing plant 8.17

Run of mine (ROM) pad 0.81

Administration building and workshop 3.75

Accommodation village 3.15

Onsite roads 4.42

Water supply 1.41

Total 47.12

Heavy (mine) vehicles will have their own dedicated access to the ROM pad, workshop, wash-down andrefuelling facilities. The remainder of the infrastructure and plant area will be accessible to light vehicle traffic.

Before construction of the infrastructure and plant area commences, a separate hardstand will be built for theconstruction contractors. At the completion of construction, the contractor hardstand will become an overflow



storage area for the mine warehouse and laydown yard. The explosive supplier workshop and office will alsobe located on this hardstand area. All hardstands will comprise a base course of 100 mm of compactedcrushed rock material.

4.1.4 Project alternatives

A number of development scenarios have been considered for the project, including:

n open pit mining and haulage of ore from Tarcoola to the Tunkillia Gold Project located about 61 km tothe southeast on North Well station for processing

n open pit mining and haulage of ore from Tarcoola to the Challenger Gold Mine located 130 km to thenorthwest for processing

n open pit mining at Tarcoola and on-site treatment of ore in a dedicated Carbon in Leach (CIL)processing facility, including a tailings storage facility to produce gold doré

n open pit mining and heap leach treatment and processing at Tarcoola to produce gold doré.

The open pit method of mining was determined to be the best option for the style of mineralisation, oregrades, overall mining costs and resource recovery. The preferred orientation and shape of the open pit wasrefined through an optimisation process.

The possibility of future underground mining of the resource exists, should mineralised structures continue atdepth at sufficient grades and widths to justify mining.

On the basis of the PFS studies by Mungana Goldmines and a thorough review by Tarcoola Gold, the heapleach treatment option was selected due to more favourable capital and operating costs. Details of theselected mining and heap leach processing operations are discussed further below.

Two alternatives were considered for accommodation; the use of existing housing in Tarcoola andestablishment of a separate accommodation village on the outskirts of Tarcoola. The PFS assessmentconcluded that it would be more cost effective to establish a separate accommodation village due to thelimited availability of houses and improvements that would be required for the existing houses at Tarcoolawhich are in the main, in a dilapidated condition. Tarcoola Gold is proposing to establish the accommodationvillage in the eastern part of the proposed ML.

4.2 Geology and mineral resources

4.2.1 Regional geology

A geological map showing the distribution of basement rock units is presented in Figure 4.2.

Quaternary deposits occur over the surface and comprise alluvial quartz sand and colluvium. Tertiary agepalaeochannels have been interpreted in the Tarcoola area but are covered by the Quaternary sediments(refer to Figure 3.8).


Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 250 500


Project layout

Last Resource



Gold Process Plant




TARCOOLA

Production water boreSite layout featureHaul and access roadRoadTrack/roadRailWater pipeline access trackWater pipelineNextgen fibre optic cableTelstra cableProposed mineral lease boundary

Haul and access roadROMOfficesCrusher and agglomerateCamp areaHard standSubsoil stockpileTopsoil stockpileWater alignmentPondHeap leach processingPit outlineWaste rock dump

1:25,000



www.pbworld.com




Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 1 2


Regional geology

TARCOOLA

Key townTrackLocal roadMain roadProposed mineral lease areaTarcoola open pit area

GeologyFabian Quartzite MemberHiltaba SuitePeela Conglomerate MemberSullivan Shale MemberWilgena Hill JaspiliteWiltabbie VolcanicsAlluvial Holocene sedimentsPleistocene sedimentsQuaternary dunefield sandsMiocene to Pliocene sediments

1:75,000



www.pbworld.com


\\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_015_B.mxdWPG Resources



Mineralisation in the Tarcoola area is hosted by the Middle (Meso-) Proterozoic Tarcoola Formation andgranitic rocks of the Hiltaba Suite (Ferris 2003). Although Budd 2004 has indicated that the granites are partof the Paxton Suite. The Tarcoola Formation comprises four units:

n Peela Conglomeraten Fabian Quartzite Membern Sullivan Shale Membern Euro Limestone.

The contact between the Tarcoola Formation sediments and the granite is approximately parallel to the strikeof the sediments. The granite is coarse grained, potassium feldspar and quartz rich, contains biotite and/orchlorite rich phases and other finer grained derivatives.

Several late-stage dykes and sills, including basalt, andesite, dolerite and a fine grained monzodiorite, haveintruded the Tarcoola Formation and granite. Budd 2004 has indicated the amygdular microdiorite dykes atTarcoola are part of the Lady Jane Diorite.

Gold mineralisation at Perseverance, the main focus of the Tarcoola Project, is associated with kaolin,sericite and goethite alteration of the Tarcoola Formation sediments at or close to the granite contact. Gold isalso present in the granite in zones characterised by intense sericite alteration with some quartz, epidote andpyrite alteration.

The early (Palaeo) Proterozoic Wilgena Hill Jaspilite outcrops about 15 km east of Tarcoola. The Wilgena HillJaspilite is underlain by ortho and para-gneiss of the Archaen Mulgathing Complex and is un-conformablyoverlain by the Tarcoola Formation. The Wilgena Hill Jaspilite is a banded iron formation and containssubordinate interlayered carbonate, calc-silicate and quartzite.

Geological mapping by Hein et al identified a banded iron formation (jaspilite) about 4.7 km northeast of theproposed Perseverance open pit, which is similar to the Wilgena Hill Jaspilite, although no direct correlationhas been established. Jaspilite (banded iron formation) typically consists of alternating later of jasper andiron oxide.

The Wilgena Hill Jaspilite has not been identified within the project site however the upper part of the PeelaConglomerate contains occasional jaspilite clasts.

4.2.2 Local geology

At Perseverance, gold mineralisation is hosted within sedimentary rocks of the Tarcoola Formation andgranite, both of Proterozoic age (Figure 4.3, Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5). The granite is variably in faultcontact with or un-conformably overlain by the Tarcoola Formation sediments which comprise:

n the Peela Conglomerate is a minor lithological unit located at the base and comprises discontinuousconglomerate and breccia with rounded to angular clasts of quartzite and granitic material

n the Euro Limestone which occurs towards the base in the southern part of the proposed open pit anddoes not outcrop

n the Fabian Quartzite Member is the most dominant unit and consists of well sorted, laminated to thickbedded quartzite with minor arkosic quartz sandstone, thin laminated carbonates, laminated to thick-bedded micaceous siltstone and carbonaceous and pyritic shale

n the Sullivan Shale Member consisting of finely laminated carbonaceous shale and siltstone forms asmall surficial cap to the north of the Tarcoola Ridge.

The Tarcoola Granite occurs at the base in the southern part of the proposed open pit and thereafterincreases in thickness to the northeast (Figure 4.5).

A suite of later intrusions (Lady Jane Diorite) cut both the sedimentary rocks and the granite.



Three deformation events have been recognised in the area. D1 is characterised by open folding and NNW-directed thrusting, responsible for the southerly dip of the sedimentary package at Perseverance. Steeplydipping NW and NE trending brittle faults developed during D2. These structures host and control the goldmineralisation in the Tarcoola Ridge area. The third deformation event (D3) is represented by the late E-Wtrending barren quartz veins.

Gold has locally been remobilised and enriched in the weathering profile. The base of complete oxidationoccurs typically 10–40 m below surface, and the base of partial oxidation occurs at a depth of approximately20–60 m. Lithologies most susceptible to weathering are the fine grained shales and feldspathic sedimentaryrocks over the Perseverance area, which have been variably weathered to clay. Sulphide assemblages aredegraded to limonite, goethite and haematite. The more quartz-rich lithologies and limestone horizons aremore persistent through the weathering profile.

Whilst mineralisation in the district is predominantly steep, a particularly high-grade southerly plungingdomain of mineralisation (the “Bonanza Zone”) is developed at Perseverance. It occurs above the granitesurface to the west of a pronounced embayment in the granite contact. High grade mineralisation here isconsidered to reflect enrichment of gold at a structural intersection, enhanced further by supergeneprocesses.

The Lady Jane Diorite is a fine grained dyke comprising pyroxene or hornblende with a groundmass of K-feldspar, fine pyroxene or hornblende, magnetite, apatite and quartz and can vary from tens of centimetres toseveral metres wide (Budd 2004).

Figure 4.3 Site geology



Figure 4.4 Perseverance east-west cross section 6602 800 N

Figure 4.5 Perseverance north-south cross section 454 860 E



4.2.3 Mineral resources

The dimensions of the currently defined Perseverance/Last Resource deposit resource model areapproximately 850 metres north-south with a maximum width of approximately 350 metres and with amaximum vertical depth of 175 metres from surface for the Perseverance section and 200 metres for theLast Resource section.

The currently defined resource area is outside of the defined State Heritage area and the proposed mine andinfrastructure will not impact on the State Heritage area (refer Figure 3.16.

The mineral resources have been estimated by an independent consultant using Multiple Indicator Kriging(MIK). It is based on a total of 628 drill holes for a total of 53,190 metres. The method of MIK was developedduring the early 1980’s with a particular view toward addressing some of the difficult issues associated withestimation of resources in mineral deposits e.g. skewed distributions, mixed populations and miningrecovery. These issues arise where sample grades show the properties of extreme variation andconsequently where estimates of grade show extreme sensitivity to a small number of very high grades.

The 2013 global JORC mineral resource for the Tarcoola Project at a 1 g/t cut-off grade is provided inTable 4.3.

Table 4.3 JORC Mineral Resource for Tarcoola Gold Project

Category Ktonnes Gold g/tonne Gold kozs

Indicated 919 3.14 92.7

Inferred 55 2.77 4.9

Total(1) 973 3.12 97.5

(1) Differences due to rounding

4.2.4 Production rates and products

Mining operations will extract approximately 250,000 tpa of gold bearing ore and 5.85 million tonnes ofunconsolidated material and hard rock waste over a 4 year period to produce gold doré. The indicativeproduction rates of ore and waste rock are presented in Table 4.4. A breakdown of the volume of waste rockin terms of rock types is included in Table 4.8.

Subject to geotechnical suitability it is proposed to utilise un-mineralised overburden material and waste rockfor earthworks in laydown areas, clay liner for the heap leach and process pond, and site roads. It is notintended to take these materials off-site.

Table 4.4 Production rates

Material Year 1 (tonne) Year 2 (tonne) Year 3 (tonne) Year 4 (tonne)

Ore 220,217 250,000 250,000 105,135

Waste 2,363,019 1,900,804 1,345,422 246,310

Total 2,583,236 2,150,804 1,595,422 351,445



4.2.5 Deposit geochemistry

4.2.5.1 Background

Experience at other mines in South Australia and other jurisdictions has shown that mining of ore or wasterock that contains sulphides can result in acid rock drainage (ARD) and potential environmental impacts ifnot managed. As some of the rocks at the Tarcoola Gold Project contain sulphides there is a possibility ofthe creation of ARD with any future mining.

Sulphides such as pyrite, galena and sphalerite occur in the Perseverance area and lesser amounts ofarsenopyrite, chalcopyrite and bornite have been intersected.

An initial ARD study was undertaken in 2013 to assess whether there was a risk of potential acid generation.Additional analyses were undertaken in 2014 to further refine the distribution of rock units that may havepotential for ARD (Appendix F). The aim is enable the creation of an ARD field within the current block modelto identify non-acid forming (NAF) and potential acid forming (PAF) blocks. This allows for accounting of PAFand NAF during the mining schedule, design and development of the waste rock storage facility to ensureencapsulation.

4.2.5.2 Testing program

With the assistance of Tarcoola Gold, a selection of 'typical' rock types from RC drillholes and geotechnicaldrillholes were collected and submitted to Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) for determination of acidproducing/consuming potential.

A total of 34 samples plus one duplicate sample over about 1 m intervals, which were considered to berepresentative of site conditions (refer to geological description in Section 4.2.2) were selected:

n granite (10 samples of fresh material)n granite (4 samples of oxide material)n Peela conglomerate (2 samples)n Euro limestone (5 samples)n Fabian quartzite (3 samples)n Sullivan shale (1 sample)n low grade ore (5 samples)n primary oxide ore (1 sample)n high grade ore (3 samples)n one duplicate sample (to assess laboratory accuracy and repeatability).

The rock samples were analysed for Net Acid Producing Potential (NAPP) and Net Acid Generation (NAG).The NAPP calculation represents the balance between acid forming capacity and acid neutralisationcapacity. The NAG is a measure of the reactivity of the sulphide/sulphur content to form acid after a period ofexposure and weathering. In addition the samples were analysed for selected trace elements.

In addition a review of the geological data base of 873 drillholes and twelve exploration trenches for thePerseverance/Last Resource area was undertaken, including:

n 27 diamond drillholesn 17 RC/diamond tailsn 477 RC drillholesn 341 RAB holesn 11 percussion holesn 12 trenches.



Pyrite was logged in only 14 drill holes within the Perseverance/Last Resource deposits.

The selection and number of samples are considered to be acceptable as Tarcoola Gold has taken intoconsideration the following:

n its understanding of the geological conditions at the site and distribution of rock types obtained fromover 873 drillholes

n the nature of mineralisation as determined from logging of the exploration drillholesn the type and extent of the mining operationsn adoption of the risk based approach advocated in the Guidelines for Acid Rock Drainage.

4.2.5.3 Results

The aim of the initial analytical program was to classify the selected rock and ore types as:

n potentially acid forming (PAF)n potentially acid forming – low capacity (PAF-LC)n non-acid forming (NAF)n acid consuming material (ACM)n uncertain (UNC).

The classification indicated in the Department of Industry Tourism and Resources (DITR) Guidelines (2007)for ARD has been adopted for classification of the tested rocks (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5 Acid forming potential classification criteria

Primary geochemical type Final NAG Ph NAPPkg H2SO4/t

Potentially Acid Forming (PAF) < 4.5 > 10

Potentially Acid Forming – Low Capacity (PAF-LC) < 4.5 0 -10

Non Acid Forming (NAF) ≥ 4.5 < 0

Acid Consuming Material (ACM) ≥ 4.5 < -100

Uncertain (UNC) ≥ 4.5< 4.5

PositiveNegative

DITR indicates that an ANC/MPA ratio of 2 or more signifies that there is a high probability that the materialwill remain neutral in pH and should not be problematic, where MPA is the maximum potential acidity. Theresults are summarised in Table 4.6 and Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7.

The rock samples were assayed for a range of elements, including heavy metals and sulphur. Thegeochemical abundance index (GAI) value was used to assess the extent of enrichment with respect to theelements. The GAI is calculated by relating the actual concentration in a sample with either backgroundlevels in a specific area or lithology, or more typically, average crustal abundances, on a log 2 scale. GAIvalues are presented in Table 4.7. Generally, a result with a GAI value of 3 or above is considered to be‘enriched’ with respect to that element.

The salinity of the samples was determined by undertaking electrical conductivity (Ecsat in dS/m) analysis ofsoil-water saturation extracts. A conductivity of <2 indicates the material is non-saline, 2 to 4 slightly saline,4 to 8 moderately saline and >8 highly saline.



Table 4.6 Acid forming potential screening test results

SampleID

Description Borehole and depth EcdS/m

Sat,Paste

pH

Static NAG(pH 7)

kg H2SO4/t

NAPP ANC Stot /Sulphide

(%)

NAGpH

MPA ANC/MPARatio

Class

R10728 PSPB (Peela-Ox) GP101RD (55–57 m) 0.325 4.5 141 184 4.2 6.15 2.1 188.2 0.02 PAF

R10727 PLM (Euro limestone-Ox)

GP102RD (50–51 m) 0.580 8.9 <0.1 -497 499 0.05 9.3 1.5 326.1 AC

R10724 PGMPS (Low grade ore–Ox)

QR027D (44–45 m) 0.360 8.3 <0.1 -7.4 9.6 0.07 7.4 1.5 4.4 NAF

R10725 PGMP (Granite-Ox) QR027D (45–46 m) 0.108 9.2 <0.1 -4.3 4.9 0.02 7.7 0.6 8.2 NAF

R10726 PGMPS (Granite-Fr) QR027D (53–54 m) 0.298 7.6 1.1 -7.8 14.8 0.23 5.4 7 2.1 NAF

R10717 PGMPS (Granite-Ox) QR030D (40–42 m) 0.136 8.5 3.3 -2.4 10.4 0.26 3.6 8 1.3 UNC(PAF)

R10723 PGMP (Granite-Tr) QR089D (50–51 m) 0.096 8.3 3.8 <0.5 0.5 0.03 6.1 0.5 1 UNC(NAF)

R10715 PSQZT/PS/PSS (Highgrade ore-Fr)

QR137D (85.5–86.1 m) 0.064 8.0 2.6 4.3 <0.5 0.14 3.5 4.3 0.1 PAF (LC)

R10714 PSS (Low grade ore-Fr) QR137D (74–75 m) 0.036 9.0 7.5 11.6 1.6 0.43 3.0 13.2 0.1 PAF

R10718 PGM (Granite-Fr) QR152AD (72–73 m) 0/087 8.4 10.3 15 1.8 0.55 2.9 16.8 0.1 PAF

R10719 PGM (DuplicateR10718)

QR152AD (72–73 m) 0.116 8.5 14.7 17.1 3.4 0.67 2.7 20.5 0.2 PAF

R10722 PST/PSQZT (Fabianquartzite-Ox)

TAD001 (20–22 m) 1.090 6.2 5.7 3.4 0.9 0.14 5.6 4.3 0.2 UNC(NAF)

R10720 PLM (Euro limestone-Tr)

TAD001 (58–59 m) 0.212 9.9 <0.1 -661 665 0.12 9.2 4 166.3 AC

R10716 PSQZT (Fabianquartzite-Tr)

TAD002 (54–55 m) 0.075 8.7 <0.1 -11.8 13 0.04 10.0 1.2 10.8 NAF

R10729 PGM (High grade ore-Fr)

TARC007 (50–51 m) 0.230 7.7 59.2 73.4 2.2 2.47 2.4 75.6 0.02 PAF

R10730 PGM (Primary gradeore-Ox)

TAD009 (37–38 m) 0.147 7.7 <0.1 -3.4 4.6 0.04 8.2 0.8 5.8 NAF



SampleID

Description Borehole and depth EcdS/m

Sat,Paste

pH

Static NAG(pH 7)

kg H2SO4/t

NAPP ANC Stot /Sulphide

(%)

NAGpH

MPA ANC/MPARatio

Class

R10731 PSPB (Peela-Fr) GP005D (164.9–166.9 m)

0.180 8.2 <0.1 -25.5 102 2.5 8.9 76.5 1.3 NAF

A001 Granite (low grade ore) TARC010 (91–92 m) 0.430 6.3 32.5 31.5 2.8 1.12/1.07 2.4 32.7 0.08 PAF

A002 Granite (low grade ore) TARC007 (28–29 m) 0.272 7.3 1.1 -0.7 1.9 0.04/0.02 6.5 0.6 3.2 NAF

A003 Granite (high gradeore)

TARC003 (77–78 m) 0.241 7.6 <0.1 -28.6 125 3.15/3.09 8.8 94.6 1.3 NAF

A004 Granite (fresh) TARC003 (84–85 m) 0.229 8.2 <0.1 -22.7 31.9 0.3/0.29 7.1 8.9 3.6 NAF

A009 Quartzite (oxide) TAD002 (29–29.78 m) 0.859 6.8 6.8 17.7 <0.5 0.58/0.46 4.9 14.1 0.03 UNC(PAF)

A010 Sullivan shale (fresh) QR137D (60–61 m) 0.249 7.8 16.1 12.6 5.8 0.6/0.59 2.6 18.1 0.3 PAF

A011 Granite (fresh) GP090RD (125–125.6 m) 0.176 8.6 <0.1 -76.6 82.4 0.19/0.18 11.1 5.5 15 NAF

A012 Euro Limestone (fresh) QR251D (164–164.4 m) 0.393 9.0 <0.1 -428 467 1.29/1,27 9.2 38.9 12 NAF

A013 Granite (fresh) QR251D (195.04–195.62 m)

0.226 8.2 51.2 47.2 21.6 2.25/2.24 2.3 68.5 0.3 PAF

A014 Granite (oxide) GLR001D (19–19.9 m) 0.225 8.3 <0.1 -2.3 2.3 <0.01/<0.01 7.1 0.3 7.7 NAF

303976 Granite (fresh) GP030RD (146.1–146.7 m)

0.202 8.6 <0.1 -36.8 37.4 0.02/0.02 10.8 0.6 62.3 NAF

303977 Granite (oxide) GP075D (19–19.9 m) 0.618 6.5 1.2 -0.7 1.3 0.02/<0.01 6.5 0.3 4.3 NAF

303979 Granite (low grade ore) GP075D (139–140 m) 0.259 8.2 <0.1 0.0 43.2 1.41/1.4 8.5 42.8 1.0 NAF

303980 Granite (fresh) GP076RD (123–123.7 m) 0.186 8.5 <0.1 -30 30.0 <0.01/<0.01 10.7 0.3 100 NAF

303981 Euro limestone GP098RD (149.65–150.4 m)

0.218 8.9 <0.1 -594 597 0.08/0.07 9.8 2.1 284 AC

303982 Granite (fresh) GP100RD (145–145.6 m) 0.221 8.3 <0.1 -4.1 40.5 1.19/1.18 9.4 36.1 1.1 NAF

303983 Euro limestone GP101RD (54–54.35 m) 1.090 8.5 <0.1 -550 551 0.02/<0.01 9.2 0.3 1,837 AC

302985 Granite (fresh) GP100RD (123.1–124 m) 0.243 8.3 7.5 -1.8 19.9 0.59/0.58 3.2 17.7 1.1 UNC(PAF)

Ox=oxidised, Tr=transition, Fr=fresh



Table 4.7 Results of chemical analysis and GAI values for rock samples

Element AverageCrustal

Abundance(mg/kg or %)

Analysis Result (mg/kg or %) / GAI

Low gradeore (oxide)

Low gradeore (fresh)

Peelaconglomerate

(oxide)

Sullivanshale

Granite(oxide)

Granite(tr)

Granite(fresh)

Eurolimestone

Fabianquartzite

(ox-tr)

Al 8.2 0.26-10.5%/0 0.28-0.436%/0

0.465%/0 0.26%/0 0.365-0.548%/0

0.104%/0 0.36-1.52%/0 0.107-1.45%/0

0.109-0.34%/0

Fe 4.1 0.53-2.18%/0 1.44-1.92%/0 1.46%/0 1.25%/0 0.891-2.75%/0

0.4180%/0 1.73-4.58%/0 1.14-3.06%/0 0.08-0.268%/0

As 1.5 2.2-34.4/6 2.7-8.5/2 14.9/3 5.6/1 1.9-4.0/1 3.4/1 0.7-54.2/7 0.6-15.3/3 1.0-3.4/1

Ag 0.07 0.2-2.0/4 1.2-1.7/4 2.4/4 0.5/3 0.2-1.8/4 0.8/3 0.1-0.0.9/3 0.1-0.6/3 0.3-0.6/3

Ba 500 23.1-46.6/0 17.8-47.4/0 34.1/0 18.8/0 25.5-28.0/0 20.6/0 17.1-59.7.0/0 36.8-819/0 30.3-51.2/0

Tl 0.6 0.1/0 0.1/0 0.2/0 - - 0.2/0 0.1/0 0.4/0 -

Be 2.6 0.2-2.1/0 0.5-1.4/0 0.5/0 0.6/0 0.5-1.1/0 0.2/0 0.2-1.2/0 0.6-1.2/0 0.1-0.2/0

Bi 0.048 0.1/0 0.2/1 0.4/2 0.5/2 - - 0.1-0.4/2 0.2/1 0.2/1

Cd 0.11 0.3-0.6/2 1.1-1.9/4 -- - 0.1-0.5/0 0.6/2 1.2/3 0.1-48.1/6 0.2/0

Co 20 0.5-14.7/0 4.2-4.4/0 1.6/0 3.9/0 5.3-7.3/0 1.2/0 3.4-17.7/0 2.0-6.8/0 0.3-0.6/0

Cr 100 30.5-70.3/0 48.1-160/0 59.8/0 131/0 61.3-72.5/0 123/0 41.5-111/0 7.4-22/0 44.6-152/0

Cu 50 4.3-31.9/0 11.3-12.6/0 46.6/0 17.0/0 5.8-30.7/0 12.0/0 1.0-24.9/0 1.4-70.1/0 4.2-8.5/0

Th 12 20.6-22.6/0 16.1-27.5/0 4.0/0 6.3/0 16.9-60.2/2 6.0/0 14.9-75.1/2 4.0-5.4/0 6.0-6.5/0

Mn 950 18.2-428/0 299/0 604/0 65/0 113-491/0 29.7/0 322-1609/1 4050-6040/2 6.5-140/0

Sr 370 12.4-20.3/0 4.2-6.0/0 4.3/0 4.8/0 8.4-20.3/0 8.2/0 7.7-31.2/0 130-179/0 11.8-18.6/0

Mo 1.5 0.6-2.8/0 1.6-5.1/1 1.6/0 0.4/0 1.2-1.3/0 0.2/0 0.2-10.8/0 0.1-0.9/0 0.1-0.8/0

Pb 14 13.4/0 33.6/1 13.2/0 - 24.5/0 21.5/0 18.2/0 6.0/0 17.9/0

Ni 80 1.3-24.1/0 5.8-8.6/0 3.3/0 8.4/0 4.0-13.2/0 3.1/0 2.7-22.5/0 1.0-24.1/0 0.7-2.3/0



Element AverageCrustal

Abundance(mg/kg or %)

Analysis Result (mg/kg or %) / GAI

Low gradeore (oxide)

Low gradeore (fresh)

Peelaconglomerate

(oxide)

Sullivanshale

Granite(oxide)

Granite(tr)

Granite(fresh)

Eurolimestone

Fabianquartzite

(ox-tr)

Sb 0.2 0.2/0 0.4/0 1.02/1 0.1/0 0.1-0.2/0 0.2/0 0.1-0.8/1 - -

U 1.8 4.4-6.2/1 1.8-3.5/0 1.2/0 1.2/0 1.9-6.1/1 1.8/0 1.5-6.5/0 0.4-1.5/0 0.4-0.6/0

Li 20 2.3-11.2/0 2.7-4.7/0 1.1/0 3.6/0 2.3-3.7/0 0.5/0 4.3-26.1/0 8.2-25.7/0 0.5-0.9/0

V 160 2-37/0 2/0 4/0 6/0 5-20/0 - 2-66/0 5-8/0 2/0

Zn 75 12.6-351/2 175-320/2 33.5/0 113/1 57.4200/1 47.2/0 12.9-326/2 24.6-1870/55 4.5-6.8/0

Sn 2.2 0.1-1.6/0 0.2-0.4/0 1.2/0 0.2/0 0.5-1.2/0 0.1/0 0.1-1.5/0 0.3-0.7/0 0.1-0.2/0

S 0.03 0.02-0.38/3 0.43-1.12/4 6.15/7 0.6/4 0.02/0 0.03/0 0.02-2.25/6 0.02-1.29/4 0.04-0.58/4

Results are represented as chemical analysis/GAI



Figure 4.6 Acid-base account plot and geochemical classification by rock type



Figure 4.7 Total sulphur versus sulphide sulphur and total sulphur versus NAPP



On the basis of the electrical conductivity results all samples are classified as non-saline.

In general the rocks analysed have neutral to slightly alkaline pH, with the exception of the oxidised PeelaConglomerate, oxidised Fabian Quartzite and one sample of low grade ore, which had values of 4.5, 6.2 and6.3 respectively. The pHsat of the other waste rock samples generally range from 7.6 to 9.9. The low gradeore generally has pHsat values of 7.3 to 9 and the high grade and primary ore of 7.6 to 8.

The GAI value was used to assess the extent of enrichment. The results indicate that the rock samples areenriched with respect to some elements as follows:

n arsenic in the oxidised Peela Conglomerate and some samples of oxide low grade, fresh granite andone sample of Euro Limestone

n silver in most of the rock types, which is not surprising given that silver commonly is associated with thistype of gold deposit

n cadmium in one sample of oxide low grade ore, one sample of fresh granite and one sample of EuroLimestone

n sulphur in most of the rock typesn zinc in one sample of Euro Limestone.

The generation of ARD depends on the combination of susceptible minerals, and the availability of oxygenand water. Water is both a reactant and the main means by which ARD can spread. In the arid environmentof the Tarcoola Gold Project rainfall is sporadic, with long dry periods between rainfall events. As a result,any potential ARD may be ephemeral. During dry periods, evaporation may lead to the formation ofprecipitates and salts which may store metals, sulphate and acidity. During high rainfall periods these maybe flushed out resulting in the release of acidic waters, with elevated sulphates and metals.

Eight of the 34 samples tested were PAF, one sample was low capacity PAF. Of these four were either lowgrade or high grade ore, one each from the Peela Conglomerate and Sullivan Shale; and two from freshgranite.

Five samples were classified as uncertain due to conflicting NAGpH and NAPP results. Further examinationof the results indicates that two of the granite and one of the quartzite samples have low sulphurconcentrations and NAPP either negative or low (0 to 3.4) and were likely to be non-acid forming. A sampleof quartzite and fresh granite recorded sulphur concentrations of around 0.6% but variable NAPP, negativefor the fresh granite and 17.7 for the quartzite, suggesting that there was potential for these samples to bePAF. A sample of oxide granite was classified as uncertain (PAF) on the basis of the low pH of 3.6 andnegative NAPP. But it is noted that other oxide granite samples classified as NAF and it could be argued thatthe pH value is not significantly lower than the assessment criteria of 4.5.

All of the samples of Euro Limestone were acid consuming. The three samples of Fabian Quartzite wereclassified as NAF or uncertain (NAF). Two of the fourteen samples of unmineralised granite were classifiedas PAF.

As indicated in Section 4.2.2 the Peela Conglomerate is a minor lithological unit located at the base of theproposed open pit. The Euro Limestone which occurs towards the base in the southern part of the proposedopen pit and does not outcrop. The Sullivan Shale Member consisting of finely laminated carbonaceousshale and siltstone forms a small surficial cap to the north of the Tarcoola Ridge.

The Tarcoola Granite occurs at the base in the southern part of the proposed open pit and thereafterincreases in thickness to the northeast and together with the Fabian Quartzite are the most dominant rockunits at Tarcoola.

Sulphides such as pyrite, galena (lead sulphide) and sphalerite (zinc sulphide) occur in the area proposed formining and lesser amounts of arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite and bornite have also been intersected.



Lead and zinc sulphides contribute to the total sulphur content (S%); however while they potentiallycontribute to metal contamination of water, they are not acid producing. The PAF material will need to bemanaged by segregation and encapsulation by inert material to ensure that the potential for acid formation isminimised. Methods such as encapsulation allows neutralising minerals to have time to react and neutraliseacidity produced. Low grade fresh ore has been indicated as being PAF and on this basis it may prove to bemore economical to process the low grade material, avoiding expensive long term management measures.

The Euro Limestone will provide neutralising capacity due to the presence of carbonate minerals. Thismaterial will be encountered towards the base of the southern portion of the open pit and could be used inrehabilitation at closure.

An initial assessment was undertaken to determine the likely distribution and volume of PAF material.Figure 4.7 indicates there is a direct correlation between total sulphur S and sulphide S, suggesting that totalsulphur is a good indicator for sulphide sulphur in analyses. The relationship between total sulphur andNAPP is indicated in Figure 4.7. This indicates that a cutoff of 0.3% S is conservative in relation to whethermaterial is PAF or NAF. The test results indicate that this is a reasonable approach as %S sulphide for NAFmaterial is predominantly below 0.3% and PAF material has %S sulphide generally greater than 0.43. Sevenof the 11 NAF samples had %S sulphide <0.1, two samples < 0.2%S sulphide and two samples <0.3%Ssulphide (these also had ph>5 and high negative NAPP). This further lends credence to a cutoff of 0.3%Ssulphide.

Consideration also has to be given to the results of the ARD testing and the mineralogy. As indicate abovethe ore body contains sulphides such as galena and sphalerite which would report to the total sulphurcontent but are not acid forming. This is the case for the fresh Peela Conglomerate, with the ARD testingindicating a NAF classification, even with S% of 2.5. As defined in Table 4.6, the classification of PAF isbased on NAPP values greater than 10. The graph of NAPP versus total sulphur (Figure 4.8) shows thatthere are some samples from the Tarcoola Gold Project that have high S values that are not classified asPAF.

The geology data base for the Tarcoola Project was interogated by Tarcoola Gold to assess the distributionof rock types and to identify NAF and PAF blocks. This will enable accounting for the NAF and PAF duringthe mining schedule and to also enable development of the WRF. The interpretive bank cubic metre (BCM)volumes of the rock units are indicated in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 Waste rock volumes

Waste rock type Total (BCM) Potential PAF (BCM)

Euro Limestone 7,000 Nil

Peela Conglomerate 15,000 15,000

Sediments (Fabian Quartzite and sandstone) 1,235,500 Nil

Granite (fresh) 572,000 228,800

Granite (oxide) 317,000 31,700

Low grade primary ore (mineralised waste) 140,500 140,500

Low grade oxide ore (mineralised waste) 149,500 Nil

Total PAF 416,000

Total waste rock 2,436,500

The assessment indicates that the PAF material comprises about 17% of the total waste rock. There is atotal of 7,000 cubic metres of Euro Limestone which is acid consuming. This material could be used at theend of mining operations to neutralise any potential acid generation.



In addition there is 2,020,500 cubic metres of NAF material that can be used to encapsulate the PAFmaterial.

Additional investigation will be undertaken as part of the PEPR to refine the geological block model withrespect of the PAF/NAF identified in the current assessment. A mine schedule will be developed on the basisof this information and an Acid Mine Drainage management plan will be provided in the PEPR based on thisinformation, WPG commits to implementing the recommendations provided in Appendix F.

4.3 Exploration activitiesTarcoola Gold has on-going exploration activities in the Tarcoola area to try and define additional mineralresources. Potential targets are discussed in the following sections.

4.3.1 Mineralised stockpiles/alluvials

Tailings and battery sands associated with historical mining operations contain some remnant mineralisation.A total of 60,000 t of material is estimated to exist between the Tarcoola Blocks mine site, at the old statebattery site, and at the Royal George mine site. The grade and potential gold recoveries for this materialrequires further evaluation, but may be used to form the base of the pads.

Tarcoola Gold will also investigate the potential for alluvial mineralisation in the catchments draining offTarcoola Ridge. An historical intersection of 4 m @ 97.8 g/t in alluvial material to the south of the TarcoolaBlocks mine suggests that further evaluation is warranted.

4.3.2 Resource definition targets

Exploration over the Tarcoola Goldfield commenced during the 1970s for a range of minerals, howeverinterest in gold was rekindled following a technical review by Aberfoyle Resources in 1984 which concludedthat there was good potential for economic gold mineralisation. Dump sampling and induced polarisationsurveys were initiated, and the first gold-focussed drilling campaign was completed in October 1985. In 1986,BHP joint ventured into the Tarcoola Project and conducted further geophysical surveys, trenching, aerialsurveys, reverse circulation and diamond drilling, and structural interpretation. An initial resource of 600 kt @3.2 g/t Au was calculated over the Perseverance Deposit.

During the 1990s and 2000s, through numerous companies and joint ventures, extensive RC and diamonddrilling, geochemical sampling, geophysical surveys (gravity and magnetic), geological mapping andresource evaluation were conducted over the Tarcoola Ridge.

In 2013 when Mungana Goldmines acquired the Tarcoola Project was the project progressed from a knownexploration target and resource towards an economically viable project with the completion of a Pre-Feasibility Study. Further diamond and RC drilling was completed, as well as metallurgical testwork and trialof handheld field assay techniques.

A validation program of historical data for the Wondergraph prospect and the Tarcoola Blocks workings forfuture resource assessment is being undertaken. These prospects have significant ore-grade intersectionsand a history of gold production, but currently do not have JORC-compliant resources.

Initial exploration drilling conducted at Wondergraph returned promising intersections, including a result of11 m @ 12.1 g/t from 1m immediately north of the historical workings. The prospect area has a number ofcalcrete gold anomalies which are yet to be investigated by drilling.



Figure 4.8 Significant intersection from the Wondergraph Area, labelled in yellow (TARC-series)(the pale yellow transparency marks the outline of a calcrete anomaly)



The Tarcoola Blocks mine area consists of multiple reef structures which are narrow but high grade. Priordrilling confirmed the presence of remnant mineralisation, with highlights including 8 m @ 142.8 g/t from38 m (Imperial Reef), 4 m @ 53.1 from 30 m (Welcome Home Reef), 3 m @ 50.2 g/t from 33 m (SullivansReef), 3 m @ 26.0 g/t from 153 m (Fabian/Western Branch Reef). Underground face sampling recordsindicate that grade distribution can be erratic. Previous evaluation in the 1980’s of two bulk samples from theFabian reef indicated a total of 48.7 t with average grades of 29.1 g/t and 42.5 g/t Au respectively. Batchesfrom other lode systems returned grades 0.3 to 4.3 g/t Au. Assessment of underground developmentopportunities is seen as a part of a longer term strategy.

Significant intersections encountered at Wondergraph are shown in Figure 4.8. Located within the MC4376area at Tarcoola, there are approximately 1,000 drill holes and 1,200 surface samples assayed as inFigure 4.9.

Figure 4.9 Distribution of drilling over the Tarcoola Blocks Reef systems and location of historicaltailings (down-hole gold assay values are shown in plan view along the hole trace)



4.3.3 Regional exploration

There are also potential regional exploration targets as defined by geological, geophysical and geochemicalevaluation. Potential targets are indicated in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10 Regional exploration targets on EL5355, showing calcrete sample sites and associatedanomalies, and target corridors defined through structural modelling and fluid flow studies

4.3.4 Rehabilitation of exploration activities

The following provides a summary of rehabilitation activities that would be undertaken for explorationactivities.

Where it has been necessary to case the drillhole collars the following rehabilitation will be undertaken:

n the casing will be cut off below ground leveln all holes will be plugged and buriedn all rubbish will be collected for appropriate disposaln drill sites will be lightly raked and any compaction broken up to encourage re-growthn cyclone spoil will be spread or backfilled into the collar prior to capping.

Immediate remedial action will be taken for any fuel/oil spills. As the drill sites are typically on sandy loam,any affected material will be collected by shovel into leak proof bags and taken to a rubbish facility thataccepts fuel/oil waste. For temporary fuel storage at the camp site in Tarcoola, a containment area with abund wall will be built around the bulk container to catch and contain any spills. A plastic liner between thecontainer and ground surface and perimeter bund will prevent hydrocarbon fuel spills soaking into the groundsurface. A hydrocarbon spill kit will be placed close to the fuel containment area.



A small sump (approximately 3 m x 3 m x 2 m) may be established near the drilling rig to containgroundwater discharged from the borehole or for recirculation of water during drilling operations. The sumpswill be rehabilitated in accordance with DSD guidelines. Where significant groundwater is encountered, aflow estimate and depth will be recorded and a water sample with relevant information collected andprovided to the DSD Core Library for analysis.

At completion of drilling the boreholes will be completed in line with DSD Information Sheet M21: MineralExploration Drillholes – General Specifications for Construction and Backfilling. The drill site will berehabilitated and scarified on completion of the program. Where cleared, vegetation matter will be spreadover the drill site to reduce visual impact and encourage vegetation re-generation.

All vehicles used during the drilling program are fitted with fire extinguishers to cover both fuel and non-fuelfire situations. In addition extra fire extinguishers will be supplied and moved between drill sites. Drill padswill be appropriately cleared of dry vegetation to minimise fire risk.

4.4 Mining plan

4.4.1 Type of mining operation to be carried out

The Tarcoola Project will be mined by conventional open cut mining methods utilising a truck and excavatorfleet supported by ancillary equipment. Ore will be processed though a conventional gold industry crushing,agglomeration and heap leach operation (refer to Section 4.6). Mining operations would be initiated by theestablishment of a starter pit approximately 70 m deep and the final pit depth is expected to be 110 m.

The top 30 m comprising saprolite and weathered rock has been assumed to not require drill and blasting.Between 30 m–60 m below the surface, material will be lightly blasted. From 60 m below the surface to thebase of the open pit, material will be blasted using conventional drill and blast techniques.

Mining bench heights will be 10 m in the saprolite and 20 m in rock material. Typically a blast pattern mayconsist of about 300 holes 89–125 mm in diameter drilled to depth.

In general, the top 1.5–2 m of the hole will be backfilled with stemming material. This material acts toimprove fragmentation characteristics of the blast and to reduce noise, dust and fly-rock. Smooth wallblasting techniques will be employed for long term and final pit walls in competent rock.

Following blasting, the broken material will be loaded into dump trucks by an excavator for removal from thepit to its designated location, either the waste rock storage or ROM pad. The waste rock storage and ROMpad are located west and northwest respectively of the open pit (Figure 4.1).

4.4.2 Sequencing and schedule of mining

Mining operations will commence with a starter pit in the southern portion of the Perseverance resourcefollowed by extension (cutback) of the pit to the northeast and development of a smaller open pit furthernortheast (refer to Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12. A life of mine (LOM) schedule for the pit is provided inTable 4.9. Construction of the project is anticipated to commence late 2015 (subject to all project approvals)with gold production expected in early 2016.

Table 4.9 LOM In-situ material movement summary

Year 1 (tonnes) Year 2 (tonnes) Year 3 (tonnes) Year 4 (tonnes)

Ore 220,217 250,000 250,000 105,135

Waste 2,363,019 1,900,804 1,345,422 246,310

Total 2,583,236 2,150,804 1,595422 351,445



Figure 4.11 Tarcoola conceptual open pit design (plan view)

Figure 4.12 Tarcoola conceptual open pit design (perspective)



4.4.3 Pit design and slope stability

As part of the PFS an initial slope stability assessment of the proposed open pit was undertaken by PellsSullivan Meyninck (PSM) (Appendix G). The assessment was based on data from the exploration programand laboratory testing of geotechnical drillholes undertaken by Tarcoola Gold in 2012.

The geotechnical testing included:

n uniaxial compressive strength tests on 11 drill core samplesn point load strength index tests on 16 samples (8 axial and 8 diametral)n direct shear tests on defects from 2 samples of metasedimentsn Atterberg Limit testing on 5 samplesn particle size distribution testing of 2 samples.

Bedrock at the Tarcoola Gold Project has been affected by chemical decomposition (weathering) to varyingdegrees with weathering more developed in the vicinity of the mineralisation zone, the west wall of theproposed open pit.

The mine pit area was divided into a number of soil and rock classes in which geotechnical characteristicswere considered similar. The following domain units have been identified:

n UMS1: Moderately weathered to fresh undifferentiated meta-sediments, predominantly quartzite withlayers of siltstone.

n UMS2: Slightly weathered to fresh undifferentiated meta-sediments, predominantly siltstone.n UMS3: Extremely, to highly weathered undifferentiated meta-sediments.n G1: Fresh granite.n G2: Slightly, to moderately weathered granite.n G3: Extremely, to highly weathered undifferentiated meta-sediments.n D1: Fresh diorite.

A pronounced magnetic anomaly to the west of the proposed open pit has been interpreted to be a faultzone that has potential to cause poor rock conditions in the west wall but its orientation is not unfavourable interms of pit slope stability.

There are three dominant defects in the metasediments:

n bedding with average orientation 202/27n joint set 1 with average orientation 353/57n joint set 2 with average orientation 300/56.

The stability of the pit slopes was assessed by PSM by the following techniques on the basis that anypotential failures would be structurally controlled (i.e. rock mass defects such as joints and beddingsurfaces):

n kinematic analysisn probability of undercutting analysis.

The north wall is likely to have the most potential for instability due to bedding plane surfaces dipping out ofthe slope. The east and west wall designs are based on the potential for wedge failures to be developed.The south wall appears to have lesser problems than the other walls. The pit wall angles and berm widthsadopted for the open pit were determined by PSM as part of the PFS and aim to ensure that the pit walls arestable and competent over the life of the mine operation (refer to Table 4.10).



Table 4.10 Proposed bench slope angles

Unit/Wall Domain unit Max benchheight(1)

Benchslope

angle(1)

Bermwidth

Interrampangle

Failuremechanism

Near surfacescree

Scree (colluvium) 10 m 45° 6 m N/A Soil strength

East wall UMS3 20 m (10 m) 45° (50°) 7 m (5 m) 370 Rock mass

UMS1 & UMS2 20 m (10 m) 55° (64°) 6 m (5 m) 450 Potential wedgeson joints

West wall UMS3 20 m (10 m) 45° (50°) 7 m (5 m) 370 Rock mass

UMS1 & UMS2 20 m (10 m) 55° (72°) 6 m (4.5 m) 450 None identified

Granite (G1, G2) 20 m (10 m) 70° (75°) 7 m (4.4 m) 550 Potential wedges

North wall UMS3 20 m (10 m) 45° (50°) 7 m (5 m) 370 Planar sliding onbedding

UMS1 & UMS2 20 m (10 m) 50° (55°) 7 m (5 m) 400 Planar sliding onbedding

South wall UMS3 20 m (10 m) 45° (50°) 7 m (5 m) 370 Rock mass

UMS1 & UMS2 20 m (10 m) 65° (72°) 6 m (4.5 m) 520 None identified

Granite (G1, G2) 20 m (10 m) 70° (75°) 7 m (4.4 m) 550 None identified

(1) Figures in () are for 10 m high benches

4.4.4 Rehabilitation operations for open pit

In order to not sterilise potential future resources it is not proposed to backfill the open pit(s) which willremain as permanent features on the landscape.

A 2 m high bund will be established around the perimeter of the open pit and joined to the eastern side of thewaste rock storage facility. The bund will be constructed with inert waste rock and rock armouring on theexternal slope to maintain integrity.

The proposed bund is located at least 35 m from the top of the final crest of the open pit and is beyondpotential failure surfaces through the weathered rock and includes an addition margin of 10 m (refer toSection 8 for details). The proposed design is consistent with the Safety Bund Walls Around AbandonedOpen Pit Mines Guideline (Department of Industry Resources, WA, 1997). The potential for slope failures toimpact the proposed bund is considered to be negligible. Exit point(s) of the open pit will also be bunded toprevent vehicle access. Additional information is included in Section 8.

4.4.5 Rehabilitation of heritage sites

Subject to approval the following rehabilitation is proposed to be undertaken:

n Excavate material from existing tailings dams and bunds and transport to the heap leach pad area foruse as cushion layer between the HDPE liner and the pregnant solution collection system. The materialwill be lightly wetted to minimise the potential for dust generation during excavation, transport and re-use.

n It is understood that there is a liner installed at the base of the leach pads. An assessment will be madeas to whether investigations of the post excavation footprint and downslope areas are required toassess soil chemical concentrations and determine whether additional rehabilitation is required.



n As the area will always be a State Heritage area relating to previous mining (industrial use) and accessto the site will be infrequent it is proposed to adopt the NEPM Industrial guideline levels or alternativelysite specific risk levels will be developed consistent with the land use.

n Safety signage will be posted at potential access locations indicating that the area is a registered StateHeritage site and safety issues will be posted (refer to Figure 8.4).

n Grade the disturbed area of the former leach pads and allow for natural revegetation. It is expected thatthe subsoil will be suitable for establishment of similar vegetation cover (salt bush) as exists in theadjacent undisturbed area.

Areas that were mined post 1980 within the existing MLs will be rehabilitated by filling openings/excavations.Signage indicating that the area is a registered State Heritage site and safety issues will be posted (refer toFigure 8.4). Where appropriate, fencing will be installed.

4.5 Mining operations

4.5.1 Modes and hours of operation

The mine will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

4.5.2 Workforce

The mine is estimated to employ around 80 people (with an average of 37 at any one time) with theworkforce distributed between the following operations:

n open pit miningn heap leach and process plantn technical/administration.

Due to its remote location, the project would be established on a commute basis predominantly fly-in fly-out(FIFO). Rostering of people will reflect the project requirements and would be consistent with acceptedmining industry practice. A small number of drive-in drive-out (DIDO) employees could be drawn from thenearby towns of Coober Pedy, Pimba and Glendambo. A charter plane will be used to transport the FIFOemployees between Adelaide/Port Augusta and the mine. All personnel will be housed in a purpose builtaccommodation village (refer to Section 4.8.4) and potentially selected Tarcoola Gold owned residences inTarcoola. Company buses will be used to transport personnel between the airstrip, accommodation villageand the mine.

All major construction, development and pre-production activities will be outsourced. It is likely that mining,accommodation and catering and some maintenance operations will be outsourced. This will be furtherexplored in the DFS stage of the project.

It is the intention through project construction and operations to strive to achieve the highest level of industry-benchmark safety performance. In practice this would be achieved through

n sound engineering design, processes and proceduresn a culture that values safetyn properly equipping people to assess risks in the workplace and respond appropriately.



4.5.3 Use of explosives

The Tarcoola Gold project will use both packaged and bulk type explosives. The bulk explosives used in theoperation will be either ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) or emulsion based and will be stored in a purposebuilt explosives magazine. ANFO and heavy ANFO will be the preferred explosive used with the use ofemulsions generally restricted to those cases where the blast holes contain water.

Blast holes will be typically between 89–125 mm in diameter but may vary depending upon fragmentation,heave or special blasting requirements, ranging from 76 mm to 156 mm in diameter. Holes will be stemmedunless there is some special blasting requirement (e.g. pre-split holes) that dictates otherwise. Current mineplanning indicates blasting will be undertaken up to 3 times per week.

The magazine will be designed to comply with the South Australian Explosives Act (1936) and theExplosives Regulation (1996) and Australian Standard AS2187.2-2006, Explosives – Storage and Use – Useof Explosives. The expected explosive volumes are detailed in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Annual explosive tonnages

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

Annual explosive requirements (tonnes) 473 597 443 98 1,611

The final design of the magazine and associated workshop and office building will be undertaken by theselected explosives contractor and approval sought from SafeWork SA.

Common blasting practice dictates that exclusion zones are established for the safety of personnel andequipment at open pit mines. The exclusion zones proposed for Tarcoola are 300 metres for equipment and600 m for personnel. The green outline on Figure 4.13 below is the 600 m exclusion zone for personnel fromthe edge of the Perseverance and Last Resource pits.

Figure 4.13 Blast exclusion zone



The exclusion zone is located entirely within the proposed ML area. At the southern end of the pit, thedistance from the proposed pit wall to the Central Australian Railway Line is 700 m. To reduce the risk totrains travelling along the railway line, blasting at Tarcoola will be designed to initiate towards the north-eastand will be undertaken around active train schedules for the Central Australian Railway Line. Tarcoola Goldwill liaise with the rail operator to ensure that blasting times are not coincident with rail movements. Due tothe proximity of the exclusion zone the railway line to the south monitoring of the extent of fly-rock will beundertaken to ensure there is no impact.

4.5.4 Type of equipment

The mining operations and equipment fleet would likely be typical of those found in a medium scale open pitgold mining operation.

The equipment and approximate sound power levels (SWL) where available are indicated below:

n Excavator – 1 (SWL 104 dB(A) LAeq)n Haul trucks – 4 x 50 tonne (SWL 115 dB(A) LAeq)n Bulldozer – 1 x CAT D11 (SWL 115 dB(A) LAeq)n Water cart – 1 (SWL 109 dB(A) LAeq)n Front end loader – 1 x CAT 992 (SWL 111 dB(A) LAeq)n Rock breaker – 1, assume as per front end loader (SWL 111 dB(A) LAeq)n Light vehicles – 6 (SWL 100 dB(A) LAeq)n Grader – 1 (SWL 110 dB(A) LAeq)n Drill rig – 1 (SWL 111 dB(A) LAeq).

Emissions from the above equipment are expected to include NOx, particulate matter, SO2 and CO and lowlevels of VOCs and trace levels of PAHs are also anticipated. These emissions are anticipated to diffusereadily. The above equipment is also the main potential ignition sources. The plant and equipment will bemaintained in accordance with the manufacturer requirements. In addition the potential for sparks to ignitevegetation is not considered to be a risk due to the low vegetation coverage and vehicle and plant accesswill be on designated site roads and will traffic on cleared areas.

Refuelling areas are also potential sources of ignition. Potential impacts will be minimised through theestablishment of the refuelling areas in accordance with EPA Guidelines and Australian Standards.

Excavation and haulage will be based around 100 tonne excavators and 50 tonne trucks.

The near surface colluvium and weathered rock overlying the deposit would be amenable to bulk surfacemining techniques. For this phase of mine development, it is possible that larger earthmoving equipment, (forexample 350–400 t excavator(s)) could be used to enable higher productivities, lower costs and accelerationof the mine development schedule.

Over the life of the project, one to two fleets of mining equipment (excavators and trucks) could be required.Truck numbers will vary with the stage of pit development, with key factors being strip ratio, pit depth andhaul lengths.

Appropriate blasthole drill rigs would be required in line with the production schedule. Usual open pit supportequipment, including dozers, graders, water carts, lighting plants and light vehicles would also be required.

Potential ignition sources include equipment engine exhaust systems, grading and dozing operations,loading operations, electrical equipment and operating plant conveyors and screens.



4.5.5 Mine dewatering

4.5.5.1 Investigations

To enable mining of the resource to the full depth of 110 m there will be a need for de-watering as thestanding water level is around 30 m below the surface.

The assessment of the requirements for dewatering was based on investigations by Jacobs (refer toAppendix C) followed by analysis of the test pumping and airlift test data from exploration bores on theproject site.

4.5.5.2 Groundwater modelling

The potential inflows to the proposed open pits were predicted by Jacobs using the Marinelli and Niccolianalytical method (Appendix C). The results are considered to be indicative and the following limitations wereincluded:

n circular pit layoutn uniform flow conditions are assumed (i.e. lateral and vertical variation id not considered)n the effects of geological structures, discontinuities, major fractures and faults are considered at a basic

leveln an aquifer recharge rate of 0.2 mm/year (based on a chloride mass balance approach using rainfall data

from Woomera and groundwater quality data from site investigations at Perseverancen a groundwater level of 120 mAHD.

The adopted analytical parameters for the assessment are summarised in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Adopted analytical parameters

Deposit/Pit Adopted Radius (m) Kmin (m/d) Kgm (m/d) Kmax (m/d)

Perseverance 250 3x10-4 3x10-3 3x10-2

Kmin = minimum hydraulic conductivity; Kgm = geometric mean hydraulic conductivity; Kmax = maximum hydraulicconductivity

The detailed results of the analysis are presented in Appendix C.

4.5.5.3 Predicted open pit inflows and groundwater drawdown

Predicted groundwater inflow to the Perseverance open pit is provided in Table 4.13. Groundwater inflows atPerseverance are predicted to be about 34 m3/day, but could range between 6 and 239 m3/day. The steadystate radius of influence from dewatering the proposed Perseverance open pit is predicted to be 2,125 m(Figure 4.14) and predicted drawdown levels are included in Figure 4.15.

The preliminary assessment suggests that in-pit pumping should suffice to manage inflows, although it islikely that evaporation will significantly impact the inflows during the summer months. Higher yieldingfractures may occur in the open pit and would require additional short term management measures.

Data Source: PIRSA 2008, Figure provided by Jacobs

Map No: 2200005A_GIS_016_A Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 4.14

Predicted area of influence from pit dewatering



www.pbworld.com


Predicted drawdown levels from pit dewatering

Data source: PIRSA 2008,Figure provided by Jacobs

Map no: 2200005A_GIS_030_B





Table 4.13 Likely groundwater inflow into Perseverance open pit

Pit depth Approximate radius ofinfluence for inflow (m)

Minimum(m3/d)

Geometricmean (m3/d)

Maximum(m3/d)

50 575 1 8 69

60 875 2 10 83

70 1150 2 14 105

80 1400 3 18 132

90 1650 4 23 163

100 1875 5 28 198

110 2125 6 34 239

Inflow from the pit will be pumped and utilised for dust suppression on roads and haul roads.

4.6 Heap leach and processing plant overviewThe heap leach and process plant will be designed to operate continuously and incorporates the followingprocess operations:

n crushingn agglomerationn stackingn heap leaching and adsorptionn elution and electrowinningn gold recovery and gold room operationsn reagent mixing, storage and distributionn services and ancillaries.

An example of a typical heap leaching operation is indicated in Photo 4.1 and proposed major equipmentused in crushing, conveying and processing indicated below:

n Lokotrack LT106 mobile jaw crusher – sound power level (SWL) 124dB(A), power by CAT C9 224kWengine

n Lokotrack LT3.5 mobile screen – no available information on SWL and emissionsn Lokotrack LT106 mobile impact crusher – sound power level (SWL) 124dB(A), powered by CAT C9

224kW enginen Grasshopper conveyor – no available information on SWL and emissionsn Agglomeration drum – no available information on SWL and emissions.

Emissions from the diesel fired plant are expected to include nitrous oxides (NOx), particulate matter, sulphurdioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) and low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and tracelevels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These emissions are anticipated to diffuse readily.

The above equipment is also the main potential ignition sources associated with initial processing of the ore.The equipment will be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer requirements. In addition thepotential for sparks to ignite vegetation is not considered to be a risk due to the low vegetation coverage andthe equipment will be on cleared areas.

The main potential ignition sources within process plant operations are the electrical motors, the smeltingoperations and kiln used to regenerate and dry the activated carbon, and the diesel storage area. The



smelting operations and kiln are within enclosed buildings which will be ventilated. Similarly the electricalmotors will be well ventilated to prevent overheating.

The diesel storage area will be established and operated in accordance with EPA Guidelines and AustralianStandards.

Source: Kappes Cassiday

Photo 4.1 Typical layout of heap leaching operations

Ore will be transported by haul trucks to the ROM pad and fed to the mobile crushing circuit by front endloader. Crushed ore is then transferred from the crusher circuit to the agglomeration drum via a feedconveyor. The agglomerated ore is transported from the agglomeration drum by overland conveyor andstacked in leach cells using portable “grasshopper” conveyors and stacking conveyors (Photo 4.2).



Photo 4.2 Grasshopper conveyor

The completed heap in each cell is continuously dosed with a sodium cyanide solution by a sprinkler systemto recover precious metals. Solution from the heap is collected in a HDPE lined pregnant leach solution(PLS) pond before being passed through carbon contact tanks where the precious metals are adsorbed.Loaded carbon is eluted and the resultant eluate subjected to electrowinning to produce cathodes which aresmelted to produce a gold doré.

The process flow sheet is shown in Figure 4.16.

4.6.1 ROM stockpile

The ROM pad will be constructed south west of the processing plant and approximately 1 km from the openpit using waste rock mined during the initial stages of pit development. Mined ore will be transported andstockpiled and blended on the ROM pad according to its source, grade and geology. A front end loader willbe used to transfer stockpiled ore to the mobile primary crusher feed bin. Areas of the ROM pad subject tovehicle traffic will be watered regularly to minimise the generation of dust.

4.6.2 Crushing, ore storage and reclaim

Ore will be fed directly to the primary crusher feed hopper (a Lokotrack LT106 mobile single-toggle jawcrusher or equivalent) by front end loader at a rate of 100 tph. This rate will result in the crushing plantoperating during day shift only. Primary crusher product will be sent to a double deck screen (a LokotrackST3.5 mobile screen unit or equivalent with 25 mm and 14 mm apertures) making use of the in-built crusherdischarge conveyor.



Figure 4.16 Process flow sheet

Screen oversize (+12 mm) will be sent to the secondary crusher feed hopper (a Lokotrack LT1110 mobileimpact crusher or equivalent) making use of the in-built screen discharge conveyor. Secondary crusherproduct will be returned to the mobile screen plant making use of the in-built crusher discharge conveyor.

The mobile screen undersize discharge conveyor will tip onto the crusher product conveyor fitted with aweightometer. The crusher product conveyor will discharge into a surge bin where ore will be reclaimed bytwo belt feeders which discharge onto the agglomeration drum feed conveyor (also fitted with aweightometer). The agglomeration drum and stacking system will only be run when the crushing plant isrunning (7–8 hours per day) eliminating the need for a nightshift crew.

A cement silo straddling the agglomeration drum feed conveyor will add dry cement to the feed belt by rotaryvalve at a controlled rate before this conveyor discharges into the agglomeration drum.



Dust generated in the crushing plant will be contained using appropriate skirting, sealing and ducting drawingfrom multiple points at the crusher and conveyor transfer points and ducted to the crusher area dustcollector. Water sprays will be included to control dust emissions resulting from loading of the ROM bin andfeeding the jaw crusher and also at the surge bin.

4.6.3 Process plant

4.6.3.1 Agglomeration and stacking

Final product from the crushing plant is conveyed to a surge bin for controlled feed to the agglomerationdrum. Portland type cement is added to the ore on the agglomeration feed conveyor at a dose rate rangingfrom 3 to 15 kg/t depending on ore type. The cement dose is controlled through a feedback loop from theweightometer located on the agglomeration feed conveyor.

The dosed ore is conveyed into a 2.0 m diameter by 8 m long rotating agglomeration drum where barrenleach solution is added and agglomerates are formed. Residence time in the drum is a minimum of60 seconds with drum angle and speed adjusted to meet this requirement. Solution addition is expected tobe between 5% and 12% by weight of ore and is controlled through manual valves with an automaticsolenoid-operated shut-off connected to the weightometer.

Agglomerated ore is transported using a single stringer type overland conveyor from the agglomeration drumdischarge point to the leach cell. A tripper on the overland conveyor is re-located as required to the centre-line of the cell to be stacked. The tripper feeds a series of mobile conveyors which ultimately feed the radialstacker. The “grasshopper” conveyors are 30 m in length with wheels on the main support to ease relocationand are set up in a string just off-set from the centreline of the cell.

The stacker is relocated upslope in 5 m increments as stacking proceeds. After five or six relocations, one“grasshopper” is removed from the string and stacking progresses as before. The removed “grasshopper” isrelocated to the next cell in preparation for relocation of the stacker and follower conveyors to quickly initiatestacking on the new cell. As far as practicable it is proposed to stack the heap leach material such thatpotential impacts of PAF material are minimised during operation and post closure.

After completion of stacking each cell, the tripper is relocated to completely fill the eight cells of the leachpad. The radial stacker is 32 m in length with a 5 m stinger conveyor on the end. The stringer isextended/retracted as required to stack an arc of ore 5m in thickness. At the completion of the arc, thestacker and follower are relocated 5 m upslope.

A typical agglomeration and stacking operation is indicated in Photo 4.3.

4.6.3.2 Heap leach and adsorption circuit

The leach pad is sized to accommodate up to 850,000 tons of agglomerated ore in eight cells. Each cell is54 m wide containing some 61,000 tons of ore (approximately 75 days of stacking). Ultimate pad dimensionsare 460 by 150 m for a footprint area of approximately 68,700 m2. This pad would be constructed in a singlecampaign prior to the production of ore from the pit.

The leach pad and solution ponds are constructed using contemporary pad construction strategies (refer toSection 4.7).

A single stage leach cycle is employed with irrigation by Senninger Wobbler sprinklers (or equivalent) tomaximise distribution of leach solution and reduce evaporation and wind losses. The sprinklers are spacedon an 8 x 8 m pattern along solution distribution lines on each cell surface. A dedicated header pipe isinstalled for each cell that feeds individually-valved distribution lines.



Source: Kappes Cassiday

Photo 4.3 Typical agglomeration and stacking operation

Solution application rates of 10 L/hr/m2 are maintained over the designated leach cycle and leaching isconducted for a total of 110 days.

Solution exiting the base of each cell is directed to the PLS collection pipe. Off-flow from the cells not underactive leaching is directed to the main collection ditch which flows directly into the stormwater pond.

Totalising flowmeters in each cell header line facilitate control of leaching as well as metallurgical accounting.A V-notch weir installed at the entrance to the PLS pond measures overall off-flow from the cells. Routinerecording of flows and sampling for gold tenor is required to monitor the progress of leaching in each cell.

Gold recovery from the pregnant leach solution uses activated carbon in closed-top carousel-type adsorptioncolumns. The adsorption system is comprised of five columns operating in series. This system processessolution from the PLS pond with depleted barren solution flowing to the barren leach solution (BLS) tank forreagent dosing and return to the heap. Each column will contain 2.0 tons of carbon.

4.6.3.3 Stripping plant and gold room operations

The following operations will be carried out in the stripping and gold room areas:

n acid washing of carbonn stripping of gold from loaded carbon and electrowinning using the pressure Zadra methodn smelting of electrowinning products.



Acid wash

Spray rinsed loaded carbon from the heap leach is discharged by gravity from the loaded carbon screen intothe rubber lined acid wash column. The carbon is washed using hydrochloric acid solution (3% solutionstrength) to remove calcium and other acid soluble species. The acid wash is followed with a water rinsecycle to remove residual acid prior to carbon elution.

Elution and electrowinning

A heated solution (120°C) of sodium cyanide (0.2%) and sodium hydroxide (2%) is recirculated through thepressurised elution column and electrowinning cells with gold and silver recovered as cathode. Eluted(barren) carbon is cooled and then transferred by water education to the carbon regeneration kiln. Barreneluate is pumped back to the BLS pond. Details of the design are included in Appendix H and summaryprovided in Section 4.7.4.

Gold room

The electrowinning cells will be located within the security area of the gold room. The electroplated silver andgold will be removed from the cathodes by washing with high pressure water jets. The resulting sludge willbe filtered in laboratory style pressure filters and the solids then dried in an oven. The sludge will then bedirect smelted with fluxes in a gas-fired furnace to produce doré. Slag from smelting operations will be placedin the waste rock dump. Fume extraction equipment will be provided to remove gases from the cells, ovenand barring furnace.

Carbon regeneration

After completion of the elution process, the barren carbon will be transferred from the column to the carbondewatering screen to dewater the carbon prior to entering the feed hopper of the horizontal gas-fired carbonregeneration kiln. In the kiln feed hopper any residual and interstitial water will be drained from the carbonbefore it enters the kiln. Kiln off-gases will also be used to dry the carbon prior to entering the kiln.

Regenerated carbon from the kiln will be quenched and sized on a carbon sizing screen. The screenoversize (regenerated, sized carbon) will return to the last carbon adsorption columns.

4.6.3.4 Reagents and consumables

Reagents and consumables to be used by the process plant are described below and summarised inTable 4.14.

While this document considers road as the means of transportation to site of consumables, the option of railtransportation to Tarcoola of consumables is currently under investigation as an alternative.

Cement

Portland Type HE cement is added to the ore on the agglomeration feed conveyor at an average dose of9 kg/t depending on ore type. The cement dose is controlled through a feedback loop from a weightometerlocated on the agglomeration feed conveyor to a variable speed motor on the cement feeder. A 45-tonne silois employed for cement storage with tanker truck deliveries of cement required every 4 to 6 days. The silo isfitted with a live bottom bin activator and the cement is fed through a rotary valve.

Quicklime (calcium oxide)

Quicklime is delivered to site in 20 ton bulk tankers. Quicklime is pneumatically transferred from thetransporters into an 85 ton capacity silo located over the agglomeration drum feed conveyor. Quicklime isdosed directly onto the feed conveyor at a rate controlled by a rotary valve and VSD.



Sodium cyanide

Sodium cyanide will be delivered to site in either solid pellet form or in reusable isotainers. The cyanidedosing pumps will be connected via a manifold and the cyanide dosing system will operate on a ring main forthe supply of reagent to the leaching area, elution and the intensive cyanidation reactor.

Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda)

Sodium hydroxide will be supplied to site in liquid form at 49% w/w and stored in a 30 m3 steel tank equippedwith trace heating. A ring main system will operate and automated dosing valves will make the requiredadditions of caustic to the intensive cyanidation system and elution as required.

Hydrochloric acid

Hydrochloric acid will be delivered to site in liquid form at 32% w/v. Acid will be stored in a spiral woundreinforced fibreglass tank and dosing will be via a variable speed hose pump.

Activated carbon

Fresh carbon will be delivered in 600 kg bulk bags and will be added to the carbon columns using theadsorption area gantry crane as required. Ongoing additions of carbon to the circuit will be controlled by thetechnical operations team.

Gold room smelting fluxes

The smelting flux constituents are:

n boraxn soda ashn nitren silica flour.

The reagents will be delivered in small bag packaging and will be warehoused in a secure area.

Table 4.14 Process plant annual reagent and consumable use

Reagent Quantityper year

Units Use

Sodium Cyanide 75 Tonnes Leaching of gold and silver from ore

Quicklime 60 Tonnes pH adjustment for cyanidation

Cement 2,250 Tonnes Additive during agglomeration

Sodium hydroxide 50 Intensive cyanidation and elution

Hydrochloric Acid (32% w/w) 160 m3 Acid washing of loaded carbon prior to elution

Activated Carbon 3 Tonnes Adsorption of gold and silver from pregnant leach solution

Diesel 330 kL Mobile equipment

LPG 350 m3 Heat for elution, carbon regeneration and smelting

Antiscalent 9.25 Tonnes Prevention of scale build-up

Raw water 126,000 m3 Heap leach operations

Potable water 110,000 m3 Elution, accommodation village, site operations

Electrical power 1.2 MWh Power generating unit



4.6.4 Fate of cyanide

Cyanide has a low persistence in the environment and is not accumulated or stored in any mammals.Cyanide undergoes degradation in the environment through a range of processes including volatilisation,precipitation, chemical decomposition, adsorption, photolytic reactions and microbial degradation.

In addition to natural attenuation processes cyanide concentrations can be reduced by adsorption on clayminerals.

In heap leach mining operations there are a number of chemical reactions that occur (Figure 4.17).

Figure 4.17 Geochemical conditions in heap leach operations (NICNAS 2012)

The concentration of cyanide in seepage from heap leach operations is typically negligible due to theplacement of HDPE and compacted clay lining systems and underdrains for the collection of the permeatedleach solution. Any loss from the system is essentially a loss of gold product.

Potential exposure to wildlife can occur as a result of pooling of cyanide solution on the surface of the heapand in the drainage channels and the pregnant liquor pond. The pooling of leach solutions on the surface ofthe heap is not good operating practice due to the potential loss of cyanide and risk of elevated solutionlevels in the heap potentially causing instability. Concentrations of CNWAD in drainage channels and pregnantliquor ponds have been reported at about 130 mg/L and 30 mg/L respectively.

Process water is proposed to be obtained from hyper-saline water south of the mine site within fracturedSullivan Shale and has variable salinity, 44,300 mg/L to 80,000–160,000 mg/L.

Studies (Donato et al 2004 in NICNAS 2010) in hyper-saline areas have suggested that CNWAD

concentrations up to 150 mg/L may be safe as wildlife (even those adapted to saline water) do not drinkhyper-saline water (greater than 50,000 mg/L). NICNAS (2010) also indicate that concentrations levels thatare protective of avifauna are also considered protective of bats and terrestrial vertebrates such asmacropods and reptiles.

The pregnant liquor pond has been designed to have a surface area of 1,600 m2. It is considered that therisks to fauna are acceptably low given the surface area of the pond, high salinity of the solution and the areawill be fenced.



KCA has indicated that flushing the residual cyanide with an alkaline solution at the end of operations would,be a feasible strategy at closure. This removes most of the cyanide while still leaving alkalinity in the heapwhich reduces the potential leaching of metals. As the flushing solutions would be recycled throughsprinklers, the cyanide levels are eventually reduced by UV radiation. The total pond capacities in the PSP,BSP and stormwater pond will provide adequate capacity during flushing of the heap leach stockpile.

The final rinse solution will be allowed to evaporate and the base of the pond either covered with limestoneto provide for neutralization of any residual discharge following closure of the heap stockpile or if drainageconcentrations are acceptable the HDPE will be folded into the storage area and covered with inert material.Additional information on the proposed flushing of the heap leach stockpile is included in Section 8.6.5.3.

4.7 Heap leach operation

4.7.1 General

Kappes, Cassiday & Associates (KCA), considered world leaders in heap leach technology, were engagedby previous owners Mungana Goldmines to undertake an assessment of the requirements for establishingheap leaching operations for the Tarcoola Gold Project (Appendix H). The assessment was based on theparameters indicated in Table 4.15. Additional laboratory studies and design works are currently beingundertaken by KCA for Tarcoola Gold.

Table 4.15 Heap leach operating parameters

Item Value

Total Ore Placed 825,400 tonnes

Ore Size 15 mm

Head Grade of Ore, AU 2.58 g/t

Leach Cycle (average) 110 days

Stack Height 6 m

No. of Lifts 2

Reticulation System Sprinklers

Carbon Absorption System 5 Columns @ 2.0 Tonnes

Cyanide Consumption 0.25 to 0.40 kg/t

Lime Consumption 0.2 kg/t

Cement Consumption 9.0 kg/t

Annual Water Requirement 270,000 kL

4.7.2 Location

KCA has indicated that the ideal slope for heap leaching is about 2%. The proposed site for the heapleaching operations is located northwest of the proposed open pit and has a fall to the north of about 2% anda cross slope of 0.5% to 1%, which is essentially ideal for heap leaching.

4.7.3 Conceptual design of heap leach pad

The leach pad is sized to accommodate up to 850,000 tonnes of agglomerated ore in eight cells. Each cell is54 m wide containing some 61,000 tonnes of ore (approximately 75 days of stacking). Ultimate pad



dimensions are 460 m by 150 m for a footprint area of approximately 68,700 m2. This pad would beconstructed in a single campaign prior to the production of ore from the pit.

Each heap will be established in two lifts 6 m high (ultimate height of 12 m), a berm width of 4 m between liftswith the crushed and agglomerated ore placed at its angle of repose of about 37° by use of conveyorstacking.

The heap leach pad will incorporate a low permeability compacted clay liner (minimum of 1 x 10 -8 m/sec)overlain by a 1.5 mm thick high density polyethylene liner (HDPE). The process ponds (barren leach solutionand pregnant leach solution ponds) and product collection channels will incorporate two HDPE liners, a1.5 mm thick primary liner and a 1.0 mm thick HDPE secondary liner. The raw water pond and emergencystormwater ponds will also have 1.5 mm thick HDPE liners. A typical cross section and general layout of theheap leach pad are indicated in Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.19 respectively. Details of the lining system areprovided in Table 4.16.

The barren and pregnant leach solution ponds incorporate a leak collection sump under the liner in the lowcorner for potential recovery of leaked solutions. Monitoring bores will be established around the pad/pondperimeter to provide detection of any leakage from the system.

The leach pad and solution ponds will be constructed using contemporary pad construction strategies.

Table 4.16 Heap leach pad liner details

Layer Type Material Thickness

Subgrade Compacted clay 300 mm

Pad liner HDPE liner 1.5 mm

Pond liner HDPE liner 1.5 mm with 2nd 1.0 mm liner in process ponds

Under-liner Geotextile 1.5 g/m2

Pad cushion material clayey and silty tailings 300 mm

Pad drain rock River gravel or mine waste (-150 +2 mm) 400 mm

Draincoil 63Ø slotted PE –

Figure 4.18 Typical cross-section of heap leach pad

First lift of heap



4.7.4 Water balance

On the basis of the low rainfall and high evaporation rates in the Tarcoola area (refer to Section 3) the heapleach operations would be a net consumer of water.

The leach pond system has been sized on the basis of an annual rainfall of 180 mm plus additional capacityfor the storage of rainfall from the 1 in 100 year, 24 hr event and the 1 in 100 year 5 day event (estimated tobe 140 mm and 210 mm respectively).

The pregnant leach solution pond (PLS) is the pond that stores the solution containing the gold and silverleached from the heap leach stockpile. The barren leach solution (BLS) pond is used to store the cyanideleaching solution prior to pumping to the top of the heap leach stockpile for spray irrigation to leach the goldand silver from the ore. The stormwater pond will store excess surface water runoff from the process area(including heap leach pads) following a rainfall event.

The liquor in the PLS and BLS ponds would vary from 25% to 75% of the capacity of the pond (excludingfreeboard). In addition to the processing storage requirements there is an additional 0.5 m of freeboard.Water captured in the stormwater pond would be used for processing.

The proposed pond sizes are summarised in Table 4.17 and a water balance indicated in Figure 4.20.

Table 4.17 Size of heap leach ponds

Item Details

PLS Pond (Pregnant leach solution) 3,700 m3

(40 x 40 x 4 metres deep)

BLS Pond (Barren leach solution) 8,100 m3


Stormwater Pond 18,600 m3


4.7.5 Slope stability

A preliminary slope stability assessment of the heap leach stockpiles has been undertaken by utilising shearstrength parameters and material properties (assumed from the literature and experience) for theagglomerated ore, compacted clay liner, HDPE liner and foundation material (Table 4.18).

Table 4.18 Shear strength parameters

Material Bulk unit weight(kN/m3)

Cohesion (kPa) Angle of friction (o)

Agglomerated ore 16 0 35*

Clay liner 20 5 25

Textured HDPE liner 9.12 0 20

Colluvium 22 5 25

Weathered rock 25 25 40

* Selection of an angle of friction of 35° for the agglomerated ore is considered to be conservative

Data Source: DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map No: 2200005A_GIS_084_A

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 100 200


Heap Leach and processing plant footprint

Last Resource

Perseverance

Waste Rock Dump


Gold Process Plant

Administrationoffices andworkshop

Crushing Plant

ROM Pad

Haul Road and Access

Site layout featureHaul and access roadRoadTrack/roadWater pipeline access trackWater pipelineHaul and access roadROMOfficesCrusher and agglomerateHard standSubsoil stockpileTopsoil stockpileWater alignmentPondHeap leach processingPit outlineWaste rock dumpProposed mineral lease area

1:6,000



www.pbworld.com


WPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_084_A.mxd



The stability of the heap leach pad has been assessed at a maximum design height of 12 m (two 6 m lifts)and it has been assumed that there is no residual water table at the base of the heap. The assessment ofdrained conditions is based on the uniform grading of the heap leach material as a result of agglomerationand the presence of a high permeability drainage/collection system at the base. KCA has indicated that theangle of repose of the heap leach stockpile would be about 37° and a dry density of about 14 kN/m3.

Figure 4.20 Heap leach water balance



The angle of repose represents the slope of a pile of granular material produced from loose material andminimal or no confinement. In most cases the angle of repose is considered to be the same as the angle ofinternal friction, but may not be the case in all circumstances. The angle of friction is affected by:

n density or void ration angularity of grains - crushed sand and gravel has a larger angle of frictionn degree of saturationn grain size distribution – well graded material has a greater angle of friction than poorly graded materialn confining pressure – increasing confining pressure can reduce the angle of friction even though the

shear strength increases non-linearly.

Agglomeration of the ore will produce a uniform grain size in order to ensure a permeability that will enableconsistent leaching of gold from the ore. In addition agglomeration tends to produce a more rounded grainsize than the angular crushed rock. On the basis of this the slope stability analysis included a lower angle offriction (35°) than the external slope and a higher dry density of 16 kN/m3 due to self-compaction of theinternal portion of the stockpile.

The stability of the heap leach pad was assessed under static loading conditions and a pseudo-staticearthquake loading of 0.04 g with material parameters and phreatic conditions unchanged.

A slope at the angle of repose would typically be considered to have a factor of safety (FOS) of 1.0, meaningthere is just enough strength to keep the slope stable. Typically the slope would be considered to be atequilibrium and on the verge of failure.

It is currently accepted that a minimum FOS of 1.2 to 1.3 is appropriate for normal operating conditions andFOS of 1.0 for pseudo-static earthquake loading conditions. A more detailed deformational analysis would berequired where the pseudo-static seismic analysis indicates a FOS less than 1.0. For the current conceptdesign it is considered that the pseudo-static analysis is acceptable. Active slopes during mining operationsare generally designed for lower FOS due to their temporary nature and frequent observation and inspection.

A summary of the analytical results is provided in Table 4.19.

Table 4.19 Summary of factors of safety

Type FOS staticloading

FOS earthquakeloading

Location

Shallow slip circle/rilling 1.03 0.95 External slope – rilling failure

Block failure 1.53 1.39 Along HDPE liner

Block Failure 1.71 1.56 Clay liner/Foundation soil

The minimum FOS under static loading conditions was calculated to be 1.03 for shallow circular failures,essentially rilling of the external slope (Figure 4.21), which would not affect the integrity of the heap leachoperation. Under the pseudo-static seismic loading conditions the calculated FOS was 0.95 (Figure 4.24).The analysis essentially indicates that earthquake loading has a minor effect on the FOS with both beingeffectively 1.0 or at equilibrium.

Low angles of friction normally occur at the interface between the HDPE liner and compacted clay liner andcan result in a block failure involving sliding along the HDPE liner. The design includes a textured HDPE linerwhich has a higher angle of friction (typically 3° to 5° greater) than the smooth HDPE liner. The assessmentincluded analysis for failure along the HDPE/clay liner interface and failure through the clay liner orfoundation material. The analysis indicates a FOS for a block failure under static loading conditions of 1.53along the HDPE liner and 1.71 through the clay liner/foundation (Figure 4.22 and Figure 4.23). The FOSunder pseudo-static earthquake loading are 1.39 and 1.56 respectively (Figure 4.25 and Figure 4.26).



Figure 4.21 Stability of heap leach stockpile at completion – shallow surface failure with static loading conditions



Figure 4.22 Stability of heap leach stockpile – failure along HDPE liner with static loading conditions



Figure 4.23 Stability of heap leach stockpile – failure through foundations with static loading conditions



Figure 4.24 Stability of heap leach stockpile – shallow surface failure with 0.04 g seismic loading conditions



Figure 4.25 Stability of heap leach stockpile – failure along HDPE liner with 0.04 g seismic loading conditions



Figure 4.26 Stability of heap leach stockpile – failure through foundations with 0.04g seismic loading conditions



The results indicate that the heap leach stockpile has FOS for large scale failure that exceed commonlyadopted FOS for both normal static conditions and under pseudo-static earthquake loading.

The analysis also indicates the potential for shallow riling type failures on the external slope under seismicloading conditions. Surface water tension as a result of the application of the leaching solution is likely toimprove the stability. Given the conservative selection of the angle of friction for the heap leach material andthe low risk of earthquakes in the area it is considered that there is not a significant risk of instability.

It is planned to undertake geotechnical investigations and laboratory analysis as part of the detailed designprocess during preparation of the Definitive Feasibility Study to confirm the material properties and reviewthe stability conclusions and whether a shallower external slope angle should be adopted for operations,noting that in the long term the external slope angle would be lower.

4.7.6 Seepage analysis

Leakage rates through a geo-membrane liner are essentially negligible due to the typically low hydraulicconductivity of the HDPE liner (10–13 m/s) compared to leakage through defects in the geo-membrane. Ifthere is a defect in the geo-membrane the liquid passes through the defect before spreading and infiltratingthe compacted low permeability clay liner.

An analytical method to assess the liquid migration through a composite lining system (HDPE geo-membrane overlying either a compacted clay or geo-composite clay liner) was developed by Giroud andBonaparte (1989) and subsequently refined by Giroud (1997). For circular defects the following equationapplies:

Qper hole = 0.976 x Cqo x [1 + 0.1 (h / ts) 0.95 ] x d 0.2 x h 0.9 x k 0.74

whereQper hole = flow in m3/secCqo = contact quality factor varying from 0.21 for good contact to 1.15 for poor contacth = hydraulic head on HDPE liner in metrests = thickness of compacted clay liner in metresd = diameter of defect in HDPE liner in metresk = hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay liner in m/second.

Studies by Giroud and Bonaparte (1989) and subsequent surveys of existing liners and studies by the USEPA (1992) indicate that geo-membrane liners installed with good construction quality control could beexpected to have about 2 holes of 2 mm diameter per hectare. Bonaparte and Gross (1990) and the US EPAhave indicated that this is not overly conservative as ponds with good construction quality control haveshown virtually no leakage.

No geotechnical testing was undertaken of clay material for use in the liner and foundation materials.Geotechnical testing and laboratory permeability testing is normally carried out on small specimens which donot account for anisotropy in the natural material and typically give results in permeability of 1x10-9 m/s to1x10-10 m/s. These values would not necessarily reflect the field compaction conditions. Conservativeparameters were selected for the assessment below.

4.7.6.1 Heap leach stockpile

The heap leach lining system comprises a low permeability compacted clay liner overlain by an HDPEgeomembrane. The analysis undertaken for the Tarcoola Gold Project assumes there are 2 holes of 2 mmdiameter per hectare (with a heap leach area of 6.87 hectares) and good contact between the HDPE linerand compacted clay. It is likely that the compacted clay liner in places would have a compacted permeabilitybetween 1 x 10-8 m/s and 1 x 10-9 m/s. The analysis indicates that total seepage from the heap leach pad



area could range between 7.7 l/day and 42 l/day. In either case the seepage rates are considered to be lowand acceptable.

It should be noted that the seepage rates above could be considered to be a worst case scenario as thelining system includes an additional clay cushion layer and the solution from the base of the heap leachstockpile is collected via a high permeability drainage layer (which limits the head on the liner and reducesthe potential for seepage). If there is seepage any heavy metals would be adsorbed on the underlyingfoundation materials.

4.7.6.2 Leach solution ponds

An analytical method to assess the liquid migration through a HDPE geo-membrane liner was included inGiroud and Bonaparte (1989), based on the Bernoulli equation:

Qper hole = CB x a x square root (2ghw)

WhereQper hole = flow in m3/secCB = is a dimensionless coefficient, equals 0.6 for sharp edgeshw = liquid depth on top of liner in metres (3 m for the pond)a = hole area (for 2 mm diameter hole)g = acceleration due to gravity.

The analysis assumed 2 holes are present in the pond, which is considered conservative as typically 2 holesper hectare could be expected for liners with good installation. The assessment indicates that a total leakagerate of about 431 l/day could be expected through the primary liner.

The barren and pregnant leach solution ponds will include a double HDPE lining system with a leak detectionlayer in-between. Giroud et al (1997) indicate that the maximum flow that can be accommodated in a geonetleakage detection/drain can be determined from:

Qfull = kt2

WhereQfull = maximum rate of leakage through defect in m3/seck = hydraulic conductivity of geonet (0.4 m/sec)t = thickness of geonet in metres (0.006 m).

The maximum rate of leakage that can be accommodated by the geonet was calculated as1,244 m3/day.This result indicates that there is a Factor of Safety of 2.9 in the geonet drain, or alternatively that the geonetdrain could accommodate flow through 5–6 holes in the primary liner.

4.7.7 Rehabilitation and closure strategies


Establishment of the heap leach pads will take into consideration the potential occurrence of PAF materialand where possible the need for encapsulation at closure and rehabilitation.

4.7.7.2 Heap leach flushing

Rehabilitation of the heap leach stockpiles when undertaken on site typically involves flushing of the residualcyanide within the stockpile until such time as the concentration of cyanide in the stockpile reaches an



acceptable level. Tarcoola Gold will work with the DSD and the EPA to determine appropriate final dischargelimits taking into consideration the nature of groundwater (saline to hypersaline) suitable for industrial usesand the lack of any permanent surface water.

Where the ore contains potential ARD material KCA has indicated that flushing with clean water is notrecommended as this results in a reduction of the alkalinity of the heap leach stockpile leading to potentialrelease of cyanide and other contaminants.

KCA has proposed that at the end of the economic life of the project, the leached ore will be rinsed toremove residual cyanide species. The process will have multiple stages with the end result to have thecontained moisture of the heap with cyanide levels at or below guideline targets and also to leave theleached ore in a generally alkaline state to reduce acid rock drainage (ARD) potential. At the end of the leachcycle for the final lot of ore, the moisture content of the heap is expected to average 12.5%. With the twoprocess ponds at half of their capacity, the total volume of solution in the system will be ~108,600 m3.

The initial stage of operation will be recycling/sprinkling of leach solutions over the ore with fresh makeupwater added as required to maintain solution levels. Cyanide species will be degraded through volatilisation,ultraviolet (UV) photolysis, reaction with ore minerals and biological oxidation. The use of sprinklers willenhance the effects of volatilisation as well as UV degradation. Exposure of off-flow solutions in thecollection channel and in the ponds will also assist cyanide species attenuation.

At this point it is expected that these factors in conjunction with the acidic nature of the ores will result inrapid breakdown of cyanide species. Sampling and analysis of off-flow solutions will be conducted to monitorthis progress.

It is expected that one third of the stacked heap will be flushed at any given time with the recycling steptaking 60 days for each section of the heap leach. Additional time will be provided as necessary. For a60-day period of full pumping/recycling, the expected quantity of makeup water will be on the order of28,700 m3 for a “replacement” of 26% of the solution in the entire system. More critically, this will result in adisplacement wash equivalent of ~6 times the moisture content of the ore for the section of heap beingtreated.

During this recycling period, no alkalinity will be added to the system to ensure maximum volatilisation. Theacidic nature of the ores and the site water will further enhance cyanide species breakdown.

A portion of the off-flow solution will be processed through the activated carbon adsorption columns torecover any residual gold. The carbon will also assist in removing cyanide species through adsorption.

The next step in the closure process is the re-alkalisation of the heap. This will involve conversion of thecyanide mixing/dosing system to a hydrated lime slurry mixing/dosing system. Lime slurry will be added tothe heap off-flow solutions at a rate to achieve the buffer pH of 9.6. Recycling for a further displacementwash ratio of 4 will involve 30 days of treatment for each third of the heap. Monitoring of off-flow pH as wellas the other designated species will be conducted on a routine basis.

The next step in the closure process is evaporation of residual leach solutions prior to final closure.Evaporative losses due to sprinkling are expected to average 10.5% on an annual basis. A conservativecalculation incorporating the lower evaporation rate of 9% suggests that the majority of the pond solution canbe evaporated in 30 days at the maximum pumping rate of190 m3/h. However, pumping will be winding downand only the ILS pump will be employed at ~130 m3/h. This pumping rate will be reduced step-wise to allowdraindown from the majority of the heap. Calculations show that the majority of the water in the system canbe evaporated in less than 45 days.

Final evaporation of the contained pond solutions will employ misting sprays over the stormwater pond. Thisis the largest pond and sprays placed around the perimeter or on floats in the pond will reduce the remaining



solution volumes to near zero. Based on an enhanced evaporation rate of 20% and flow of 60 m3/h, finalevaporation is expected to take 6 to 10 days. A combined period of 60 days for final evaporation is expected.

During the final stages of evaporation, reclamation/rehabilitation of the heap can begin at one end while theother end is draining.

Overall timing requirements for rinsing, re-alkalising and final evaporation are expected to be as follows:

n Rinse/Recycling: 60 days per section, 3 sections = 180 daysn Re-alkalisation: 30 days per section, 3 sections = 90 daysn Final Evaporation: 60 days allowedn Total: 330 days.

After all solutions have been evaporated, the pond liners would be buried in the pond as it is backfilled.

4.7.7.3 Heap leach cover

On the basis of climatic conditions it is considered that a store-release cover is more appropriate for theTarcoola Project. Barrier type systems, which typically comprise compacted clay, would be unsuitable as theclay material is likely to dry-out and crack leading to increased infiltration of water and drainage.

Typically the store-release cover consists of 1 m to 2 m of well graded gravels with sufficient fines content.This material provides good moisture storage characteristics, resists cracking and erosion. It is envisagedthat this material will be available given site geological conditions.

Section 4.7.5 indicated FOS exceeding 1.5 for static loading conditions during operations. Followingrehabilitation the FOS would be greater than for the operational conditions as the external slopes areproposed to be about 20°.

Typically the topsoil varies in thickness from 100 mm to 150 mm and subsoil varies in thickness from400 mm to 500 mm. Assuming the lower bound thickness there is an estimated 8,170 bank cubic metres(BCM) of topsoil and 32,680 BCM of subsoil from the heap leach area. On the basis of the completed topsurface area of the heap leach storage area there would be a requirement for about 7,000 BCM of topsoiland 28,000 BCM of subsoil. This indicates that there may not be sufficient materials of topsoil and subsoil toplace on the sides. Additional topsoil and subsoil will be sourced from the open pit area for heap leachrehabilitation.

Following completion of flushing the top of the heap leach stockpile could be prepared using two alternatives.One option could comprise limestone recovered from the base of the open pit and placed on the top surfaceof the heap leach stockpile as a capillary break. Another option could involve compacting the agglomeratedoxide spent ore to produce a lower permeability layer. The subsequent final cover for both cases wouldcomprise the following:

n Inert oxide and other waste rock would be paddock dumped on the final top surface to a thickness ofabout 1.5 m. A capillary break 0.5 m to 1.0 m thick of either limestone or inert fresh granite would beplaced between the top of heap leach and the cover material.

n The paddock dumped material would be flattened with a dozer but still retain a hummocky profile

n The sides would comprise rock armouring interspersed with oxide waste rock in hollows. Any remainingsubsoil and topsoil would be used towards the base to enable vegetation. The aim being to mimic theexisting landscape, where the Tarcoola Ridge comprised rocky formation with vegetation mainly on thelower slopes.

During operation it is proposed to undertake trials of alternative store-release covers using available sitematerials.



4.7.7.4 Process plant and equipment

It is noted that leaching of the last ore will not be completed for several months after mining and stackingoperations have ceased. Thus there will be an on-going requirement for adsorption and possibly othercarbon processing equipment.

The following rehabilitation is proposed:

n Dismantle and remove crushing plant, conveyors, ore bins, etc., including concrete footings, pads, andretaining walls. Concrete footings, pads and retaining walls are proposed to be disposed in the wasterock storage facility.

n Dismantle and remove all process plant, including tanks and pipework.n Dismantle and remove all process pipelines and power components.n All hardstand surfacing and ROM pad will be scarified to loosen compacted material and covered with

previously stockpiled sub-soil and topsoil and revegetated.n All geosynthetic lining of water storage ponds will be folded into each pond.n The walls of ponds will be pushed in to the former pond area spread and covered with sub-soil and

topsoil and revegetated.n All offices, buildings crib rooms and workshop buildings will be removed from the site.n Any hydrocarbon contaminated soils will be excavated and bioremediated to a level that will enable

disposal in the waste rock storage facility.n Any installed site fencing will be removed.

The leach ponds will be decommissioned last after the gold leaching has been completed. The majority ofsolutions will be irrigated over the heap and evaporated. Final solutions will be neutralised and discharged orallowed to evaporate. The pond liners will then be folded into each pond and the ponds filled with inert wastematerial prior to compacting, covering with topsoil and seeding. Consideration is also being given to placinglimestone recovered from the base of the open pit to act as a neutralising agent at completion of flushingoperations.

Additional details of the proposed rehabilitation strategies are included in Section 8.

4.8 Wastes

4.8.1 Overburden materials (waste rock)

An assessment of the options for establishment of a waste rock facility (WRF) was undertaken by TarcoolaGold.

The assessment initially considered two alternative sites, one west of the proposed open pit and the othernorth of the open pit.

Site selection for the WRF was based on a site inspection with consideration given to the following factors:

n proximity to the open pit for shortest haulage distancen avoiding sterilisation of prospective mineralised areasn requirements of other area for mine surface facilities including workshop, offices and ROM padn availability of space and suitability of land topography for the WRF.

4.8.1.1 Location, volume, size and schedule

The assessment concluded that the preferred option was to establish the waste rock storage west of theopen pit (Figure 4.1). The surface slopes to the north-west towards the Adelaide to Darwin railway line.



Seepage collection drains are required on the lower side of the WRF to intercept any runoff from the surfaceand seepage from the toe. The silt ponds will be designed for the 1:20 ARI.

Approximately 2,436,500 bank cubic metres (BCM) of waste rock (NAF and PAF) is expected to begenerated over the four years life of the mine. The waste rock production schedule and volumes from thescoping study is presented in Table 4.20. Assuming a bulking factor of 1.3 there will be a requirement tostore approximately 3,200,000 BCM. The current design footprint (Figure 4.1) has a capacity of4,001,000 BCM of combined NAF and PAF. The waste rock facility is 524 m long by 340 m wide and has amaximum height of 40 m, with top of the WRF set at 178 mAHD. The footprint of the WRF is approximately20 ha.

Table 4.20 Total waste rock production schedule

Production year 1 2 3 4Yearly Production (tonnes) 2,363,019 1,900,804 1,345,422 246,310

Cumulative Waste Rock Production (tonnes) 2,363,019 4,263,823 5,609,245 5,855,555

Yearly Waste Rock Volume (cubic metres) 983,254 790,926 559,830 102,490

Cumulative Waste Rock Volume (cubic metres) 983,254 1,774,180 2,334,010 2,436,500

Note: The tonnage of waste storage has been calculated using assumed specific gravity of 2.4 t/m3 (average for life of mine).

In the analysis of the mining schedule, there are several periods where PAF is mined from the four identifiedrock types at Tarcoola. The estimated PAF volumes for the identified rocks types are shown in Table 4.21below.

Table 4.21 PAF rock types mined within Tarcoola Schedule

Rock Type Mining start (Period) PAF Volume (BCM)Granite (Oxide) 1 31,700

Granite (Fresh) 5 228,800

Low Grade Primary Ore 8 140,500

Peela Conglomerate 11 15,000

Total 416,000

There is potential that PAF will be mined from the beginning of the operation at Tarcoola, contained withinthe oxide granite unit. The storage of this material will be within the defined PAF cell in the WRF footprint.There is enough NAF material in the first quarter of the schedule to allow for NAF to sheet the base of thePAF cell.

The depth of the fresh granite, low grade primary ore and Peela Conglomerate units below topographicsurface dictate their position of mining in relation to the schedule.

To assist with the modelling of WRF construction, it has been assumed that all of the PAF volume for eachrock type is mined at the earliest period within the mining schedule. This method assumes a “worst case”scenario for the management of PAF. The graph showing the cumulative volume for the WRF is provided inFigure 4.27 and indicates there is ample NAF waste material to fully encapsulate the PAF generated atTarcoola over the life of mine. As the mine nears the end of life in periods 12, 13 and 14, there is limitedwaste material mined towards the base of the pit. WRF construction will require detailed management toensure that the PAF cell is fully encapsulated.

As part of mining operations pre-production grade control and PAF definition of all waste rock material drillingwill be undertaken. This will lead to the definition of waste blocks of PAF and NAF material. Direct totalsulphur concentrations in the drill samples will be measured with a hand held instrument. As discussedpreviously there is a direct correlation between total sulphur and sulphide sulphur. A cut-off of >0.3% totalsulphur is proposed to be used to define what is PAF material and what is NAF material. All PAF material willbe encapsulated in the water rock storage facility.



Figure 4.27 Cumulative volume for WRF construction at Tarcoola

4.8.1.2 Slope stability

The WRF will be constructed in lifts at the general angle of repose (expected to be around 37°–38°). Theestablishment of 10 m berms between the lifts will result in an overall slope of about 30°.

There have not been specific investigations to determine the geotechnical shear strength parameters of thefoundation and waste rock materials. Laboratory testing of waste rock materials is difficult as the normalapparatus used is typically too small to enable a representative sample (typical run-of mine rock sizes) to betested. Therefore it is common practice to use experience and precedence.

An initial operational slope stability assessment has been undertaken for both static and pseudo-staticconditions with an earthquake loading of 0.04 g (as suggested in ASTM 1170.4–2007), assuming a circularfailure, drained conditions and conservative material properties as indicated in Table 4.22. The analysis alsoassumed an overall slope angle of 30° and an average height of 30 m.

Table 4.22 Shear strength parameters

Material Bulk unit weight (kN/m3) Cohesion (kPa) Angle of friction (°)Waste rock 20 0 37

Colluvium 18 0 30

Weathered rock 20 5 27

The analysis indicates a factor of safety of 1.57 for a failure surface in the foundations under static loadingconditions and greater than 1.45 under pseudo-static seismic loading conditions. It is expected that minorvery shallow failures could occur along the external slopes. However these are not expected to be materialor a cause for concern.

Plots of static and earthquake loading conditions are included in Figure 4.28 and Figure 4.29. The initialanalysis during operation indicates FOS exceeding 1.5 under static loading conditions and greater than 1.1under pseudo-static seismic loading which are considered to be acceptable and within ANCOLD guidelinelevels.

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Volu

me

(BCM

)

Period (quarter)

Cumulative volume for WRF construction frommine schedule

NAF

PAF



Figure 4.28 Waste rock factor of safety for static loading



Figure 4.29 Waste rock factor of safety for 0.04 g earthquake loading



4.8.1.3 Methods of stabilisation and erosion control

The waste rock facility has been designed to minimise surface water run-off and infiltration of rainfall (therebypotential generation of seepage) by incorporating bunds at the crests during operation and drainage and siltcontrol provisions at the base of the outer slopes.

To reduce the potential for erosion it is proposed to place a layer of fresh rock “armour” on the external slopeof the waste rock storage.

4.8.1.4 Conceptual construction and PAF management

The foundation of the waste rock storage area will be stripped of soil and surficial clayey or organic materialand stockpiled adjacent to the emplacement area for re-use during rehabilitation activities.

The waste rock storage will be constructed in stages as the waste rock is produced with the waste rocktransported to the storage area and “paddock dumped”. This will ensure that potential segregation of thewaste rock does not occur (as would occur with end tipping from the waste rock pile), resulting in preferentialflow paths for infiltration of oxygen and water and subsequent ARD generation. After each layer ofoverburden is placed a bulldozer will spread the material into a lift height of approximately 5 m.

As far as practicable it is proposed that the weathered overburden will be placed near the toe of the finalfootprint of the waste storage facility for re-use during rehabilitation.

Incorporated within the WRF is a cell for the storage of identified PAF material from Tarcoola. The dimensionof the PAF cell is 390 m long, 200 m wide and 18 m high. The volume of the PAF cell is 840,000 BCM, whichcontains capacity to store an additional 230,000 BCM PAF or a 50% increase in currently identified PAF atTarcoola. A typical cross section of the WRF and PAF storage area is included in Figure 4.30 with the PAFstorage area indicated in orange colour.

Figure 4.30 Cross section of WRF at northing 6602950N (MGAZ53)

The design of the PAF cell within the WRF profile is such that there is a 5 metre standoff from the toe of thePAF cell to the designed maximum height surface, as shown in Figure 4.30. The methodology has beenadopted to ensure the PAF material is encapsulated and there is no PAF that is dumped under therehabilitated or working slope of WRF. This limits the potential for ingress of oxygen and water into the PAFmaterial. There is also a minimum separation distance of 10 m between the top of the PAF cell and the top ofthe WRF.



A provision has been made to store low grade ore within the PAF cell footprint of the WRF. The low gradeore will be placed on the eastern side of the PAF cell, so that it can be readily accessed if a decision is madeto process this material.

The PAF analysis completed to date for the Tarcoola Project (Section 4.2.5) has been based on availablecore samples from historical drilling. These samples have been based on 1 m downhole intervals. However,these results do provide limitations, especially when considered against the bench mining practice that willbe used at the Tarcoola Project.

In the proposed mining process the standard mining bench height that will be used is 5 m (mined in 2 x 2.5 mlifts). As an instruction for the mining process excavation plans will be issued which identify the ore andwaste blocks (NAF and PAF).

Tarcoola Gold is proposing to use the % S results as a predictor for PAF material for the Tarcoola Project. Asindicated in Section 4.2.5 current ARD test work indicate that S assays less than 0.3% can be considered tobe NAF. The S assays will require composite samples of up to 5 m lengths, which will better predict theclassification of waste material on the bench scale. It is possible that a 1 m interval that could be separatelyclassified as PAF, when composited to match the bench intervals, may be converted to NAF, depending onthe S assays of the surrounding material. The proposed methodology will be discussed in further detail in thePEPR.

4.8.1.5 Rehabilitation and closure strategies

At the completion of mining operations the waste rock storage will remain in place and rehabilitationundertaken. The 4 year mine life limits the potential for significant progressive rehabilitation to beundertaken. As the waste rock storage facility develops it may be feasible to commence remediation of thelower slopes.

Topsoil and sub-soil removed during construction activities will be placed in stockpiles close to areas wherethey will be used for rehabilitation, to minimise the need for double handling (refer to Figure 4.1 andSection 9.3).

Where practicable progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken on the lower portion of the waste rockstorage facility. Subsequent rehabilitation will involve re-shaping of the completed faces using bulldozers.

On the basis of climatic conditions (semi-arid with low rainfall and high evaporation) it is considered that astore-release cover is more appropriate for the Tarcoola Project. Barrier type systems, which typicallycomprise compacted clay, would be unsuitable as the clay material is likely to dry-out and crack leading toincreased infiltration of water and drainage.

Typically the store-release cover consists of 1 m to 2 m of well graded gravels with sufficient fines content.This material provides good moisture storage characteristics, resists cracking and erosion. It is envisagedthat this material will be available given site geological conditions.

For the top of the completed waste rock storage there will be about 6,000 loose cubic metres (LCM) oftopsoil and 24,000 LCM of subsoil required for rehabilitation. For the sides there will be about 11,650 LCM oftopsoil and 46,600 LCM of subsoil required for rehabilitation. Typically the topsoil varies in thickness from100 mm to 150 mm and subsoil varies in thickness from 300 mm to 400 mm. Assuming the lower boundthickness there is an estimated 17,650 LCM of topsoil and 70,600 LCM of subsoil. This suggests that therewill be sufficient topsoil and subsoil for rehabilitation.

The cover material would comprise the more weathered/oxidised inert waste rock material which will havebeen placed initially at the approximate toe location. The material will be recovered and paddocked dumpedto create a hummocky profile about 1.5 m thick. Available topsoil and subsoil would be placed in the hollowsto encourage vegetation growth. It is expected that about 70% of the available topsoil and subsoil would be



used on the surface. The hummock profile enables retention of water for vegetation. In general the topsurface would have a slight gradient toward the middle to ensure that there is no un-controlled surface waterrunoff over the side slopes and resultant erosion. A capillary break 0.5 m to 1.0 m thick of inert fresh granitewould be placed between the waste rock and the cover material. The lower sections would have inert rockarmouring and oxide waste placed in the voids. The remaining 30% of subsoil and topsoil would be used,concentrating on the lower portion to enable revegetation. The aim is to mimic the existing ridge, which hashard rock slope with vegetation at the base.

The rehabilitated WRF slope has been set at 20° with a small 5 m berm located for each 10m lift so thatprogressive rehabilitation trials can be conducted on the WRF during active operations with the additionalcatch berm as a safety feature. At the end of the mine life, the berms can be removed by bulldozing thematerial as part of the final rehabilitated slope.

Section 4.8.1.2 indicated FOS exceeding 1.5 for static conditions during operations. Following rehabilitationthe FOS would be greater than for the operational conditions above as the external slopes are proposed tobe about 20°.


Additional details of rehabilitation and closure strategies are discussed in Section 8.

4.8.2 Processing wastes

Details of the process chemicals are presented in Section 4.6.4. Apart from spent heap leach material andwaste rock other process wastes are minor:

n The lime will be delivered in bulk so there will be no packaging material to dispose.n Sodium cyanide will be delivered in isotainers which will be returned to the supplier.n For the other reagents there will be some packaging materials (bulk bags for the carbon and flocculant,

drums/buckets for the hydrochloric acid, leach aid, antiscalent and sodium hydroxide). These wasteswill be placed in dedicated skips that will be taken away as hazardous waste.

4.8.3 Industrial and commercial wastes

This section provides an overview of the management practices for industrial and commercial wastesproduced at the mining operations and the accommodation village.

Appropriate and clearly designated receptacles will be provided to ensure that wastes are kept separate toenable collection and recycling (if possible).

4.8.3.1 Workshop waste

Workshop waste includes items such as used grease cartridges, oily rags, spent oil filters and othermaterials that would arise from servicing of vehicles, drilling equipment and trucks. These materials will becollected and transported for off-site disposal at an EPA licensed facility.

4.8.3.2 Tyres

The mining operations will generate tyres that are no longer useable. EPA exemptions may be sought on anannual basis for large tyres from earth moving equipment to be buried in the WRF under at least 20 m ofwaste rock material. All other tyres will be disposed off-site by an EPA licensed contractor.



4.8.3.3 Engine oils and batteries

Spent engine oils will be collected and placed in sealed drums temporarily stored in a bunded area to containpotential spills and ultimately transported for off-site disposal or recycling at an EPA licensed liquid wastetreatment facility.

Used batteries will be stored on pallets in specific enclosures and subsequently transported off-site fordisposal or recycling at an EPA licensed facility.

4.8.3.4 Commercial waste

Commercial waste includes food scraps and other biodegradable materials from the accommodation village,crib rooms and offices. This material will be collected in rubbish bins and disposed within and on-site landfill.

Estimates on the total waste for the project have been based on other similar projects and an assumption of1.5 kg of waste per day. A small mining operation generated a total of 10.950 m3 of waste over the six yearmine life for 250–300 people. The Tarcoola Project accommodation village will house less than half of thepeople (80) and the mine is expected to operate over 4 years. Therefore it is expected that the totalcommercial waste volume would be about 3,500 m3.

On the basis of existing groundwater quality, volume of waste and risk of pollution the proposed landfill wouldbe classified as an S- (EPA Landfill Guidelines 2007).

The landfill would be established in an area of the lease that is underlain by Sullivan Shale which wouldprovide a natural low permeability liner.

An EPA licence will be required and development of a Landfill Environmental Management Plan (LEMP).

4.8.3.5 Recyclable materials

Materials currently able to be recycled, such as glass, bottles, aluminium and metal cans, paper, plastics,cardboard and other packaging will be collected in separate bins and transported off-site for recycling.

4.8.4 Wastewater

4.8.4.1 Vehicle wash bays

A vehicle wash-down facility will be established at the site adjacent to the workshop.

Wash-down water will be directed to a collection sump where the sediment will be removed periodically andthe overflow will be directed to the common oil-water separator.

4.8.4.2 Industrial waste water treatment plant

The treatment of industrial waste water from the workshop will be site specific and sized for maximum flowsand is likely to comprise a solids’ settling chamber and a package plant oil water separator unit. Therecovered oil is then transferred to a temporary storage tank for periodic removal and recycling off-site. Therecovered water will be re-used for processing operations.



4.8.4.3 RO plant brine

It is proposed that the brine generated by the small package RO plant will be transported to the barrensolution pond for dilution and re-use through the process plant.

4.8.4.4 Sewerage system

Sewage from the accommodation village and process plant area will be treated with septic tank systems. Inthe plant area the septic system would service the change room, offices and workshop amenities.

Due to the small volume of sewage wastewater on site it is proposed to install a standard septic tank systemwith a soakage channel. All sewage collection infrastructure will be designed and installed in accordancewith Water Services Association of Australia (WSA) – 02 Sewerage Code of Australia. Approval for thesystem will be sought from the SA Department for Health.

4.8.4.5 Rehabilitation and closure strategies

The following rehabilitation strategies are based on the premise that the plant and equipment will not berequired by third parties or other WPG projects:

n all buildings and equipment will be removed from the siten remove concrete footings, pads and retaining walls will be disposed in waste rock storage facilityn dismantle and remove all wash bays including tanks and pipeworkn all hardstand surfacing will be scarified to loosen compacted material and covered with previously

stockpiled sub-soil and topsoil and revegetatedn the RO plant, septic tank systems and pipelines will be removed from the siten any hydrocarbon contaminated soils will be excavated and bioremediated (if necessary) to a level that

will enable disposal in the waste rock storage facilityn any installed site fencing will be removed.

4.9 Stockpiles

4.9.1 ROM stockpile

The ROM pad will be constructed south west of the processing plant and approximately 1 km from the openpit using waste rock mined during the initial stages of pit development. Mined ore will be transported andstockpiled and blended on the ROM pad according to its source, grade and geology. A front end loader willbe used to transfer stockpiled ore to the mobile primary crusher feed bin. Areas of the ROM pad subject tovehicle traffic will be watered regularly to minimise the generation of dust.

4.9.2 Low grade stockpiles

4.9.2.1 Volume

It is estimated that there are 290,000 cubic metres of low grade material that will require storage in the wasterock storage. PAF material will be managed as discussed in Section 4.8.1.4.

4.9.2.2 Location and size

It is proposed to stockpile low grade material in a pre-determined corner of the waste rock stockpiles. If themine were to close without processing this material rehabilitation would be undertaken in accordance with



the provisions in Section 8. This will include reduction of the external slope angle and incorporatingappropriate cover material to minimise the potential for ARD.

4.9.2.3 Slope stability

The proposed low grade material stockpile is to be part of the overall waste rock storage facility. The stabilityof the waste rock storage facility has been described in Section 4.7.1.3.

4.9.2.4 Methods of stabilisation and erosion control

The methods of stabilisation and erosion control adopted for the waste rock storage facility are relevant tothe low grade stockpiles.

4.9.2.5 Conceptual construction

Construction of the low grade material stockpile will adopt similar protocols as detailed in Section 4.7.1.

4.9.3 Topsoil and subsoil

The volumes of available topsoil and subsoil have been determined on the basis of DCP testing, review ofborehole geological logs and observations during the initial site contamination sampling program. Theinterpreted volumes are included in Table 4.23.

Table 4.23 Topsoil and subsoil stockpile details

Mine component Area ofclearance

(ha)

Thickness (m) Insitu volume (m3)

Topsoil Subsoil Topsoil Sub-soil

Open pit 7.76 0.1 0.4 7,760 31,040

Waste rock storage 17.65 0.1 0.4 17,650 70,600

ROM pad 0.81 0.1 0.4 810 3,240

Heap leach pad andprocessing plant

8.17 0.1 0.4 8,170 32,680

Administration building andworkshop

3.75 0.1 0.4 3,750 15,000

On-site roads 4.42 0.1 0.4 1,840 7,360

Accommodation village 3.15 0.1 0.4 3,150 12,600

Water supply 1.41 0.1 0.4 1,410 5,640

Total 47.12 44,540 178,160

A summary of the procedures for managing topsoil and subsoil is presented below:

n Any surface vegetation will be collected and stockpiled as it may supply additional seeds and organicmatter to the soil and used to stabilise topsoil stockpiles.

n Topsoil to be cleared to a depth of approximately 100 mm and placed in designated topsoil stockpileareas (refer to Figure 4.1). Due to the low thickness of topsoil some over excavation into the underlyingsubsoil is likely.

n Up to 400 mm of subsoil will be harvested and stockpiled in designated subsoil stockpile areas (refer toFigure 4.1). Subsoil and topsoil will be stored separately.

n Topsoil and subsoil will be stored at nominal heights of 2 m to 5 m.n Topsoil data sheet filled out whenever topsoil is recovered, stockpiled, relocated or dispersed.



n Visual reconciliation of topsoil and subsoil stockpiles is undertaken annually.n Stockpiles will be actively monitored for weed control and erosion to ensure long term viability.n The status of topsoil management will be included in the annual Compliance Report.

The topsoil and subsoil depths are likely to vary across the site and in some areas rock outcrops occurnaturally at the surface. It is envisaged that the topsoil horizon variation will ultimately govern the volume ofmaterial harvested and the harvested subsoil will supplement areas where there is no topsoil.

The topsoil stockpiles will be established at appropriate slope angles to minimise the potential for instabilityand minimise erosion. The topsoil and the subsoil will be recovered separately to avoid mixing prior toapplication to the rehabilitation area and no recovery of soil would be undertaken when the stockpiles arewet or during high winds.

Specific management measures for minimising the impact of stormwater include:

n installing spoon drains around the edges of the stockpile areas to direct water runoff to sedimentationponds which allow filtration and percolation and avoid scouring from uncontrolled flows

n reducing the area of exposed soil that could be eroded by stormwater by maintaining vegetative coverfor as long as possible. Natural revegetation may need to be encouraged through the application ofseed to protect the topsoil from erosion and to maintain an active population of beneficial soil microbes.

4.9.4 Final cover material

The cover material for the WRF would comprise the more weathered/oxidised inert waste rock materialwhich will have been placed initially at the approximate toe location of the WRF at the angle of repose (butforming part of the WRF). As the rehabilitated WRF will have a flatter external profile than the operationalWRF the surplus material would be recovered as required for rehabilitation of the surface of the WRF andheap leach stockpile. Waste rock generated during the latter years of operation would also be used directlyfor rehabilitation of the WRF and heap leach stockpile as bulk fill and armouring. Additional information isinclude in Section 8.


Product stockpiles in the ROM pad area will be drawn down at the end of the LOM.

Hardstand areas would be scarified to ameliorate compaction. Topsoil and subsoil material as applicable tothe rehabilitation area would be recovered from the stockpile areas and evenly spread over the rehabilitationarea making sure that all bare ground was covered with a layer of topsoil. The topsoil and the subsoil will berecovered separately to avoid mixing prior to application to the rehabilitation area and no recovery of soilwould be undertaken when the stockpiles are wet or during high winds.

4.10 Supporting surface infrastructureThe following key infrastructure items to support mining and onsite processing have been identified:

n upgrade of the existing track between site and Tarcoola as main access roadn upgrade of the existing airstripn mining contractor offices and employee facilitiesn heavy and light vehicles workshops and support facilitiesn onsite power generation for 0.3 MW and associated fuel storagen borefield, transfer pipelines and water treatment plant (RO)n purpose built accommodation village in the north-eastern part of the mining leasen utilise existing Telstra infrastructure for communication needs.



4.10.1 Site access

The primary access route for the Tarcoola Gold Project will be from Adelaide and/or Port Augusta toGlendambo via Port Wakefield Road, the Augusta Highway and the Stuart Highway. From Glendambo trafficwill utilise the unsealed Glendambo to Tarcoola road. From Tarcoola an existing unsealed access track willbe upgraded to provide access from Tarcoola to the site.

The road between Glendambo and Tarcoola is a good standard gravel public road and no upgrade has beenproposed. The existing track of approximately 5 km running north-west from the west end of Tarcoola andpassing to the north of the open pit area is an unsealed road suitable for mine access. The track can bewidened and the surface built up to meet a suitable standard for a main access road.

Initial consultations have been made with DPTI, the South Australian road authority and ARTC, the railwayowner in relation to conditions of use of road and level crossings. No specific concerns were raised providedthat only approved heavy vehicles are used. Further discussions would be held with these authorities duringthe feasibility stage to address any issues related to maintenance due to higher frequency of use as well asany needs to strengthen the rail gauges at level crossings and cattle grid crossings.

The access roads to and within the proposed mine site would be designed with a “fit for purpose” philosophy.

Road pavement thicknesses will vary depending upon the traffic loads with 25% of the road comprising agravel base course pavement and 75% comprising a natural soil base course pavement.

4.10.2 Haul roads

Ore will be trucked from the open pit to the ROM pad using a dedicated HV route.

Haul road pavement material will be won from the excavation of the open pit. Within the process area adedicated heavy vehicle road has been provided to allow mine vehicles to access the workshop and themain site access road.

4.10.3 Airstrip

There is an existing light aircraft airstrip 1350 m long by 80 m wide with a pavement of 23 m located at thenorth-east end of Tarcoola under the control of ARTC. The airstrip will need to be increased in length to1,700 m and in width to 90 m and there may be a need to increase the pavement to 30 m in order to be ableto use larger aircraft (if required). In addition, installation of sign posts and basic airfield facilities will benecessary to meet the requirements of Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). These works would beundertaken by Tarcoola Gold in conjunction with ARTC.

By using the existing airstrip, vegetation clearance will be kept to a minimum and utilising the existingengineered pavement will greatly reduce construction time.

4.10.4 Accommodation

An 80 person accommodation village will be located adjacent to the Tarcoola township within the northeastportion of the ML. Consideration was given to using existing housing in Tarcoola but it appears unlikely thatthere will be a significant number in adequate condition to meet requirements. The accommodation villagewill be temporary and would be removed at completion of mining operations, unless required for other WPGprojects or third parties. Rehabilitation aspects are discussed in Section 4.10.9.1.



It is proposed that individual accommodation units will be provided for the workforce. Employees would beallocated a room at the start of their rostered on-site period, and a permanent locker to store any personalitems. Dedicated rooms may be provided for a few selected senior personnel.

The following facilities will be provided:

n mess and kitchenn dry mess and ablutionsn wet messn recreation roomn laundry buildingsn internet enabling of the siten small gymnasium and modest outdoor recreational facilitiesn landscaped grounds.

4.10.5 Site facilities

4.10.5.1 Diesel fuel storage

A fuel farm will be established for the storage and distribution of distillate for the power generators and forsupply to the mine fleet and the LV refuelling stations via pipelines. A second fuel storage will be establishedfor the power plant used to supply the accommodation village.

The mine fuel farm is based on the installation of two modular self-bunded 10 kl nominal active capacitytanks on prepared concrete strip slabs and fronting a concrete truck unloading and refuelling slab. Collectionsumps will be provided to collect any spilled diesel during unloading. The storage capacity is based on amaximum predicted demand for distillate of 1 kl/day for the mine power plant plus 0.5 kl/day for mine fleetand light vehicles. It is proposed to have at least 7 days’ supply to take into account fuel availability and roadweather conditions. The same methodology has been applied to the accommodation power plant fuel supply,where one self-bunded 10 kl nominal active capacity tank will be installed, based on usage of 0.75 kl/day.

Tanker unloading and tank fill pipework will couple the self-bunded tanks and a fill level and transfer controlsystem will be installed to manage the complete fill of each tank in sequence.

The system will also control filling of the tanks at the power plants, HV and the LV refuelling stations. A fueldelivery management system will provide for control and monitoring of all fuel usage.

Fuel distribution to the power plants will be via a double wall polyethylene pipe installed underground.

The borefield pumps within the site will be powered using diesel generators. One diesel generation set of40 kVa will be placed at each bore, with total daily fuel usage of 0.5kl. Fuel will be stored on bunded spillpallets, or in tanks in accordance with EPA guidelines (EPA 2007).

4.10.5.2 Heavy vehicle refuelling

A packaged 20 kl/day active capacity, self-bunded, containerised HV refuelling system will be installed closeto the ROM pad to enable mining fleet and ore haulage vehicles to refuel as part of their ore haulage cycle.Daily usage is estimated to be 3.5 kl.

Site preparation includes establishing a 100 mm thick mounting slab and a bunded vehicle refuelling apron.

The refuelling tank will be supplied from the main diesel fuel storage area via an above ground fuel linepassing under the haul road adjacent to the tank installation. The heavy vehicle refuelling station will beserviced by an oil water separator.



4.10.5.3 Light vehicle refuelling

The light vehicle refuelling system will be installed adjacent to the LV workshop and wash down area andcomprises a packaged 3 kl self-bunded containerised storage tank.

Site preparation includes the establishment of a mounting slab and a bunded vehicle refuelling apron.

4.10.6 Site security and emergency

There will be a single point of entry to the mine site which will be signposted to deter un-authorised visitors.All visitors will report to the administration building where administration staff will be responsible for:

n visitor check-in and outn visitor inductionn central contact point for on-site security personneln communicationsn initial emergency response point.

Any un-authorised personnel will be prevented from accessing the site and escorted from the premises.

4.10.7 Communications

Tarcoola is a railway town with siding and rail maintenance facilities. Telstra currently services the area witha good network system for voice and data service. Communication requirements for the operation can bemet by the existing Telstra infrastructure. Operation specific plans will be finalised during the constructionstage.

4.10.8 Silt control and drainage

Stormwater runoff will be collected through overland flow. Hardstand areas will be constructed with a crossfall to direct the water into table drains located at the edge of the hardstands and thereafter to a purposedesigned silt trap/pond. The collected water will be used in the mine operation process. The collectionsystems will be sized to accommodate runoff generated from a 100 year annual recurrence interval (ARI),24 hour event. Silt that collects in the pond will be removed as necessary.


The rehabilitation aspects are based on the assumption that the items are not required to be retained forother WPG projects or third parties.

The on-going usage and potential transfer of liabilities will be a matter for negotiation with DSD, the pastorallessee and the potentially interested stakeholders.

4.10.9.1 Accommodation village, site buildings and fuel storage areas

n Removal of all above ground structures, e.g. buildings, tanks, pipes, pumps.n All fuel tanks and associated infrastructure will be removed from the site.n Remediate soil compaction by ripping along contour, e.g. roads.n Re-compaction and making good of existing roadways/access tracks.n Revegetation of ripped areas.n Remove concrete pads and similar foundation structures and dispose in waste rock storage.



4.10.9.2 Water supply infrastructure

n Removal of all above ground structures, e.g. tanks, pipes, pumps.n Decommission water bores (unless negotiated with landowner to remain) in accordance with DSD and

DEWNR requirements.n Remediate soil compaction by ripping along contour, e.g. roads.n Re-compaction and making good of existing roadways/access tracks.n Revegetation of ripped areas.n Remove concrete pads and similar foundation structures and dispose in waste rock storage.

Approval from DSD and the pastoral lessee would be required if the infrastructure in this domain was to beretained for other projects or third parties.

4.10.9.3 Roads

Allowances have been made in the rehabilitation to fully remove and remediate all access tracks and haulroads. This will also include:

n remove concrete structures, e.g. culverts, headwallsn scrape mine surface area to remove residual ore or contamination and dispose in waste rock dumpn remediate soil compaction areas by ripping along contourn re-spread stockpiled topsoil to blend with local adjacent landformsn revegetation of ripped areas.

4.11 Resource inputs

4.11.1 Workforce

During construction the maximum number of people on site would be about 100 and on average 40–50 atany one time.

The operation would operate on a commute basis, and employ up to about 80 people (average of 37 at anyone time), including contractors, depending on actual production rate. A summary of workforce requirementsare provided in Table 4.24. A 365 day per year, 24 hour per day operation is assumed, and rostersimplemented would provide necessary coverage to achieve this.

Table 4.24 Workforce breakdown

Area On-site heap leach

Management, Administration 7

Mining/Haulage 40

Processing 23

Catering/Services 10

Total 80

It is likely that all, or nearly all, of the Tarcoola workforce could be recruited from within South Australia. Aproportion could be sourced from nearby regional areas, including Port Augusta/Whyalla and Coober Pedy,with the balance from Adelaide.

It is likely that a number of operational functions would be undertaken using contractors, including mining,catering and some maintenance and services tasks.



4.11.2 Energy

Due to the remote nature of the site the only feasible option for a power supply is the installation of dieselgenerating units.

Portable generators will be used for initial power supply during construction until establishment of on-sitepower generation. It is expected that construction contractors will supply their own power as required.

At this stage it is estimated that a total of about 1.2 MW of installed power will be required for the Tarcoolaoperations. The mine site, including workshop, office and lighting is expected to require 0.2 MW. The heapleach operations and plant stacker (on the assumption that the stacker is electrically operated) would requireabout 0.5 MW. The water supply infrastructure, including groundwater pumps, desalination plant, wouldrequire about 0.2 MW. The accommodation village, located approximately 3.7 km from the mine, would bepowered with a standalone generator of 0.3 MW capacity. This will eliminate the need for a connectingtransmission line if only one power station is installed at the mine site.

4.11.3 Water sources and estimated usage

Water is required to support the operation, in particular for dust suppression, processing, mining facilities andpotable water for the accommodation village. Total water demand for the project would be in the order of10 L/s or 864 kL/day. The demand is made up of 3.5 L/s for potable and dust suppression, and 6.1 L/s forheap leach operations.

4.11.3.1 Raw water

Jacobs undertook a preliminary assessment of the water supply options for onsite processing, dustsuppression and camp use. The assessment included recovery of groundwater from fractured rock aquifersin the general area of the proposed open pit and the area of test production bores installed in 1987 andlocated south of the Tarcoola Ridge and close to the Adelaide to Darwin railway line.

Jacobs concluded that there was potential to abstract about 1.5 L/s from the fractured granite aquifer in anaround the open pit for the camp potable supply (bore TC001 in Figure 3.11). Additional investigations wouldbe required to confirm the long term yield. A summary of the data from the 1987 test production wells isincluded in Table 4.25 and locations indicated in Figure 3.11.

Table 4.25 Summary of 1987 test production borefield

TW1P TW2P TW3P TW4P

Total depth 97.5 110 91.5 109

Geological unit Sullivan Shale Sullivan Shale Sullivan Shale Sullivan Shale

Transmissivity (m2/d) 13 15 10 6

Pump setting (mbgl) 82.5 93.5 75 94

Available drawdown (m) 77.5 76.5 61 83

Pumping rate (L/s) 3.5 3.00 3.5 3.5

Estimated pumping water leveldrawdown (after 1 year ofconcurrent pumping)

31.0 29.8 30.1 39.4

The proposed operations would require 10 L/s or 864 kL/day of total raw water which is made up of 3.5 L/sfor potable and dust suppression and 6.1 L/s for processing.



Jacobs concluded that, taking into consideration potential interference effects between the wells, that acombined abstraction rate of 10 L/s could be sustained over the proposed mine life. Jacobs considered thatthe current production bores would be unsuitable for commissioning and new wells would be required.

Water inflow to the open pits would be captured and used for dust suppression.

4.11.4 Desalination plant

Due to the salinity of groundwater from around the project site it will be necessary to establish a smallReverse Osmosis (RO) desalination plant at the accommodation village. It is proposed to utilise groundwaterfrom around the open pit area due to its lower salinity (6,020 mg/L in TC001 and 15,700 to 22,700 in otherboreholes) when compared to groundwater south of the Tarcoola Ridge (TW2, 44,300 mg/L) as this willenable the use of a single pass RO plant.

The groundwater has variable concentrations of dissolved manganese and iron and it is likely that there willbe a need for targeted removal process prior to water entering the RO plant to prevent fouling of themembranes. Typically, soluble manganese and ferrous iron would be oxidised in a pre-treatment process bypotassium permanganate and removed by sedimentation and filtration prior to the RO unit.

Where required calcium carbonate scale would be removed ahead of the RO unit using anti-scalant andsodium hydroxide would be used for pH adjustment. Sodium hypochlorite would be used for disinfection toavoid health issues.

It is proposed that the brine generated by the RO plant will be transported by truck to the process water damfor dilution and re-use through the process plant.

4.12 Greenhouse gas emissionsAn assessment was undertaken to provide an estimate of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from theTarcoola Gold Project (refer to Appendix I). The project emissions have been estimated using informationfrom the PFS conceptual design of both the construction and operational phases. These estimates provide abaseline for GHG emissions, which will assist in comparisons for GHG reductions in the future.

The approach for assessing the GHG impact of this project was undertaken in accordance with:

n the accounting standards of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (World Resources Institute/World BusinessCouncil for Sustainable Development, 2004)

n emission factors derived from the National Greenhouse Account (NGA) Factors (Department of theEnvironment (DoE, 2014a)

n National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System Measurement: Technical Guidelines for theestimation of greenhouse gas emissions by facilities in Australia’ (NGER) (DoE, 2014b).

In accordance with the NGA Factors (DoI, 2013a) guidelines, the major sources of direct and indirectemissions were categorised into Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, which are described as follows:

n Scope 1 emissions – direct emissions from sources within the boundaries of project operations suchas fuel combustion within vehicles, plant and equipment.

n Scope 2 emissions – indirect emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity, steam or heatproduced by another organisation. Scope 2 emissions result from the combustion of fuel to generate theelectricity, steam or heat and do not include emissions associated with the production of fuel.

n Scope 3 emissions – indirect other emissions which include all other emissions that are not directlysourced, owned or controlled by the project owners. Likely sources would include embodied energy of



materials used in the project construction and emissions from the extraction and production of fuels thatis used for the project.

It should be noted that under the NGER Act, Scope 1 and 2 emission factors require mandatory reporting,while Scope 3 is voluntary. This assessment predominately presents Scope 1 emissions. Scope 2 emissionsare not applicable to the project as all electricity will be supplied from diesel on-site power generation, andnot purchased from the grid.

Where possible, Scope 3 emissions have been included separately where it relates to upstream emissions(extraction and production of fuels) and the embodied energy associated with materials used in the project.

The emissions of greenhouse gases and combustion products (carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide andnitrogen dioxide) and particulate matter from fuel combustion associated with earthmoving plant andequipment, diesel generators and vehicles are possible during construction and operation.

The largest source of emissions is from the mine’s operational phase (Table 4.26). Much smaller emissionsare associated with land clearing during the construction phase. Emissions generated throughout theconstruction phase are comparatively minor to the project’s total emissions.

Table 4.26 Total Scope 1 emissions during clearing, construction and operation

Activity/phase Duration Total Scope 1 GHG emissions(t CO2-e)

Construction (including vegetation clearance) 3 months 10,386

Vegetation Clearing part of construction 3,504

Operation 4 years (cumulative) 72,611

Total 82,996

Over the lifetime of the project, it is estimated that the project will emit a total of 82,996 tonnes of carbondioxide equivalent (t CO2-e).

Overall, Australia’s total direct (Scope 1) annual emissions for 2011/2012 were 554.6 Mt CO2-e andAustralia’s direct (Scope 1) annual emissions from the mining sector in 2011/2012 were 66 Mt CO2-e (DoE,2013d). By comparison, the annual operation of the mine is projected to represent approximately 0.003% ofAustralia’s total direct emissions and 0.028% of Australia’s total direct mining emissions respectively.

The Tarcoola annual emissions are equivalent to 0.37% of the 2011/2012 South Australian mining sectordirect emissions and 0.06% of South Australia’s overall 2011/2012 direct emissions.

Significant Scope 3 emissions resulting from the project for both construction and operation are presented inTable 4.27 below according to emissions sources and project phases.

Table 4.27 Scope 3 emissions during construction and operation

Emission source Quantity Scope 3 emissionstpa CO2-e

Construction

Embodied emissions of transport energy 247 kL diesel 47

Embodied emissions of stationary energy 2,314 kL diesel 439

Material embodied emissions – concrete 19,200 t 3,053

Material embodied emissions – steel 3,042 t 4,168

Material embodied emissions – HDPE 568 t 1,136



Emission source Quantity Scope 3 emissionstpa CO2-e

Operation

Embodied emissions of transport energy 367 kL diesel pa 70 pa

Embodied emissions of stationary energy 5,902 kL diesel pa 1,120 pa

Total 10.033

A significant amount of concrete, steel and HDPE pipe will be required for construction of the project, whichrepresents 83% of Scope 3 emission sources. These materials are considered to be upstream emissionsassociated with the removal, manufacture and transport of the materials used. The embodied emissionsassociated with fuel used for both transport and stationary energy comprises 486 tonnes CO2-e of Scope 3emissions during the construction phase. During the operational phase, the only embodied emissionsassociated with operations are fuel use for both transport and stationary energy, and are estimated tocontribute 1,189 tonnes CO2-e scope 3 emissions annually.



5. Description of potentialbenefits

5.1 Social

5.1.1 Employment and training

The Tarcoola Gold Project will establish an estimated maximum 100 full time equivalent (FTE) positionsduring construction and about 80 FTE during the operating life of the mine. This is expected to have anindirect employment multiplier of between 2 and 3.

The company will employ locally where possible and has committed to buying locally where it iscommercially viable. These opportunities are expected to lead to:

n economic benefits for local community through increased number of job opportunities and increasedopportunities for local business and suppliers to support the construction and mining activities such as(but not limited to) cleaning, catering, equipment hire

n improved employment rates for regionn improved lifestyle conditions for employees due to higher employment rates and increased income

being spent in the community.

Tarcoola Gold is committed to implementing a local industry/business participation plan and working withlocal employment providers and networks to ensure the maximum benefits of local employment opportunitiesare realised without having an adverse impact on local pastoral activities. Further consultation will take placeduring the development of the mine with key employment stakeholders.

Tarcoola Gold will implement an employment strategy that will make provision for flexible working conditionsto manage any competing demands for labour, work with employment and training providers and maintainongoing relations with the Wilgena Station pastoralist as well as other nearby pastoralists and businesses.

Tarcoola Gold will outsource the mining and crushing functions to established and experienced contractors.It is proposed that all other Tarcoola employees be directly employed with individual contracts. The cultureenvisaged would promote direct engagement between management and employees, and harmoniousworking relations.

Appropriate arrangements for training would need to be put in place. During the recruitment and start-upphase, it may be advantageous to use an external provider for required services. Once in operation, it isenvisaged that training would mostly be managed and delivered internally.

5.1.2 Indigenous employment

The Tarcoola Gold Project employment of indigenous people in its operations will be driven by the yet to beformulated Native Title Agreement with the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara people (holders of Native Titlefor the area encompassing Tarcoola), South Australian Government expectations and Tarcoola Gold's aimsas a good corporate citizen.

It is likely that mining contractors would have arrangements and systems in place to facilitate indigenousemployment, which the Tarcoola Project could effectively leverage to meet internal and/or external targets.



5.1.3 Community support

Tarcoola Gold recognises its status as a guest within the community, and is committed, where possible, toproviding benefits and support to local community development programs.

All applications for community sponsorship will be considered and assessed against a range of criteria. Thefollowing criteria will be used to assess applications for sponsorship:

n The project is intended to promote a commitment to community wellbeing and deliver enduring benefits.n The project has a goal to support the community through development of community education,

environmental sustainability, sport, arts or culture.n The project provides an opportunity for Tarcoola Gold to enter into community partnerships which allow

it to develop its own profile as a socially and environmentally responsible organisation.n The project’s benefits and legacy can be shown to reach a broad target audience and to inspire others

to participate in activities that might otherwise be unavailable to them.

WPG is proud to support the local communities around their project areas and has previously backed eventswhich inject interest in and boost the economy of Coober Pedy and the surrounding district.

Organisations that WPG has been pleased to sponsor include the Opal Festival, the Coober Pedy GemTrade show, Coober Pedy Amateur Racing Club’s Annual Race Meeting and the William Creek GymkhanaCommittee’s Bronco Branding and Campdraft weekend, that raise funds for the Royal Flying Doctor Serviceand the Port Pirie Science and Engineering challenge.

WPG has also provided financial support to the Coober Pedy Saints and Junior Saints football clubs.

5.1.4 Provision of infrastructure

Development of the Tarcoola Gold Project will require upgrading of some of the unsealed roads in thewestern part of Tarcoola. In addition the airstrip will be up-graded to enable FIFO.

5.1.5 Tourism

It is possible that tourism may increase in the area through visitors to the mine site over the life of the project.These visitors may choose to seek services from nearby towns whilst visiting the mine. This could alsoprovide a trigger to local community groups such as the Kingoonya Progress Association to develop touristinformation for Kingoonya and the region.

5.2 EconomicThe Tarcoola Gold Project will generate significant economic benefits for the region and state, including:

n direct wages of $5 million per year (approximately $18 million for the life of mine, including contractors)n capital expenditure of $15 millionn total operating expenditure of $45 million for the life of minen direct employment of 80 FTE employees during operating life of minen increased support to local communities through mechanisms such as sponsorships, donations,

employment opportunities, training and education opportunities.



5.3 Environmental

5.3.1 Benefits to habitat

An SEB contribution in accordance with legislative requirements will be made to the Native Vegetation Fundor the Nature Foundation. This will enable funds to be provided for activities leading to an overall ecologicalbenefit.

5.3.2 Greenhouse emission off-set

Tarcoola Gold is committed to reducing the carbon footprint of its operations. The greenhouse assessmentprovided recommendations for the establishment of a Greenhouse Management Plan. This plan will identifythe approach by Tarcoola Gold to off-set greenhouse emissions through the project’s life cycle.



6. Stakeholder consultationTarcoola Gold commenced consultation with affected landowners, stakeholders and the local community inJuly 2012 while the project was under ownership of Mungana Goldmines. Tarcoola Gold has subsequentlyheld stakeholder meetings to update stakeholders on the project.

The overall activities and approach undertaken during the early stages of the Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) andproject development are detailed in this chapter.

6.1 ObjectivesThe objectives of the stakeholder consultation for the project are consistent with the South AustralianChamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) Industry Code of Practice for Community Engagement (2012).The primary objectives are to:

n ensure that all stakeholders are aware of Tarcoola Gold’s proposal for the commencement of mining atTarcoola, and gather feedback on the proposal

n inform stakeholders of the approvals process, including the submission of the MLAn ensure that the MLA process considers feedback and comments raised and that protocols are

developed to communicate to stakeholders how their feedback was consideredn provide regular and consistent information to stakeholders based on facts to eliminate incorrect

perceptions or misinformationn identify and manage issues proactively before they escalaten demonstrate to shareholders and stakeholders, Tarcoola Gold’s commitment to environmental and

social sustainability of their operationsn identify opportunities to highlight the economic, social and environmental benefits of the project.

6.2 ApproachAll communication with the community and stakeholders is developed in line with the Tarcoola Gold MineCommunity and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy framework. This framework outlines the basis for thedevelopment of relationships with key stakeholders, and details an approach to engagement which aims to:

n build trust with stakeholders and become part of the community through open and transparentcommunications

n establish mechanisms for the two-way flow of information through project construction and operationsn provide opportunities for stakeholders to obtain information and have in place mechanisms for

comments to be considered.

These key elements are incorporated in the tools and activities which have occurred to date, and will informongoing communications during construction and operations.

6.3 Stakeholder identificationTable 6.1 identifies the external project stakeholders, who have been considered in the engagement processfor this project. This may not be a complete list, and additional stakeholders may be identified as the projectprogresses.



Table 6.1 Stakeholder identification

Stakeholder group Individual stakeholder

Landowners and residents n Crown Lands.n AJ and PA McBride Ltd.n Wilgena Station Manager.n Mulgathing Station Manager.n Landowners and any tenants in nearby properties.n Landowners and tenants in Tarcoola, Kingoonya and Glendambo.

Local, Federal StateGovernment/Agencies

n Department for State Development (DSD) formerly DMITRE.n Far North Regional Development Board.n Outback Communities Authority.n South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resource Management.n Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).n South Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).n Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR).n Department of Environment and Heritage (Commonwealth).

Indigenous Stakeholders n Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation (AMYAC).n South Australian Native Title Services (SANTS).

Communities n Kingoonya.n Glendambo.n Tarcoola (currently deserted).

Surrounding communities n Roxby Downs.n Woomera.n Port Augusta.n Pimba.n Coober Pedy.

Community groups andbusinesses

n Kingoonya and Area Progress Association.n Glendambo & District Progress Association Inc.n South Australian Farmer’s Federation.n Coober Pedy Area School.n Business owners in the region.

Emergency services n Royal Flying Doctors.n Country Fire Service.n Emergency services (Police and Ambulance).

Employment/Training n Employment agencies and providers.n Training providers.n Schools and tertiary education.n Affiliations and memberships.

6.4 Consultation undertakenMungana Goldmines, the previous owners of the project undertook discussions with stakeholders andcommunities in July 2012 and February 2013. Since acquiring the project in mid-2014, Tarcoola Gold hasconducted numerous discussions with stakeholders and are committed to ongoing consultation withstakeholders throughout the life of the project.

Engagement to date with government agencies has been focussed around discussion with:

n DSD on project requirements and briefing on project progress and detailsn DPTI on requirements relating to access to and maintenance of the Glendambo to Tarcoola roadn DEWNR regional staff on project details.



Engagement to date with the community and key stakeholders has been focussed around:

n introducing the Tarcoola Gold Project to the communityn detailing the process for open pit mining, the proposed process plant and associated supporting

infrastructure, including access road, power generation, accommodation village, airstrip, groundwaterborefields, heap leach methods/technology and waste rock storage

n seeking feedback on the proposal and taking feedback into considerationn negotiation of Work Area Clearances with AMYAC for the Mineral Claim area.

The consultation tools and activities Tarcoola Gold delivered to local government, landowners and widercommunity are outlined in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Tarcoola Gold project consultation tools

Communicationtools

Description Stakeholder audience

One-on-one meetings n Discussions with primary land owner(s) to introduce the keycontacts, team and project.

n Discussions around critical issues, specifically water usageand borehole locations.

n Interviews with selected stakeholders to gather intelligenceabout current, emerging or future stakeholder issues.

n Attended meetings with local council and the RegionalDevelopment Board to provide early information about theproject, and proposed development in their constituencies.

n Landowners.n Station Managers.

n Stakeholders.

Landowner andstation managerLettercommunications

n Formal communication with the land owners throughout theapprovals process and the project operation stage.

n Landowners.

n Station Manager(s).

Stakeholder meetings n Tarcoola Gold has met with key stakeholders such asGlendambo and Areas District Progress Association, and theRegional Development Australia Far North (RDAFN) todiscuss the mining proposal and additional infrastructure.

n Key Stakeholdergroups.

n Glendambo and AreasDistrict ProgressAssociation.

n RDAFN.

Meeting Minutes n Used to record key discussions and issues raised duringformal meetings.

n Kept as electronic documents for future reference.

n Meeting attendees.

Contact point n Tarcoola Gold has established a point of contact includingphone number, and email address for the community tomake enquiries about the project.

n All Stakeholders.

Presentations n To provide information to government agencies, and projectstakeholders.

n All stakeholders



6.4.1 Government meetings

Meetings were held with relevant SA government agencies to provide briefings on the project results of thebaseline investigations (refer to Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 Government agency meetings

Date Governmentagency

Issues raised Tarcoola Gold response

27/06/2013 DSD (formerlyDMITRE)

n Nil. n Briefing on project by MunganaGoldmines.

6/02/2013 DPTI n Maintenance Deed will be requiredbetween the two parties formaintaining the public road betweenGlendambo and Kingoonya, andKingoonya to Tarcoola.

n Noted.

24/072014 DSD n Nil n Discussion on transfer of existingMLs and propose flora and faunaspring survey

8/08/2014 DSD n Nil. n Briefing on project by TarcoolaGold.

29/08/2014 DSD, EPA,DEWNR

n ARD testing.

n Definition of activities requiringlicensing by EPA.

n Post closure impact on groundwaterusers.

n Recovery of pit lake and waterquality.

n Additional test work undertaken.

n Activities listed.

n Numerical modelling undertaken.

9/09/2014 DSD n Presentation of ARD test results. n Additional testing would beundertaken.

19/09/2014 DSD, DEWNR n Discussion of additionalinvestigations.

n Additional analytical modellingundertaken.

8/12/2014 DEWNR (StateHeritage)

n Water usage (pipeline alignment).n Groundwater sources and quality.

n Discussion on potential uraniumlevels.

n Aesthetic rehabilitated WRF andpads and pit depth.

n Vehicle movements along TarcoolaRoad and what will be transported.

n Alignment to be consistent withAboriginal heritage clearance.

n WRF and pad will not impactheritage.

n 2–3 heavy vehicles per week(general supplies, cyanide pellets orisotainers, explosives and diesel)Tarcoola Gold investigating railoptions for three latter components.

11/12/2014 DPTI n Vehicle movements along TarcoolaRoad and what will be transported.

n Use of Tarcoola airstrip.

n 2–3 heavy vehicles per week(general supplies, cyanide pellets orisotainers, explosives and diesel)Tarcoola Gold investigating railoptions for three latter components.

n Discussions being held on use ofairfield for FIFO.



Date Governmentagency

Issues raised Tarcoola Gold response

9/01/15 DSD n Query on State rare grass (Aristidaarida).

n Graph of total sulphur /sulphide tobe provided and incorporatecontingency for additional PAFstorage.

n What rainfall event used for design?

n Will pit require dewatering?

n Additional details on riskassessment table.

n Will the site be fenced?

n Will Tarcoola Gold sign up toCyanide Code?

n Provide details of the harvesting oftopsoil and subsoil.

n Suspected grass found adjacent tostormwater pipes through railwayembankment. Identification notconfirmed by State Museum.

n Graph and contingency included.

n 1:100 ARI.

n Modelling indicates no additionaldewatering required due to highevaporation rates. In pit sumpsexpected to suffice (Section 4).

n Risk assessment updated.

n Fencing to be provided aroundprocess plant area.

n Tarcoola Gold is consideringbenefits of signing up to theCyanide Code.

n Soil management details included inSection 4.

13/02/15 DSD andDEWNR (StateHeritage)

n Discussed potential use of oldtailings and removal/consolidationof material within heritage areas.

n Determination of heritage value,methodology for removal of tailingsand other items considered to nothave heritage value.

n In principle agreement given for there-use of tailings, removal of itemscirca 1990 and consolidation ofmaterial into machinery dump area.

n Proposed options discussed inSection 3, Section 4 and Section 8of ML document.

The Tarcoola Gold Project is located adjacent to the Wilgena station which is part of the Wilgena PastoralLease and east of the Mulgathing station. Tarcoola Gold is currently working with the adjacent landownersand the Station Managers to develop long-term relationships during MLA approval, construction, mining andrehabilitation.

Tarcoola Gold will undertake ongoing meetings with station managers of the adjacent pastoral stations at keymilestones of the project to disseminate information and discuss issues.

Tarcoola Gold met with Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) on 28/08/2014 and Genesee WyomingAustralia on 2/12/2014 to discuss access issues relating to establishment of the water extraction bore(s) andpipeline routed adjacent to the railway line easement. The proposed alignment indicated in Figure 4.1reflects these discussions.

The key issues raised throughout the consultation process with the pastoralists are outlined in Table 6.4.



Table 6.4 Directly impacted landowner issues

Stakeholder group Feedback received Tarcoola Gold response

Wilgena station manager(previous meetings withMungana Goldmines)

n Asked whether ore haulage would be atnight.

n Location of access track from Tarcoolato Kingoonya road was adjacent to stockwatering point. Preference was for analternative location along the Wilgenastation/North Well station boundary.

n Potential for road damage.

n The issues related to an option beingconsidered by Mungana Goldmines (theprevious owner) and is no longer part ofthis proposal.

Wilgena station n 24/09/2014, no specific issue.

n 3/02/2015, discussion of effect of mineusage on Telstra band width and impactto pastoralist. Camp water usage

n Discussion on project progress.n Confirmation being sought from Telstra.

n Camp water usage based on250 L/person/day.

North Well station n 5/04/2014, no specific issues.

n 29/11/2014, no specific issues.

n Introductory meeting.

n Discussed project progress.

Mulgathing stationmanager

n 1/11/2014.n Cyanide toxicity.

n Impact on of project on currentemployees.

n Discussion on project progress.

n Cyanide breaks down in the presence ofUV light – after processing is completeat Tarcoola, remaining cyanide will breakdown naturally.

n Local employment will be encouraged. Ifcurrent employees on neighbouringpastoral stations seek employment,discussions with the pastoralists willoccur prior to any offer of employment.

AJ & PA McBride(pastoral lease holder)

n 8/04/2014 no specific issues.

n 15/04/2014, no specific issues.

n Introductory meeting.

n Project briefing.

6.4.2 Wider community feedback

In addition to the meetings and discussion with the landowners and affected station managers, TarcoolaGold have committed to communicating and engaging the wider community. Tarcoola Gold undertook acommunity meeting for the wider community, in July 2012 and February 2013.

The following table outlines the key stakeholder and community issues.

Table 6.5 Stakeholder and community issues

Stakeholder group Feedback received How feedback has been addressed

Mungana Goldmines

Kingoonya ProgressAssociation

n Keen to establish a strong workingrelationship with Tarcoola Gold.

n Would work with community to identifyeconomic opportunities.

n Concerned in relation to impacts to theGlendambo to Tarcoola road, as thiswas the only point of access.

n Tarcoola Gold committed to continuediscussions with the community throughthe Progress Association.

n Tarcoola Gold advised they hadcommenced discussion with DPTI inrelation to road maintenance issuesbeen.



Stakeholder group Feedback received How feedback has been addressed

Regional DevelopmentAustralia – Far North

n RDAFN has capability database for theregion which can be provided toTarcoola Gold.

n Capacity in the region for low and mid-level skilled employment.

n Regional development forum held fourtimes per year and may be of relevanceto the project.

n The information was welcomed byTarcoola Gold.

n Tarcoola Gold requested that they beadded to the regional mailing list.

n Further project updates would beprovided.

SA Arid Lands NRMBoard

n Assistance offered with coordinationwith wider DEWNR.

n Need to consider Buffel grassmanagement plan.

n DEWNR ecologists keen to obtainresults of flora and fauna surveys.

n Noted.

Giles Electoral Office n No issues raised following presentationof project information.

n NA.

Grey Electoral Office n No issues raised following presentationof project information.

n NA.

Tarcoola Gold

Kingoonya ProgressAssociation

n 19/07/2014. n Introductory meeting.

n 19/11/204. n Project update.

n 29/11/2014. n Project update and organisation forstakeholder meeting.

Stakeholder meetingwith:n Kingoonya Progress

Association.n Glendambo Progress

Association.n North Well Pastoral

Station.n Mulgathing Pastoral

Station.n Kingoonya Residents.

n 2/12/2014.n Water usage (volumes).n Groundwater sources and quality.n Discussion on cyanide toxicity.n Tarcoola Road vehicle movements and

road maintenance.n Local employment and effect on

pastoralists.

n Total water usage 237,000 cubic metresper annum.

n Use of saline groundwater fromboreholes within ML.

n Cyanide breaks down in the presence ofUV light – after processing is completeat Tarcoola, remaining cyanide willbreak down naturally.

n 2–3 heavy vehicles per week (generalsupplies, cyanide pellets or isotainers,explosives and diesel) Tarcoola Goldinvestigating rail options for three lattercomponents.

n Local employment will be encouraged. Ifcurrent employees on neighbouringpastoral stations seek employment,discussions with the pastoralists willoccur prior to any offer of employment.

Meetings with:n RDAFN (Regional

Development AustraliaFar North).

n GMUSG (GlobalMining Upper SpencerGulf).

n Outback CommunitiesAuthority.

n South Australian AridLands NaturalResourceManagement Board.

n 11/12/2014.n What area will be cleared for mine and

infrastructure.n Discussion on legacy issues once

mining companies finish operations.n Discussion on use of contractors vs

direct employees.n Discussion of White Dam heap leach

operation in comparison to proposedTarcoola Operation.

n Clearance area in the order of 58.ha.n Investigate third party responsibilities

once operation cease in terms ofinfrastructure established by TarcoolaGold.

n The project would have a combination ofcontractors and direct employees.

n Difference in heap leach operations atTarcoola vs White Dam discussed.



6.4.3 Aboriginal liaison

Tarcoola Gold is working with the Native Title Holder Group, the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara AboriginalCorporation through their legal representative and advisors, with regard to cultural heritage and native titlematters. Subsequent to the acquisition of the project, Tarcoola Gold has held a meeting with the AntakirinjaMatu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation to update them on the project and the projected timing of theproject development.

WPG, during the development of the Peculiar Knob project, has developed a good working relationship withthe Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation.

Table 6.6 Aboriginal liaison

Stakeholder group Feedback received Tarcoola Gold response

AMYAC n 29/10/2014.n How much water is used in the heap

leach process.n More information on cyanide toxicity.n Local Aboriginal employment.n Acknowledgement of heritage no-go

areas.

n Discussion on project progress.n Cyanide breaks down in the presence of

UV light – after processing is completeat Tarcoola, remaining cyanide will breakdown naturally.

n Local employment will be encouraged.n Heritage no-go areas acknowledged.

6.5 Tarcoola Gold Project issues appreciationThere are a number of general and mine specific issues that have been or will need to be discussed withstakeholders.

The general issues (real or perceived) that have been or will be discussed during the stakeholderconsultation for the Mineral Lease include:

n increases in road traffic/truck movements and impacts to access roadsn environmental impacts the mine may have on flora, fauna, and bore water (quality and quantity)n change of land usen the aspirations of Native Title holders, and ways to accommodate thesen cumulative effect of other mines in the regionn potential for air quality (including dust) and noise to be an issue during operationn potential for greenhouse gas generation and minimisationn competing use of water by mining and neighbouring landownersn local employment and supplier opportunitiesn local business opportunities.

6.6 Ongoing consultationA range of communication materials and tools will be required for ongoing communications duringconstruction and operation (Table 6.7).



Table 6.7 Ongoing consultation approach

Communication tool/activity

Rationale Targeted stakeholdergroup

Ongoing communicationwith landowners such asletters and email updates

Purpose of ongoing landowner communication toolsare to:n inform and obtain feedback on the ongoing

development of the Tarcoola Gold Minen make contact with stakeholder to seek their input

into specifically in the PEPR process to minimiseand mange and potential impacts

n advertise contact methods to wider community,including upcoming event details.

To provide an ongoing form of communication withLandowners.

n Pastoral leaseholders.n Station Managers.n Native Title Claimants.

Landowner andStakeholder meetings andsite visits

n To understand stakeholder concerns and issues.n To inform and obtain feedback and keep regularly

updated on the project as it develops.n To maintain and enhance positive working

relationships with stakeholders.n To provide the opportunity for stakeholders to

meet face to face.n Ensure input is considered into the PEPR process.n Ensure social impacts are managed and social

benefits are realised.

n Resident/ landowners.n Station Managers.n Local community and

businesses.n Native Title Claimants and

Aboriginal groups.n Environment groups.n Non-government

organisations.

Briefing to adjoiningProgress Associations

n Ensure Progress Associations are aware of thePEPR process, investigations, consultationprocess and timing, and to address items ofinterest/issues.

n Progress Associations

Presentations n To provide detailed and ‘easy to understand’information about the Mining Lease Proposal,commencement of the PEPR process and contactdetails.

n To provide responses to issues of concern,requests for information and frequently askedquestions.

n Wider community.

Website n Provide stakeholders and community memberswith an online access to gain updates and otherinformation.

n Provide an avenue from which people can locateinformation about upcoming events, and contactdetails should further information be required.

n Provide an opportunity for stakeholders to accessproject documents when relevant, including thePEPR.

n Landowners.n Local businesses.n Community groups.n Wider community.

Consultation database n To provide an ongoing and real time record of allstakeholder interactions.

n To assist in the reporting process.n Provide input into the issues identification process.

n Any stakeholder groups whohave contacted TarcoolaGold or WPG Resources.

Community SponsorshipPlan

n To clearly outline Tarcoola Gold’s capacity tosupport community partnerships in buildingpositive relationships with the community.

n To ensure a fair and equitable process isemployed and is communicated to all stakeholdersas to how Tarcoola Gold is able to invest incommunity benefits.

n Local community groups.n Wider community and

businesses.



7. Environmental components7.1 Methodology

7.1.1 Aspect and impact identification

In order to capture the environmental aspects (and associated risks) related to the Tarcoola Gold Project, anEnvironmental Aspects and Risk Assessment Register has been developed and is contained in Appendix J.The register identifies the potential environmental and social aspects/impacts that may be associated withthe project during construction, mining operations, rehabilitation and closure. The post-closure aspects areincluded in Section 8.

The impact assessment considered the following receptors or segment of the environment:

n vegetationn faunan weeds, pest animals and pathogensn groundwatern surface watern ARDn air qualityn noisen soil and land disturbancen trafficn radiation, asbestiform minerals and silican blastingn wasten public safetyn adjacent land use and third-party property.

The Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) has been developed based on the DSD requirements asdetailed in Guidelines for Miners: Preparation of a Mining Lease Proposal or Mining and RehabilitationProgram (MARP) Version 4.11, January 2011.

7.1.2 Primary risk level

The Primary Risk Level (PRL) of the identified aspect was considered without taking into account anymanagement and mitigation measures that will be employed by Tarcoola Gold. The assessment consideredimpacts during all stages of the project (i.e. construction, operations and mine closure). Identification of thepotential impacts is based on knowledge of the existing environment, experience with similar operationselsewhere and issues of concern to key stakeholders.

7.1.3 Control and management strategies

In undertaking the ERA consideration has been given to avoidance, mitigation and/or managementstrategies that are technically and economically feasible and reflect Tarcoola Gold’s commitment tominimising environmental impact and adopting an approach to the project that demonstrates best practicemining and environmental management.



7.1.4 Residual risk level

The final component of the assessment involves describing the Residual Risk Level (RRL) associated witheach of the identified aspects. This assessment assumes the effective implementation of the proposedDesign Control and Operational Management Measures.

The Residual Risk Level is developed in the same way as the Primary Risk Level by examining the potentialconsequences (measure of severity of environmental impact and the likelihood that those impacts will occur).

A number of categories are used to describe the consequence (severity) of each impact and the likelihood ofthat impact occurring. Further details regarding the criteria used in the risk assessment are provided inSection 7.1.5 below.

7.1.5 Risk assessment

The descriptors used in the assessment are based on those provided in the DSD Guidelines for Miners:Preparation of a Mining Lease Proposal or Mining and Rehabilitation Program (MARP) Version 4.11,January 2011.

7.1.5.1 Likelihood rating

The likelihood of each event occurring is determined, based on information such as past experience, knownmeteorological data/site conditions as well as the effectiveness of proposed control measures. The likelihoodof the event is categorised as presented in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Likelihood categories

Level Rating Description

E Rare Has almost never occurred in similar mines but conceivably could

D Unlikely Could occur in some mines

C Possible Could occur in most mines

B Likely Will probably occur during mine lifetime

A Almost Certain Will occur, or is of continuous nature, or the likelihood is unknown

7.1.5.2 Severity/consequence rating

The severity of each event occurring is determined, based on information such as the potential scale of theevent, the range of stakeholders who may be affected, the duration of the event, the difficulty in remediatingthe impact. The severity/consequence of the event is categorised as presented in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Severity/consequences


1 Catastrophic Extreme permanent changes to the social or natural environment (not able to bepractically or significantly rehabilitated or alleviated); deaths or widespread healthand economic effects on public, major public outrage or the consequences areunknown.

2 Major Substantial and significant changes; will attract significant public concern; onlypartially able to be rehabilitated or alleviated. May be doubtful that can besuccessfully rehabilitated; major costs involved. Changes will be substantial ifcumulative effects are considered.




3 Moderate Significant local changes, but can be rehabilitated or alleviated with difficulty atsignificant cost and with outside assistance.

4 Minor Very local consequence with no significant long-term changes; may be simplyrehabilitated or alleviated at some cost without assistance; not significant concernto the community.

5 Insignificant Possible impacts but without noticeable consequence

7.1.5.3 Risk determination and categories

The risk associated with each event is determined using the matrix presented in Table 7.3:

Table 7.3 Risk determination and categories

Likelihood of Consequences

E D C B A

Rare Unlikely Possible Likely AlmostCertain

Seve

rity

ofC

onse

quen

ce

5 Insignificant Low Low Low Moderate High

4 Minor Low Low Moderate High High

3 Moderate Moderate Moderate High High Extreme

2 Major High High Extreme Extreme Extreme

1 Catastrophic High Extreme Extreme Extreme Extreme



7.2 Vegetation

7.2.1 Context and stakeholder views

7.2.1.1 Context

Broad vegetation mapping in autumn and spring were undertaken within the mine lease area and immediatesurrounds of the Tarcoola Project (Appendix D).

Seven broad vegetation associations were identified across the project area.

n Association 1 – Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) Open Shrubland+/- Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) +/- Acacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle).

n Association 2 – Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia(Bluebush).

n Association 3 – Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Acacia papyrocarpa (Western Myall) Open Shrubland.

n Association 4 – Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush) +/- Maireanaastrotricha (Low Bluebush) Open Shrubland over Sclerolaena obliquicuspis (Oblique-spined Bindyi) andAustrostipa spp. (Spear Grass).

n Association 5 – Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved DesertSenna) Open Shrubland over Rhagodia ulicina (Intricate saltbush), Eremophila spp. (Emu Bush) andAcacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle).

n Association 6 – Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved DesertSenna) Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) and Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder saltbush).

n Association 7 – Maireana appressa (Pale-fruit Bluebush) +/- Sarcozona praecox (Sarcozona)+/- Gunniopsis tenuifolia +/- Tecticornia sp.(Samphire) +/- Eragrostis setifolia (Bristly-love Grass) OpenShrubland.

The proposed pit area is dominated by vegetation association 4 with minor components of vegetationassociations 2 and 3. The waste rock storage area encompasses predominantly vegetation association 2with components of vegetation associations 3 and 4.

The heap leach operations are predominantly within vegetation associations 1 and 5 with minor vegetationassociations 2 and 4. The process plant area is within vegetation association 5. The access road, workshopand office areas are within vegetation associations 4 and 5.

No threatened plant species were recorded within the observation plots. The State rare grass Aristida aridawas potentially recorded opportunistically but could not be confirmed by the state herbarium. This specieswas recorded along the railway line in a culvert and EBS concluded it should not be impacted by worksoutside of this area.

There is a possibility that State rated plants such as Austrodanthonia laevis (Smooth Wallaby Grass),Swainsona dictyocarpa and Swainsona microcalyx (Wild Violet) could be found within the project area aftergood conditions, due to the nearby records south of the town of Tarcoola (Appendix D).

7.2.1.2 Stakeholder views

Stakeholders include; the DEWNR (flora and fauna impacts), the NVC (vegetation clearance), DSD asdelegate to the NVC for vegetation clearance in relation to mining projects, Commonwealth Department ofthe Environment and the South Australian Arid Lands (SAAL) Natural Resource Management (NRM) Board.



7.2.2 Applicable legislation and standards

The relevant acts of legislation that protect the State’s flora and provide a framework for management arediscussed in detail in Section 2 and include:

n Mining Act 1971n Native Vegetation Act 1991n Natural Resources Management Act 2004n National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972n Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

7.2.3 Potential construction and operation (including rehabilitation)impacts

7.2.3.1 Impact event analysis for vegetation

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts to vegetation. A detailed discussion isincluded in the following sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4 Impact event analysis – vegetation

ID Source Pathway Environmentalreceptor

Consequences

T1 Clearance of vegetationduring construction andoperation

Unauthorisedclearance

Native vegetation Reduced native speciesabundance and diversity


Unauthorisedclearance

Native vegetation Adverse effect on threatenedspecies

T3 Dust generation duringconstruction, operation andrehabilitation

Air transport of dust Native vegetation Reduced native speciesabundance and diversity

Adverse effect on threatenedspecies

T4 Use of saline water for dustsuppression duringconstruction and operation

Over spray andrunoff to vegetatedareas

Native vegetation Reduced native speciesabundance and diversity


T5 Fires generated as a resultof construction andoperation

Spread of fire tovegetated areasexternal to lease

Native vegetation Reduced species abundanceand diversity


7.2.3.2 Reduced species abundance and diversity as a result of vegetation clearing

Vegetation clearing would be required during both the construction and operation phases of the project. Thiswill result in a reduction of species which may also reduce available fauna habitat however similar extensivevegetation types occur elsewhere within the bioregion in areas that would not be disturbed. The Vegetationdisturbance footprint is included in Table 7.5.



Table 7.5 Vegetation disturbance footprint

Mine component Vegetation Association Area ofclearance

(ha)

Open pit Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia(Bluebush).

Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Acacia papyrocarpa (Western Myall) OpenShrubland.

Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush)+/- Maireana astrotricha (Low Bluebush) Open Shrubland over Sclerolaenaobliquicuspis (Oblique-spined Bindyi) and Austrostipa spp. (Spear Grass).

7.76

Waste rock storage Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia(Bluebush).

Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Acacia papyrocarpa (Western Myall) OpenShrubland.


17.65

ROM pad Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) OpenShrubland +/- Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Casuarina pauper (Black Oak)+/- Acacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle).


0.81

Heap leach padand processingplant

Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) OpenShrubland +/- Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Casuarina pauper (Black Oak)+/- Acacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle).

Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia(Bluebush).


Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leavedDesert Senna) Open Shrubland over Rhagodia ulicina (Intricate saltbush),Eremophila spp. (Emu Bush) and Acacia tarculensis (Tarcoola Wattle).

8.17

Administrationbuilding andworkshop



3.75

On-site roads Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia(Bluebush).



4.42

Accommodationvillage


3.15



Mine component Vegetation Association Area ofclearance

(ha)

Water supply Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush)+/- Maireana astrotricha (Low Bluebush) Open Shrubland over Sclerolaenaobliquicuspis (Oblique-spined Bindyi) and Austrostipa spp. (Spear Grass)


1.41

Total 47.12

Site activities during construction and operation will be undertaken to ensure there is minimal adverse impacton the vegetation.

Establishment of a Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) either as a direct off-set or payment to the NativeVegetation Fund will provide an overall ecological benefit.

7.2.3.3 Impact on threatened species

The grass Aristida arida (Rare SA) was potentially recorded opportunistically but could not be confirmedgiven lack of plant structures necessary for identification. There is a possibility that state rated plants such asAustrodanthonia laevis (Smooth Wallaby Grass), Swainsona dictyocarpa and Swainsona microcalyx (WildViolet) could be found within the project area after good conditions, due to the nearby records south of thetown of Tarcoola.

Site activities during construction and operation will be undertaken to ensure there is minimal adverse impacton the vegetation.

Establishment of a Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) either as a direct off-set or payment to the NativeVegetation Fund will provide an overall ecological benefit.

7.2.3.4 Airborne dust resulting in reduced plant growth

Airborne dust would be produced as a result of mine operations including, material stockpiles, trafficmovements on site roads and open pit extraction and crushing activities. The deposition of dust may result inreduced plant growth due to dust coating on leaves reducing photosynthesis which is required for plantgrowth.

The effects of airborne dust are likely to be localised and occur largely in close proximity to roadways andcleared areas associated with site facilities. This dust is likely to inhibit growth rather than result in death ofplants therefore significant impacts are unlikely to occur.

As the Native Vegetation Act 1991 considers impacts due to dust deposition as “clearance” the assessmenthas used the cumulative dust deposition level (baseline plus project generated) of 4 g/m2/month to berepresentative of clearance (in the absence of SA guidelines). On the basis of the deposition modelling theadditional clearance area attributable to dust deposition has been estimated as 36.8 hectares.

7.2.3.5 Impacts to vegetation from saline water used for dust suppression

Groundwater would be used for dust suppression within the site. The groundwater to be used is saline atapproximately 43,000 mg/L TDS.



The use of saline ground water may result in inhibition of some species and changes in species composition,however, these impacts would be highly localised due to limited and localised application of the groundwater.

7.2.3.6 Loss of vegetation as a result of fires caused by construction and miningoperations

There is potential for loss of vegetation if fires occur as a result of construction and mining operations andthe fires spread to vegetated areas on the ML and to adjacent areas.


7.2.4.1 Reduced species abundance as a result of vegetation clearing

The clearing of native vegetation cannot be practically avoided however the impact and consequences maybe reduced by implementing the following control and management strategies:

n as far as practicable design the layout of project components to areas that will require limited landclearance

n implementation of a program for staged clearance, ensuring clearance only occurs prior to and withindesignated clearance areas

n progressive rehabilitation of disturbed areas where practicablen a native vegetation management plan and mine rehabilitation and closure plan will be prepared and

implementedn induction of site personnel to indicate areas of approved clearance/protectionn SEB will be established for the project.


The assessment by EBS has not indicated the presence of any threatened vegetation species within theproject site. Therefore the impact event is not considered credible so will not be further assessed.Notwithstanding the following control and management design strategies which are to be implemented forreduce species abundance offer protection:

n as far as practicable design the layout of project components to areas that will require limited landclearance

n implementation of a program for stage clearance ensuring clearance only occurs prior to and withindesignated clearance areas

n progressive rehabilitation of disturbed areas where practicablen a native vegetation management plan and mine rehabilitation and closure plan will be prepared and

implementedn induction of site personnel to indicate areas of approved clearance/protectionn SEB will be established for the project.


The impact and consequences of airborne dust may be reduced by implementing the following control andmanagement strategies:

n clearing of vegetation will be staged and rehabilitation will be progressiven high traffic areas around the site will be graded, compacted or covered with road base consistent with fit

for purpose designn traffic will be kept to established tracks and roads



n dust suppression using water will be undertaken during construction and operationn monitoring of dust deposition will be a key component of the site environmental monitoring program.


Impacts of saline water on vegetation may be reduced by implementing the following control andmanagement strategies:

n overspray with saline water will be minimised through controlled applicationn post operation areas where saline water was applied will be ripped to assist vegetation establishment

and rehabilitationn design of roads and trafficable areas with drainage control measures that reduce the potential for salt

build up in soil and runoff to vegetated areasn conduct annual flora survey to demonstrate no net adverse effect.

7.2.4.5 Loss of vegetation due to fires

Loss of vegetation as a result of fires may be reduced by implementing the following control andmanagement measures:

n maintain emergency response capability during mining operations (including training, mock incidents)n liaise with local emergency services and nearby mining operations


The results of risk levels determined in accordance with the risk assessment process outlined in Section 7.1are provided in Table 7.6.



Table 7.6 Risk assessment – vegetation

Aspect andimpact & ID

Primary Risk Level Control and management measures Residual Risk after implementation ofcontrol and management measures

Likelihood Consequence Primaryrisk

Likelihood Consequence Residualrisk

T1

Reduced nativespecies abundanceand diversity as aresult of vegetationclearing

Possible Minor Moderate Mining and ancillary operations designed toreduce clearing requirements and impacts.

Implement Native Vegetation Management Planand Mine Closure and Rehabilitation Plan whichaddress:

n Rehabilitation requirements (schedule, species,monitoring and management)

n Vegetation clearance boundariesn Weed management (within the rehabilitation

areas)n Site access and traffic movements

Implement Significant Environmental Benefit(SEB).

Clearance to be undertaken in accordance withNative Vegetation Management Plan.

Unlikely Minor Low

T2

Adverse effect onthreatened speciesdue to vegetationclearance

Unlikely Minor Low Mining and ancillary operations designed toreduce clearing requirements and impacts.

Implement Native Vegetation Management Planand Mine Closure and Rehabilitation Plan whichaddresses:

n Rehabilitation requirements (schedule, species,monitoring and management)

n Vegetation clearance boundariesn Weed management (within the rehabilitation

areas)n Site access and traffic movementsn Implement Significant Environmental Benefit

(SEB).

Unlikely Minor Low







T3

Reduced nativespecies abundanceand diversity andadverse effect onthreatened speciesdue to airborne dustaffecting plantgrowth

Possible Minor Moderate Implementation of a program for staged clearance;ensuring clearance occurs immediately prior todevelopment and within designated areas.

Restrict traffic to established site roads.

High traffic areas around the site will be graded,compacted or covered with road base inaccordance with fit for purpose design.

Dust suppression using water will be undertakenduring construction and operation.Implementation of Dust Management Plan.

An appropriately qualified and experiencedspecialist will assess whether there is ademonstrated impact associated with saline wateruse for dust suppression.

Unlikely Minor Low

T4

Reduced nativespecies abundanceand diversity andadverse effect onthreatened speciesdue to saline waterused for dustsuppression

Possible Minor Moderate Design roads with appropriate drainage controlmeasures that reduce potential for salt build up insoil and runoff to vegetated areas.

Control over-spray.

Areas where saline water was applied will beripped to assist vegetation establishment andrehabilitation.

An appropriately qualified and experiencedspecialist will assess whether there is ademonstrated impact associated with saline wateruse for dust suppression.

Unlikely Minor Low







T5

Reduced nativespecies abundanceand diversity andadverse effect onthreatened speciesdue to fires as aresult ofconstruction andmining operations

Unlikely Major High Compliance with AS 5062-2006 Fire protection ofmobile and transportable equipment.

Provide emergency response capability at mine.

Liaise with local emergency services and nearbymining operations.

Undertake regular training and mock incidentsduring operations.

Unlikely Minor Low



7.2.6 Risk acceptance

7.2.6.1 Reduced species abundance as a result of vegetation clearing

No threatened plant species were recorded within the study area. The State rare grass Aristida arida waspotentially recorded opportunistically but could not be confirmed by the state herbarium. This species wasrecorded along the railway line in a culvert and EBS concluded it should not be impacted by works outside ofthis area. As the primary risk level for impacts on national and state listed species is low no specificoutcomes and measurement criteria have been developed.

There is a possibility that state rated plants such as Austrodanthonia laevis (Smooth Wallaby Grass),Swainsona dictyocarpa and Swainsona microcalyx (Wild Violet) could be found within the project area aftergood conditions, due to the nearby records south the town of Tarcoola (DEWNR 2013).

The proposed control and management measures should reduce the potential for long term consequence onabundance of vegetation communities at the regional level and local level and equally be protective ofthreatened species should they be detected during operations.

Site clearance will require approval from DSD (delegate of the Native Vegetation Council). An offset projector payment into the NVC fund will be established as an SEB. Additionally it is expected that vegetation in theaffected areas will recover following completion of operations resulting in a net gain.


Most of the dust impacts will be restricted to the areas cleared for the proposed operations, including openpit, waste rock storage area, process plant and heap leach area, roadways and other site infrastructure.

There are currently no specific guidelines in South Australia relating to the dust deposition impacts onvegetation. Significant deposition on dust can result in a reduction of the ability of the plant photosynthesis.

In the absence of an EPA guideline level for dust deposition for the project a cumulative dust deposition level(baseline plus project generated) of 4 g/m2/month has been selected as representative of impact. Modellingundertaken for the project (refer to Section 7.6 and Appendix K) provides an indication of the aerial extent forthis level. This indicates that the area does not significantly extend outside the proposed clearance for theproject.

It is considered that the proposed management and control measures should mitigate any potentialsignificant impacts due to emission of dust during construction and operations.


The proposed control and management measures will mitigate the potential for significant impacts andshould not result in long term impacts on regional and local vegetation species.

7.2.6.4 Loss of vegetation due to fires

The proposed management measures that included establishment on site of an emergency responsecapability and close liaison with local emergency services and nearby mining operations will reduce thelikelihood for incidences of fires impacting the native vegetation on and off-site.



7.2.7 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria

Tarcoola Gold is committed to the following outcomes during construction and operation of the mine(Table 7.7).

Table 7.7 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – vegetation

ID Draft Outcomes Draft Measurement criteria Leading indicatorcriteria

T1, T2,T3, T4,T5

No permanent loss of abundance ordiversity of native vegetation on or offthe ML through:

n clearancen dust/contamination depositionn fire, orn other damage.

Annual vegetation survey at impactmonitoring sites demonstrates nosignificant difference in abundanceand diversity of vegetation comparedto control monitoring sites (Figure 7.1).

Ground surveys of operational areasdemonstrates that the total clearancedoes not exceed the approvedclearance area.

7.2.8 Monitoring program

Annual vegetation monitoring will be undertaken to enable impacts on vegetation during construction andoperations (if any) to be assessed.

Designated monitoring sites will be compared to control sites and include:

n changes in the abundance, composition or condition of vegetation communitiesn impacts to vegetation due to project activitiesn increase in the density and distribution of known weed infestationn introduction of new weed species.

The monitoring will be undertaken annually in spring during construction and operation to ensure the bestresults and post closure to confirm completion criteria have been complied with.

All vehicles and equipment will be inspected prior to site entry to confirm they are free of adhered soil/mud,plant material and seeds.

Areas likely to be impacted, including roadside areas and cleared areas will be monitored twice per year(soon after clearance and after significant rain events). This will include assessment of the extent of weeddistribution and recording the treatment undertaken.

All areas cleared will be recorded to ensure that the areas cleared are consistent with approved clearance.

Emergency training sessions will be had to ensure there is preparedness in the event of fires.

7.2.9 Significant environmental benefit

A total area of 47.12 ha of native vegetation will be cleared on the Mining Lease for mining operations at theTarcoola Project.

A preliminary breakdown of the calculation for the Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) is provided inTable 7.8 which has been undertaken in accordance with the Native Vegetation Council Guidelines. Thesecalculations will be refined and the SEB ratios confirmed with DSD during the detailed design phase of theproject and preparation of the PEPR.


Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 200 400

Meters Tarcoola Gold ProjectFigure 7.1

Vegetation monitoring locations

Tarcoola

Mine site layoutProposed mineral lease areaVegetation and fauna monitoring site

Vegetation association0. No vegetation1. Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna) Open Shrubland +/-Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) +/- Acacia tarculensis (TarcoolaWattle)2. Casuarina pauper (Black Oak) Very Open Woodland over Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush)3. Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Acacia papyrocarpa (Western Myall) Open Shrubland4. Maireana sedifolia (Bluebush) +/- Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder Saltbush) +/- Maireanaastrotricha(Low Bluebush) Open Shrubland over Sclerolaena obliquicuspis (Oblique-spined Bindyi) and5. Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna)Open Shrubland overRhagodia ulicina (Intricate saltbush), Eremophila spp. (Emu Bush) and Acacia tarculensis6. Acacia aneura (Mulga) +/- Senna artemisioides ssp. coriacea (Broad-leaved Desert Senna)Open Woodland over Maireanasedifolia (Bluebush) and Atriplex vesicaria (Bladder saltbush)7. Maireana appressa (Pale-fruit Bluebush) +/- Sarcozona praecox (Sarcozona) +/-Gunniopsis tenuifolia +/- Tecticornia sp.

1:12,500



www.pbworld.com


\\APADLFIL01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_028_B.mxdWPG Resources



Table 7.8 Significant environmental benefit (SEB) calculations – using weighted average for SEB value

Mine component Area ofclearance

(ha)

ConditionRatingRatio

Requiredlisted

speciesloading %

Set asidearea

Landvalue($/ha)

ClearanceSEB Cost

(A)($)

Managementcost ($/ha)

ManagementSEB Cost

(B)($)

Final SEBvalue

(A + B)($)

Open pit 5.601.380.78

3:14:16:1

000

16.85.524.68

202020

336.00110.4093.60

800800800

4,480.001,104.00624.00

4,816.001,214.40717.60

Waste rock storage 11.985.67

4:16:1

00

47.9234.02

2020

958.40680.40

800800

9,584.004,536.00

10,542.405,216.40

ROM pad 0.81 6:1 0 4.86 20 97.20 800 648.00 745.20

Heap leach pad &process plant

6.841.33

6:18:1

00

41.0410.64

2020

820.80212.80

800800

5,472.001,064.00

6,292.801,276.80

Administrationbuilding andworkshop

2.381.37

6:18:1

00

14.2810.96

2020

285.60219.20

800800

1,904.001,096.00

2,189.601,315.20

On-site roads 1.731.601.09

4:16:18:1

000

6.929.608.72

202020

138.40192.00174.4

800800800

1,,384.001,282.00872.00

1,522.401,472.001,046.40

Water supply 0.160.340.900.01

3:14:16:18:1

0000

0.481.365.400.08

20202020

9.6027.20

108.001.60

800800800800

128.00272.00720.008.00

137.60299.20828.009.60


3.15 6:1 0 18.9 20 378.00 800 2,520.00 2,898.00

Dust deposition 2.8710.4023.53

3:14:16:1

000

8.2431.20

141.18

202020

164.80624.00

2,823.60

800800800

2,296.008,320.0018,824.00

2,460.808,944.00

21,647.60

Total SEB Payment $75,592.00

Note: Protected species loading was not included due to the lack of primary or critical habitat present for the EPBC listed species identified as potentially occurring within the project area.



According to the South Australia’s Valuer General, the ‘value’ of the land is $20/ha which has been used inthe determination of SEB.

There are no specific South Australia guideline levels for the impact of dust deposition on plants. For theproject it has been assumed that impacts could occur where deposition rates exceed 4 g/m2/month. The airquality assessment determined the extent of dust deposition as a result of the mine operations assuming acumulative deposition rate (baseline of 2 g/m2/month plus operations). The contour indicating a cumulativedeposition rate of 4 gm/m2/month for two yearly intervals are indicated in Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3.

Review of the deposition contour plots indicates impacts are restricted to the pit and adjacent mine areasand unlikely to significantly affect surrounding vegetation. Outside this area dust deposition rates arepredicted to be insignificant.

The aerial extent was compared to the area determined for direct vegetation clearance and it indicated thatthere is an additional 36.8 ha of potential dust impact on native vegetation.

Data Source: DPTI, DEWNR, DSD, Esri DigitalGlobe Map No: 2200005A_GIS_018_C

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 500 1,000


Predicted culmulative impacts for monthly deposited dust for Year 1 (g/m2/month)

46

8

1 0

1214

4

R1TARCOOLA

Sensitive receptorPM dust deposition Year 1(g/m2/month)Tarcoola mine planRailwayProposed mineral leasearea

1:40,000



www.pbworld.com



WILGENAHOMESTEAD

MALBOOMAOUTSTATION

CARNDING ROADOUTSTATIONR4

R3 R1

R2

TARCOOLA

4

6

8

10

12 14

16

26

4

Data Source: DPTI, DEWNR, DSD, Esri DigitalGlobe Map No: 2200005A_GIS_019_C

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 500 1,000


Predicted cumulative impacts for monthly deposited dust for Year 3 (g/m2/month)

4

6

8

10

1228

4

R1TARCOOLA

Sensitive receptorPM dust depositioncontour Year 3 (g/m2/month)Tarcoola mine planRailwayProposed mineral leasearea

1:40,000



www.pbworld.com



WILGENAHOMESTEAD

MALBOOMAOUTSTATION


R3 R1R2

TARCOOLA

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2 2

26

30

4



7.3 Fauna


7.3.1.1 Context

This section is based on the autumn and spring fauna surveys undertaken by EBS (Appendix D).

Conservation significant species that were not observed during the survey but could occur in the area includethe Plains Mouse (Pseudomys australis) which is vulnerable under the EPBC Act; the White-browedTreecreeper (Climacteris affinis), Gilbert's Whistler (Pachycephala inornata) and Restless Flycatcher(Myiagra inquieta) which are rare under the NPW Act; Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) which are vulnerableunder the EPBC Act and NPW Act; and Slender-billed Thornbill (western ssp.) (Acanthiza iredalei ssp.iredalei) which is vulnerable under the EPBC Act and rare under the NPW Act.

The Plains Mouse’s preferred habitat, cracking clays, was not found within the site, consequently it is unlikelyto be found within the project area in most seasons, they could potentially be found when the seasons aregood and populations explode at nearby more favourable locations.

There are some areas of potential habit for the White-browed Treecreeper within the site. However, it wouldbe highly unlikely that the species is present, as tree density is low, and as such could be unfavourable forthis species.

Gilbert's Whistler species is widely recorded in mallee in association with an understorey of spinifex and lowshrubs including Acacia sp., Hakea sp. and Senna sp. As none of their preferred mallee habitat exists at theTarcoola site it is very unlikely that this species will inhabit this area.

The Restless Flycatcher is often found in the same habitats as the similarly sized Willie Wagtail, occurring inopen forests, woodlands, farmland, and inland scrub. No Restless Flycatchers were observed at Tarcoola;however as they can be found in a variety of habitats they cannot be discounted.

Malleefowl are principally found in mallee woodland, shrubland and dry forests dominated by eucalypts,Callitris, Mulga and other Acacia spp. It is highly unlikely that Malleefowl occur within the project area basedon the habitats that occur at the site.

Slender-billed Thornbill (western ssp.) generally occur in open habitat such as chenopod shrublanddominated by Samphire, Bluebush and Saltbush associations. Therefore it is unlikely that this species ispresent currently, however the species may move into the area after exceptional breeding events anddispersal from other populations.

The Major Mitchell Cockatoo (Cacatua leadbeateri) which is of State conservation significance was observedin and around the township of Tarcoola. The Major Mitchell Cockatoo may favour the township as it providesa broad range of tree species (endemic and introduced) for food, as well as the ability to source water fromstructures in the town.


The key stakeholder is DEWNR in terms of potential impacts to fauna. Other stakeholders include theCommonwealth Department of the Environment and the South Australian Arid Lands (SAAL) NaturalResource Management (NRM) Board.




The relevant legislation includes:

n Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999n Natural Resources Management Act 2004n National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.


7.3.3.1 Impact event analysis – fauna

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts to fauna. A detailed discussion is included inthe following sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9 Impact event analysis – fauna


Consequences


Loss of habitat Fauna Reduction in fauna speciesdiversity and abundance


Loss of habitat Fauna Significant impact on Stateand EPBC threatenedspecies

T8 Construction andoperations

Noise, vibration andlight spill

Fauna Reduced health andwellbeing of fauna

T9 Construction and operation(i.e. trenches, dams andpits)

Entrapment Fauna Reduction in fauna speciesdiversity and abundance

T10 Use of vehicles and mobileequipment duringconstruction and operation

Collisions Fauna Reduction in fauna speciesdiversity and abundance

T11 Fires generated as a resultof construction andoperations

Spread of fire tovegetated areasexternal to lease

Fauna Reduction in fauna speciesdiversity and abundance dueto injury and death

T12 Transport of NaCN Spillage andingestion

Fauna Reduction in fauna speciesdiversity and abundance

T13 NaCN in process ponds Ingestion or contactwith process liquids


T14 NaCN that ponds on top ofheap leach

Ingestion or contactwith process liquids


T15 NaCN that ponds on sidesof heap leach

Ingestion or contactwith process liquids




7.3.3.2 Loss of fauna habitat and diversity resulting in impacts to species

Vegetation clearing associated with construction and operation of the mine (including dust deposition) couldreduce available habitat for fauna.


No threatened species were noted during the survey. Conservation significant species that could occur in thearea include the Plains Mouse (Pseudomys australis) which is vulnerable under the EPBC Act; the White-browed Treecreeper (Climacteris affinis), Gilbert's Whistler (Pachycephala inornata) and Restless Flycatcher(Myiagra inquieta) which are rare under the NPW Act; Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) which are vulnerableunder the EPBC Act and NPW Act; and Slender-billed Thornbill (western ssp.) (Acanthiza iredalei ssp.iredalei) which is vulnerable under the EPBC Act and rare under the NPW Act.

EBS concluded that the project was unlikely to have a significant impact on flora and fauna matters ofnational significance and therefore a referral under the EPBC Act 1999 should not be required. On this basisit is considered that impacts on threatened species is not a credible impact and will not be consideredfurther.

7.3.3.4 Noise, vibration and light spill impacting fauna

Construction and operation activities will produce noise, vibration and light spill on and around the projectarea.

Without control mechanisms, this has the potential to impact on the local fauna species abundance anddistribution with some fauna having to move temporarily away from the area.

7.3.3.5 Entrapment of fauna in trenches and pits

Native fauna may become trapped within trenches, pits and open storages. Entrapment may be exacerbatedby the construction of open water storage which is likely to attract fauna to the site. Entrapment withintrenches, dams or pits may result in injury or death of individual animals.

7.3.3.6 Collision of mining traffic with native fauna

Native fauna may be injured by mining traffic on site and along the access road from Tarcoola. This mayresult in a loss of injury or death of individual animals. As the occurrence is expected to be restricted toindividual animals, significant impacts are not expected.

In addition there is potential for fauna to be impacted by aircraft used for FIFO. It is considered thatsignificant impacts are unlikely to occur as fauna would in most cases be deterred by the aircraft noise so willnot be considered further as it is deemed to be an unrealistic risk.

7.3.3.7 Transport of sodium cyanide

Sodium cyanide will be transported to the site in pellet form or in reusable isotainers. If there are accidentsalong the transport route and there is spillage there is potential for ingestion of the material either directly orthrough the ingestion of contaminated water.



7.3.3.8 Attraction of fauna to process water containing CN in heap leach operations

The heap leach operations will require establishment of process ponds which will contain CN in solution andthere could accumulation of leaching solutions on the surface and base of the sides of the heap leachstockpiles.

These conditions could impact fauna including birds through the attraction to what would appear to be awater supply and subsequent ingestion.

7.3.3.9 Impact on fauna due to fires

There is potential for loss of fauna if fires occur as a result of construction and mining operations and spreadto vegetated areas on the ML and to adjacent areas.


7.3.4.1 Loss of fauna habitat and diversity resulting in impacts to species

The impacts on fauna due to clearing of native vegetation leading to a reduction in fauna habitat may bereduced by implementing the following control and management strategies:

n where practicable minimise clearance through careful placement of mine infrastructure and projectcomponents

n include fencing where appropriaten a native vegetation management plan and mine rehabilitation and closure plan will be developed and

will outline approach for progressive rehabilitationn SEB offset will also be established for the project.


The clearing of native vegetation and reduction in fauna habitat may be reduced by implementing thefollowing control and management strategies:

n develop and implement a species specific monitoring and management plan, targeting those EPBC andNPW listed species known, or considered likely, to occur within the region

n protect critical habitat for threatened speciesn conduct monitoring of permanent fauna survey sitesn utilise low-impact construction methods where applicablen provision of funding to support recovery objectives and actions for threatened speciesn inclusion of species identification and management practices in site induction training material.

7.3.4.3 Noise, vibration and light impacts

The impacts of noise, vibration and light spill may be reduced by implementing the following control andmanagement strategies:

n noise abatement measures will be included in the design of on-site infrastructure such as generatorsand material handling machinery

n machinery will be regularly serviced in accordance with manufacturing requirementsn use of directional lights targeted to work areas and for safety managementn design blasting activities to limit noise and vibration levels and to be consistent with Australian

standards.



7.3.4.4 Entrapment of fauna in trenches, ponds and pits

This impact can be reduced by implementing the following control and management strategies:

n construction will be scheduled to minimise time period excavations are left openn inspect open excavations, work areas and water storage areas for trapped faunan consider temporary fencing as appropriate.

7.3.4.5 Fauna collisions due to mine related activities

These impacts can be reduced by the following control and management strategies:

n design roads to use existing tracks (as far as practicable)n fencing included where appropriaten road speeds on haulage and access roads will be restrictedn implement traffic movement restrictions to only site access roads and public roadsn timing of haulage movements will be considered and minimised (where possible) during early morning

and late evening.


The risks of impact to fauna will be significantly reduced by adopting management and monitoringprocedures consistent with the requirements of SafeWork SA and ensuring that all transport vehicles haveappropriate spill containment/cleanup kits.


Attraction of fauna (including avifauna) to the process ponds can be reduced by implementing the followingcontrol and management strategies:

n fauna abundance will be regularly monitoredn consider the need for fencing around process ponds in the detailed designn research and implement avifauna deterrent techniques and implement if required to discourage

avifauna from accessing process pondsn application rates of leaching solutions are controlled to not result in ponding on the surfacen irrigation infrastructure design does not result in overspray and accumulation at the external base of

heap leach stockpile.

7.3.4.8 Impact on fauna due to fire

The likelihood and consequence may be reduced by implementing the control and management strategies:

n provide and maintain emergency response capability during mining operations (including training, mockincidents)

n review procedures and undertake ongoing liaison with local emergency services and nearby miningoperations.





Table 7.10 Risk assessment – fauna





T6, T7

Reduced native faunaspecies diversity andabundance due toreduction invegetation habitat

Unlikely Minor Low Mining and ancillary operations designed toreduce clearing requirements and impacts.

Implementation of best practice progressiverehabilitation programs and subsequent protectionand monitoring of rehabilitated areas. SignificantEnvironmental Benefit (SEB) Offset. Threatenedspecies monitoring during operations.

An appropriately qualified and experiencedspecialist will assess whether there have been anynet adverse impacts on native fauna species.

Unlikely Minor Low

T8

Reduction in nativefauna speciesdiversity andabundance duringoperations due tonoise, vibration orlight.

Unlikely Minor Low Implementation of Noise Management Plan.

Include noise abatement design measures for on-site infrastructure, generators, machinery andmaterials handling machinery. Service machineryin accordance with manufacturing regulations.

Maintain noise abatement devices on mineinfrastructure and mobile machinery/vehicles.

Use of directional lights targeted to work areas andfor safety management.

Design blasting activities to limit the frequency asmuch as practicable.

An appropriately qualified and experiencedspecialist will assess whether there have been anynet adverse impacts on native fauna species.

Unlikely Minor Low

T9

Construction or mineoperation resulting inentrapment of faunaor barriers tomovement

Unlikely Minor Low Schedule construction activities to minimise timeperiod of open trenches.Include fencing in design where appropriate.

Inspect mine work areas and water storages fortrapped fauna.

Unlikely Minor Low







T10

Vehicle collisions withsignificant faunacausing death orinjury

Unlikely Minor Low Design roads to use existing tracks (as far aspracticable).

Include fencing in the design where appropriate.

Timing of construction vehicle movements to beconsidered and minimised during earlymorning/late evening (where possible).

Implement speed restrictions for all mine and mineaccess roads.

Implement traffic movement restrictions to onlyaccess and public roads.

Site induction to include requirements forcompliance with Section 13 of the Animal WelfareAct and Animal Welfare Regulations 2012.

Unlikely Minor Low

T11

Loss of fauna fromfires as a result ofconstruction andmining operations

Possible Moderate High Compliance with AS 5062-2006. Fire protection ofmobile and transportable equipment.Provide emergency response capability at mine.

Liaise with local emergency services and nearbymining operations.Undertake training and mock incidents.

Unlikely Minor Low

T12

Fauna injury or deathdue to spillage andingestion of NaCNduring transport

Possible Minor Moderate Implementation of Hazardous ChemicalsTransport Management Plan. Storage andmanagement of cyanide will comply with SafeWorkSA requirements and Australian Standards.

Site and specific area inductions will outline therisks associated with cyanide. Specific operatingprocedures will be developed for storage andmanagement of cyanide.

Training of contractors and personnel inemergency procedures in the event of spills.

Unlikely Minor Low







T13

Death, injury orillness to faunaconsumingcontaminated waterfrom process ponds

Possible Minor Moderate Research avifauna deterrent techniques andimplement avifauna deterrent techniques ifrequired.

Consider need for fencing.

Monitor and inspect regularly

Unlikely Minor Low

T14

Death, injury orillness to faunaconsumingcontaminated waterthat ponds on top ofheap leach stockpile

Possible Minor Moderate Application rates of leaching solutions arecontrolled to not result in ponding on the surface.

Research avifauna deterrent techniques andimplement avifauna deterrent techniques ifrequired.Monitor and inspect regularly.

Unlikely Minor Low

T15

Death, injury orillness to faunaconsumingcontaminated waterthat ponds at thebase of the sides ofthe heap leachstockpile

Possible Minor Moderate Irrigation infrastructure design does not result inoverspray and accumulation at the external baseof heap leach stockpile.

Research avifauna deterrent techniques andimplement avifauna deterrent techniques ifrequired.

Monitor and inspect regularly.

Unlikely Minor Low




7.3.6.1 Loss of fauna habitat resulting in impacts to species

While some of the habitat will be lost as a result of clearance for the mine and associated infrastructure it islikely that fauna will relocate to similar habitat outside the ML area.

The mine is expected to operate for a period up to 4 years after which rehabilitation will be completed. It istherefore concluded that the impacts will not lead to a decline in local fauna populations.

EBS concluded that the project was unlikely to have a significant impact on flora and fauna matters ofnational significance and therefore a referral under the EPBC Act 1999 should not be required.

7.3.6.2 Noise, vibration and light impacts

Noise, ground vibration and lighting during the night could result in relocation of fauna species and areduction in species abundance.

The mine is expected to operate for a period up to 4 years after which rehabilitation will be completed. It istherefore concluded that the impacts will not lead to a significant decline in local populations.

7.3.6.3 Entrapment of fauna in trenches, dams and pits

While there could be some impacts these are considered to be low and should not lead to a decline in localpopulations.

7.3.6.4 Fauna collisions due to mine related incidents



While there could be some impacts these are considered to be low with the implementation of appropriatemanagement measures and should not lead to a decline in local populations.



The process water is highly saline so while there may be an initial tasting of the accumulated process liquid itis unlikely that a significant quantity would be consumed by fauna result in a decline in fauna attracted to theprocess ponds or pools (if any) located on the top and sides of the heap leach stockpile.

7.3.6.7 Impact on fauna due to fires

The proposed management measures that included establishment on site of an emergency responsecapability and close liaison with local emergency services and nearby mining operations will reduce thelikelihood for incidences of fires impacting fauna on and off-site.





Table 7.11 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – fauna


T10,T11,T13,T14,T15

No native fauna injuries or death causedby mining operations (including fire) thatcould have been reasonably prevented.

Records of and investigations of faunainjuries or deaths on the MLdemonstrate that the mine operator didnot cause or could not havereasonably prevented the injury ordeath from occurring.

Results of regular site inspectionsdemonstrate that fixed lighting meetsthe requirements of AS 4282-1997control of the obtrusive effects ofoutdoor lighting.

T12 No adverse impact to fauna as a resultof transport and use of NaCN.

Records of ongoing audits confirmimplementation of Hazardousmaterials Management Plan asapproved by SafeWork SA.


Monitoring will be undertaken to assess any impacts on fauna and threatened species due to constructionand operations. This will be at control sites within the adjacent area and within the ML. Monitoring of injuriesor death to fauna as a result of the heap leach operations ( process ponds, accumulation of process liquids(if any) on top and sides of heap leach stockpiles).

Emergency training sessions will be had to ensure there is preparedness in the event of fires.



7.4 Weeds, pests (animals) and pathogens


7.4.1.1 Context

The incidence of exotic flora species within the project area was low, with most occurrences observed in thevicinity of the rail corridor, mainly in culverts and areas where run-off collects. The exotic species recordedduring the autumn survey were (Appendix D):

n Century Plant (Agave americana)n Ward’s Weed (Carrichtera annua)n Saffron Thistle (Carthamus lanatus)n Buffel Grass (Cenchrus ciliaris)n Malta Thistle (Centaurea melitensis)n Bitter Melon (Citrulus sp.)n Paddy Melon (Cucumis myriocarpus)n Galenia (Galenia secunda)n Sunflower (Helianthus annuus)n Prickly Pear (Opuntia sp.)n Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora)n Pepper Tree (Schimus molle).

Pest animal species detected during the autumn and spring surveys include foxes, rabbits and commonhouse mice.


There were no specific stakeholder views expressed which would impact project development during theconsultation process.


The following acts are relevant for ongoing management of groundwater resources include:

n Mining Act 1971n Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999n Natural Resources Management Act 2004n National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.


7.4.3.1 Impact event analysis weeds, pest (animals) and pathogens

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts to vegetation. A detailed discussion isincluded in the following sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.12.



Table 7.12 Impact event analysis – weeds, pests and pathogens


Consequences

T16,T17

Disturbed areas due toconstruction and operationand use of un-clean plantand equipment

Establishment of newweed species andpathogens indisturbed areas (soildisturbance)

Native vegetation Competition of weedspecies and pathogens withnative vegetation andimpact on vegetationspecies diversity andabundance

Introduction of new weedspecies

T18 Accumulation of water as aresult construction andoperation drainagemeasures

Weed establishmentin artificially wetareas

Native vegetation Competition of weedspecies and pathogens withnative vegetation andimpact on vegetationspecies diversity andabundance

T19 Accumulation of water andwaste management as aresult construction andoperation

Water and foodsources

Fauna Increase in abundance ofexisting pest animal speciesand introduction of new pestanimals species

7.4.3.2 Establishment of weeds in disturbed areas following clearance and brought onto site by vehicles and plant

A number of weed species were identified during the flora and fauna survey undertaken by EBS (refer toSection 7.2.1.1 and Appendix D). The establishment and operation of the mine will result in clearance ofvegetation and disturbance of near surface soil. These conditions provide a competitive advantage to weedspecies and may result in the spread of weed species to cleared areas. The movement of vehicles on thesite could also result in spreading of weed species from one area of the site to another.

It will be the responsibility of Tarcoola Gold to implement control measures to reduce the potential for weedpropagation and dispersal from construction activities during and operations.

While the likely impacts are considered to be minimal on the site it will also be important to ensure thatweeds are not transferred to other parts of the surrounding area.

7.4.3.3 Weed establishment in artificially wet areas

The mine construction and operation would include changes to the water regimes within the site including:

n construction of open water storage areas e.g. run-off sedimentation pondsn wetting of soil to minimise airborne dustn altered flow volumes, frequencies and regimes as a result of road drainage.

These altered environmental conditions provide conditions which could favour introduced species and couldresult in the establishment of weeds in these artificially wet areas.

7.4.3.4 Introduction of pest species (feral animals)

Disturbance and mining activities within the site, including rehabilitation works could attract and providesuitable conditions for the further spread of feral animals including herbivorous pests such as rabbits. Thedestruction of native flora by these feral animals could result in decreased vegetation cover and limit thesuccess of revegetation and rehabilitation of the site.




7.4.4.1 Establishment of weeds in disturbed areas and brought onto site by vehiclesand plant

Establishment of weeds may be reduced by implementing the following control and management strategies:

n implementation of a program for staged clearance; ensuring clearance occurs immediately prior todevelopment and within designated areas

n site induction to include identification of weed speciesn active management and control of weeds in newly cleared areasn earth moving machinery and equipment are cleaned prior to entering and leaving the siten inspect construction and operation areas for weed outbreaks after rainfall and regularly monitor areas

with high potential for weed outbreakn protect topsoil stockpiles from weed infestationn consultation with pastoralist to identify any further weed speciesn conduct annual flora and fauna surveys to demonstrate no increase in invasive species and abundancen restrict traffic to established site roadsn monitor vegetation impacts.

7.4.4.2 Weed establishment in artificially wet areas

Establishment of weeds may be reduced by implementing the following control and management strategies:

n sewage treatment facilities designed in accordance with EPA and Department for Health requirementsand maintained in accordance with design and manufacturers requirements

n conduct annual flora surveys and note the presence or increase in weed species or diversityn a weed eradication program will be developed and implemented for the site.

7.4.4.3 Introduction of pest species (feral animals)

The impacts of introduced feral (pest) species can be reduced by implementing the following control andmanagement strategies:

n designing and locating roads and drainage to reduce the potential for water pooling and providing asource of drinking water

n undertake inspection of mine site areas likely to harbor pest speciesn implementation of a waste management plan to ensure no sources of foodn liaise with NRM Board in relation to control and eradication measuren implement eradication programs.





Table 7.13 Risk assessment – weeds, pests (animals) and pathogens





T16, T17

Establishment ofweed species andpathogens andintroduction of newweed species andpathogens indisturbed areas (soildisturbance) and useof un-clean plant andequipment

Possible Minor Moderate Implementation of a program for staged clearance;ensuring clearance occurs immediately prior todevelopment and within designated areas.

Site induction to include identification of weedspecies.

Active management and control of weeds in newlycleared areas.

Earth moving machinery and equipment is cleanedprior to entering and leaving the site.

Inspect construction and operation areas for weedoutbreaks after rainfall and regularly monitor areaswith high potential for weed outbreak.

Consultation with neighbouring pastoralists toidentify any further weed species.

Restrict traffic to established site roads.

Unlikely Minor Low

T18

Establishment ofexisting weed speciesand pathogens andintroduction of newspecies andpathogens inartificially wet areas(drainage areas)

Possible Minor Moderate Design site surface water management tominimise water pooling.

Implement Weed Management Plan duringoperations, and monitor for weed establishment inareas of disturbance during mine life

A weed eradication program will be developed andimplemented for the site.

Unlikely Minor Low







T19

Increased abundanceof introduced pest(animal) species andnew pest animalspecies as a result ofaccumulation waterand wastemanagement duringconstruction andoperations

Unlikely Minor Low Site roads and drainage to reduce the potential forwater pooling and creation of water source.Implement waste management measures toensure no sources of food.

Undertake inspection of mine site areas likely toharbor pest species (buildings, waste storageareas).

Liaise with NRM Board in relation to control oreradication measures for introduced pest species.

Implement eradication program.

Unlikely Minor Low




7.4.6.1 Establishment of weeds in disturbed and artificially wet areas

The proposed control and management measures that include limiting the extent of clearance andvegetation disturbance and the regular monitoring program and eradication of emergent weeds will reducethe likelihood for significant increases in the density and distribution of weeds.

7.4.6.2 Introduction of feral species (pests)

Introduced species are currently present in the proposed ML and adjoining areas. The proposed control andmanagement measures will provide for the control of feral (pest) species and the density and distribution isunlikely to increase significantly or to an extent that cannot be managed.



Table 7.14 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – weeds, pests and pathogens

ID Draft Outcomes Draft Measurement criteria Leading indicator criteria

T16,T17,T18,T19

No increased abundance orintroduction of new or sustainedincrease in abundance of existingweed or pest and/or pathogenspecies on the ML or adjoiningproperty.

Annual survey of cleared andoperational areas for weedestablishment indicate no newweed or pest and/or pathogenspecies incursions or increase inweed density or distributioncompared to control sites(Figure 7.1).

Records of pathogens identifiedwithin the site and measurestaken kept on site to demonstrateappropriate actions have beentaken.

Inspection records for vehiclesand machinery demonstrate thatall vehicles and machinery havebeen certified as clean beforeoperating on site.


Monitoring will be undertaken to assess any impacts due to construction and operations. This will be atcontrol sites within the adjacent area and within the ML.



7.5 Groundwater


7.5.1.1 Context

Groundwater in the area can occur as three aquifer types:

n near surface aquifers in unconsolidated sedimentsn palaeochannels (unconsolidated sediments deposited in ancient river channels)n fractured rocks.

The near surface aquifers can occur in sandy soils and calcrete layers but are generally discontinuous andmay only contain water following prolonged rainfall as a result of surface runoff and ponding. No groundwaterwas observed in the near surface sediments.

The Kingoonya Palaeochannel occurs to the north, west and south of the Tarcoola Gold Project and containsgroundwater, particularly in the sandier units.

Fractured rock aquifers occur within granitic and sedimentary rocks from the Hiltaba Suite and TarcoolaFormation respectively at depths of around 30 m below ground surface. The aquifers are characterised byhigh variability in hydraulic conductivity and are saline in water quality.

Groundwater in the Tarcoola area is not a “prescribed water source” under the NRM Act 2004.

Various types of waste will be generated as a result of construction and operation of the project, including,construction wastes, commercial and industrial wastes, process and hazardous wastes. Mismanagement ofwaste could lead to contamination of groundwater.

Heap leach processing operations will include a pregnant liquor pond and will have residual cyanide levelsthat could impact groundwater if significant seepage occurs.

Fuel and chemical will be stored on site and refuelling of pumps for the water supply, for earthmovingequipment and the power station will also be required.

The processing operation will require an assured water supply that will be extracted from fractured rockaquifers on or close to the proposed ML.


Stakeholders include the DEWNR (impact on existing groundwater users and groundwater dependentecosystems), EPA (groundwater contamination), pastoralists (impact on existing water supplies).

Meetings were held with representatives of DEWNR, EPA and the pastoralists of Wilgena and Mulgathingstations. The following key stakeholder issues were raised:

n Concerns about the impact of water quality and extraction at the project site on existing stock wellsnorth, west and east of the project site.




The following acts are relevant for ongoing management of groundwater resources include:

n Mining Act 1971n Natural Resources Management Act 2004n Environment Protection Act 1993n Dangerous Substance Act 1979n Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2012.


7.5.3.1 Impact event analysis groundwater

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts to groundwater. A detailed discussion isincluded in the following sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.15. Impacts related toacid rock drainage are included in Section 7.7.

Table 7.15 Impact event analysis – groundwater


Consequences

T20 Water supply bores Extraction ofgroundwater forwater supply

Existing groundwaterusers and GDE

Reduction in groundwaterquantity in local pastoralbores and impact on GDE.

T21 Open pit dewatering Mining activities Existing groundwaterusers and GDE

Reduction in groundwaterquantity in local pastoralbores and impact on GDE.

T22 Storage and use of fueland chemicals at mine siteand/or borefield.

Spills and leakage Existing groundwaterusers and GDE

Contamination ofgroundwater and impact onGDE.

T23 NaCN in heap Leachoperations (leach pad,process ponds)

Seepage togroundwater



T24 Transport of NaCN Spills and seepage Existing groundwaterusers and GDE


7.5.3.2 Reduction in groundwater availability in local pastoral bores and impact on GDEdue to bore development and dewatering

The development of water supply bores and mine dewatering could result in a reduction in groundwaterlevels in the area surrounding the open pit. This could affect local pastoral bores in the region and impactgroundwater dependent ecosystems.

The locations of groundwater monitoring bores within the ML which will be used during mining operationsand post closure and interpreted pit dewatering drawdown area of influence is indicated in Figure 7.4. Crosssection indicating the groundwater drawdown and interpretive geology are included in Figure 7.5 andFigure 7.6. The monitoring bores have been sited to provide a combination of broad coverage within the MLand in proximity to key infrastructure (WRF, heap leach and processing area).

Data source: PIRSA 2008, Figure provided by Jacobs Map no: 2200005A_GIS_017_BTarcoola Gold Project

Figure 7.4Location of pastoral bores, drawdown area of influence and monitoring locations

Inset: Monitoring locations

GW9

GW8GW7

GW3

GW4

GW6

GW5

GW2

GW1

www.pbworld.com


WPG Resources \\APADLFIL01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_017_B.mxd


Cross section alignment


Map no: 2200005A_GIS_081_B


WPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_081_B.mxd www.pbworld.com

www.pbworld.com


Cross sections


Map no: 2200005A_GIS_082_A





Geological logs from SARIG were used by Jacobs to infer hydrostratigraphic units for each pastoral bore(Table 7.16).

Table 7.16 Information on pastoral bores

Well name Boredepth (m)

Depth towater

Availabledrawdown

(m)

Interpreted unit TDS(mg/L)

Yield(L/s)

Welcome well 33 – – KingoonyaPalaeochannel

7,000 0.6

Campbells bore(Peela)

84 44 40 Tarcoola Formation 5,000 –

South bore 90 45 45 Tarcoola Formation 3,400 1.5

Konkaby bore 38 – – Hiltaba Suite Granite 3,400 0.4

Pompeter bore 40 – – Hiltaba Suite Granite 9,000 –

Pinding Westbore

39 26 13 Hiltaba Suite Granite 5,000 –

Konkaby bore and Pompeter bore have been interpreted to be abstracting groundwater from the HiltabaSuite Granite and Welcome well is interpreted to be abstracting groundwater from the KingoonyaPalaeochannel. South bore and Campbells bore are interpreted to be abstracting groundwater from theregional Tarcoola Formation. Although these wells are inferred to be in the same aquifer as the proposedproject wellfield (TW1P to TW4P), it is likely that the Kingoonya palaeodrainage (Hou, 2004) (Figure 7.4)provides a separation in the Tarcoola Formation between the wellfield and pastoral wells. This aquiferseparation is supported by the salinity variation, 3,400 to 5,000 mg/L in the pastoral wells and the>100,000 mg/L in the proposed wellfield.

Assuming the worst case scenario and hydraulic connection exists between the pastoral wells and wellfield,the Theis (1935) solution indicates that it is unlikely there will be any drawdown within the pastoral bores onthe Wilgena or Mulgathing pastoral leases as these wells are located outside of the estimated radius ofinfluence of both the open pit and proposed borefield. This assessment is considered to be very conservativeas it assumes the aquifer has infinite areal extent and is homogeneous, isotropic and of uniform thickness.Despite the predicted worst case drawdown, both South bore and Campbells bore reportedly have up to 40m of available drawdown and, hence, operation of the wellfield (if hydraulic connection exists) would notsignificantly impact ongoing abstraction from the pastoral wells.

Based on the high salinity of the groundwater it is unlikely that groundwater dependent ecosystems would beaffected.

There are several playa lakes and salinas to the north and south of the Tarcoola Project. The playas areinundated and fill with fresh water following large rainfall events. It is considered that these playa lakes mayprovide, at best, a temporary refuge for migratory birds when flooded, but groundwater discharge is unlikelyto support ecologically significant ecosystems. Jacobs indicated that there could be a hydraulic connectionbetween the Tarcoola Formation and the regional paleochannel, but given the lower project water demand of10 L/s it was unlikely that there would be a significant effect on volumes of water within the palaeochannel.The high salinity (>35,000 mg/L) of the palaeochannel would preclude most beneficial uses.

7.5.3.3 Contamination of groundwater as a result of seepage from the pregnant liquorpond and heap leach operation and impact on GDE

Seepage from the heap leach stockpile and pregnant liquor ponds could occur. The construction of the heapleach pad involves the installation of a double lining system that includes a compacted low permeability clay



liner overlain by a HDPE geomembrane. The pregnant liquor pond includes a double HDPE liner and leakdetection system between the liners. On this basis the potential for significant leakage that could impactgroundwater is considered to be low.

Cyanide undergoes degradation in the environment through a range of processes including volatilisation,precipitation, chemical decomposition, adsorption, photolytic reactions and microbial degradation.

In addition to the natural attenuation processes indicated above cyanide concentrations can be reducedduring seepage by adsorption on clay minerals and also reduced through the mixing, dilution and dispersionin groundwater (if seepage reaches groundwater).

The impacts are likely to be negligible as the groundwater is located about 30 m below ground surface andthere is a reasonable thickness of weathered siltstone of low permeability to attenuate chemicals.

7.5.3.4 Contamination of groundwater from chemical and fuel products

Contamination of soil could occur as a result of spills or leakage from the following sources:

n chemical use and/or storagen fuel use and/or storage.

7.5.3.5 Contamination of groundwater during transport of sodium cyanide

Contamination of groundwater could occur if there are traffic accidents involving vehicles during the transportof sodium cyanide to the site.


7.5.4.1 Reduction in groundwater availability in local pastoral bores and impact on GDEdue to bore development and mine dewatering

Potential impacts would be mitigated by implementing the following control and management strategies:

n A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented during operations to monitor potential impacts.Specifically monitoring would include the areas to the east, south west and south east of the proposedmine site (Figure 7.4) and all surrounding pastoralist bores where they are accessible. The monitoringprogram will be further developed through the PEPR process.

n Implementation of remedial action if there is a measurable trend in the reduction in water levelsattributable to the mine operations, which could include deepening of existing wells or provision ofalternative water supply.

7.5.4.2 Contamination of groundwater as a result of seepage from pregnant liquor pondand heap leach operations and impact on GDE

The likelihood and consequence may be significantly reduced by implementing the following control andmanagement strategies:

n the design will include the establishment of a HDPE double lining system in the pregnant liquor pondand combined HDPE and compacted clay lining system for the heap leach pad

n development and implementation of a heap leach operation plann implementation of a groundwater monitoring programn implementation of remedial action if there is a measureable trend in a decrease in water quality

attributable to the mine operations.



7.5.4.3 Contamination of groundwater from chemicals and fuels


n fuel, oil and chemical storage will be designed and maintained in accordance with EPA and AustralianStandards as appropriate

n regular inspections will be undertaken to ensure integrity of bunded and spill containment areas andcorrect use of storage and distribution areas

n chemical and fuel management procedures will be developed and include emergency response andclean up requirements

n implementation of a groundwater monitoring program.


The risks of impact to groundwater will be significantly reduced by adopting management and monitoringprocedures consistent with the requirements of SafeWork SA and ensuring that all transport vehicles haveappropriate spill containment/cleanup kits.





Table 7.17 Risk assessment – groundwater





T20, T21

Reduction ingroundwateravailability and qualityin local pastoral boresas a result of boredevelopment andmine dewatering

Unlikely Minor Low Implementation of Groundwater MonitoringProgram of water levels in monitoring bores andpastoral bores.

Implementation of remedial action and alternativeaction plan if there is a significant reduction in watersupply of pastoral bores attributable to miningoperations which could include deepening existingpastoral wells or provision of new water supply.

It should be noted that groundwater users are asignificant distance from the operations andanalytical modelling indicates no impacts.

Unlikely Insignificant Low

T22

Contamination ofgroundwater and lossof environmentalvalues as a result ofspills or leaks fromstorage and use offuel and chemicals

Unlikely Minor Low Storage of fuel, oil and chemical storage inaccordance with EPA and Australian Standards.

Maintain fuel, oil and chemical storage areas ingood operating condition during operations.

Undertake regular inspections of areas to ensureintegrity of bunded and spill containment areas,housekeeping and correct use of storage anddistribution areas.

Develop and implement chemical and fuelmanagement procedures including emergencyresponse and clean up requirements.

Implement a program to monitor groundwaterquality including nearby pastoral bores.








T23

Contamination ofgroundwater andimpact on GDE as aresult seepage frompregnant liquor pondand heap leachoperations

Unlikely Minor Low Design will include the establishment of a HDPEdouble lining system in pregnant liquor pond andcombined HDPE and compacted clay lining systemfor the heap leach pad.

Implementation of groundwater monitoring programof quality in monitoring bores and pastoral bores.

Implementation of remedial action if there is anincreasing trend in the reduction in water quality ofpastoral bores (e.g. provide alternative watersupply.

Unlikely Minor Low

T24

Contamination ofgroundwater andimpact on GDE dueto spills and seepageassociated withtransport of NaCN

Unlikely Minor Low Implementation of Hazardous Chemicals TransportManagement Plan. Storage and management ofcyanide will comply with SafeWork SArequirements and Australian Standards.

Site and specific area inductions will outline therisks associated with cyanide. Specific operatingprocedures will be developed for storage andmanagement of cyanide.

Training of contractors and personnel in emergencyprocedures in the event of spills.

Unlikely Minor Low




7.5.6.1 Reduction in groundwater availability in local pastoral bores and groundwaterdependent ecosystems due to bore development and mine dewatering

Groundwater below the site has a salinity ranging from 15,700 mg/L to 25,700 mg/L TDS and therefore is notsuitable for potable water and stock watering. Higher salinities of 40,000 mg/L to >100,000 mg/L occur inareas south of Tarcoola Ridge near the rail corridor.

The nearest bore used by the Mulgathing pastoralist is located about 11 km from the proposed open pit and13 km from the groundwater extraction wells. The nearest bore used by the Wilgena pastoralist is located11 km from the groundwater extraction wells and 13 km from the open pit. Modelling of dewatering of theopen pit and extraction of groundwater for operations suggests that the wells would not be significantlyimpacted by open pit dewatering or water supply extraction (Figure 7.4).

The primary risk level for impacts on existing groundwater users is low and normally no specific outcomesand measurement criteria are developed. Given the concern of the local pastoralists Tarcoola Gold hasdeveloped outcomes and measurement criteria. The residual risk is considered to be low.

7.5.6.2 Contamination of groundwater as a result of seepage from pregnant liquor pondand heap leach operations and impact on GDE

The design includes the establishment of a HDPE double lining system in pregnant liquor pond with leakdetection and combined HDPE and compacted clay lining system for the heap leach pad. Analyticalmodelling indicates a negligible rate of seepage, assuming conservative parameters (Section 4.7.6).

Groundwater below the site was intersected at 30 m below ground surface, has a salinity of about15,700 mg/L to 25,700 mg/L TDS and is not suitable for potable water and stock watering. Higher salinities of40,000 mg/L to >100,000 mg/L occur in areas south of Tarcoola Ridge near the rail corridor. Therefore it isreasonably expected that potential heavy metal contaminants would be attenuated through adsorption in theclay foundations.

Cyanide undergoes degradation in the environment through a range of processes including volatilisation,precipitation, chemical decomposition, adsorption, photolytic reactions and microbial degradation.

On the basis of the high salinities in local aquifers it is considered that vegetation communities andecosystems are not reliant on groundwater from these sediments and fractured rock aquifers.

On the basis of this assessment it is concluded that the residual risks are acceptably low.

7.5.6.3 Contamination of groundwater from chemicals and fuels

Groundwater below the site was intersected at 30 m below ground surface, has a salinity of about15,700 mg/L to 25,700 mg/L TDS and is not suitable for potable water and stock watering. Higher salinities of40,000 mg/L to >100,000 mg/L occur in areas south of Tarcoola Ridge near the rail corridor.


The proposed control and management strategies are considered to be acceptable to mitigate potentialimpact on groundwater quality.

As the primary risk level for impacts on existing groundwater users is low no specific outcomes andmeasurement criteria have been developed.




The risks of impact to groundwater are considered to be low given the proposed management measures anddepth to groundwater. The primary risk level was determined to be low.

7.5.7 Outcomes and measurement criteria


Table 7.18 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – groundwater

ID Draft Outcomes Draft Measurement criteria Leading indicator criteriaT20,T21

No adverse impact to thequantity of groundwater toexisting users andgroundwater dependentecosystems caused bymining operations.

Quarterly monitoring ofgroundwater levels/drawdown inthird party bores are within 10% ofbaseline levels (Figure 7.4).Frequency of monitoring reducedto six monthly after one year.

Quarterly monitoring of groundwaterlevels in monitoring bores within theML (Figure 7.4) are within 10% ofmodelled levels.

T22,T23

No adverse impact to thequality of groundwater toexisting users andgroundwater dependentecosystems caused bymining operations.

Quarterly monitoring ofparameters (CN wad, thiocyanate,pH, Ec, TDS, anions, cations,nitrate and heavy metals) in thirdparty groundwater bores(Figure 7.4) indicates groundwaterquality is within 10% of baselinewater quality. Frequency ofmonitoring reduced to six monthlyafter one year.

No increasing trend in parameters(CNwad, thiocyanate, pH, Ec) inmonitoring bores within the ML(Figure 7.4).Records demonstrate that all CNspills within the lease areas arerecorded, reported to the EPA,SafeWork SA and DSD (as required)and clean up actions completed, inaccordance with Emergency and SpillManagement Plan.


A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented to determine changes in groundwater quality (if any)and drawdown levels to assess impacts on existing users.

The monitoring program will include the installation of monitoring wells which will be used to assessgroundwater levels and water quality in the fractured rock aquifer. The locations of groundwater monitoringwells within the ML which will be used during mining operations and post closure and interpreted pitdewatering drawdown area of influence is indicated in Figure 7.4. The monitoring bores have been sited toprovide a combination of broad coverage within the ML, down hydraulic gradient of key infrastructure (WRF,heap leach and processing area).

Table 7.19 provides a summary of the monitoring program which will be further developed as part of PEPR.The monitoring program will document water level and sampling protocols, sample preservation, parametersfor analysis and quality control and quality assurance procedures.

Table 7.19 Groundwater monitoring program

Aquifer Parameter TimeframeML area Water levels, CN wad, thiocyanate,

pH, Ec, TDS, anions, cations, nitrateand heavy metals

Baseline prior to commencement of construction, during openpit dewatering, quarterly in first year and then bi-annual.Baseline prior to commencement of construction, annuallythereafter.

Off-sitethird partybores

Water levels, CN wad, thiocynate, pH,Ec, TDS, anions, cations, nitrate andheavy metals

Baseline prior to commencement of construction, during openpit dewatering, quarterly in first year and then bi-annual.Baseline prior to commencement of construction, annuallythereafter.



7.6 Surface water


7.6.1.1 Context

There are no permanent streams, creeks or rivers within the Tarcoola area due to the low rainfall and lowtopography. Temporary surface water can accumulate after rainfall in the low lying areas (playa lakes)located to the north and south of the project but does not last for long periods due to the high evaporationrate. Surface water runoff to the south and west are interrupted by the railway embankments with dischargeoccurring via drainage pipes located through the embankments. The stormwater collection and silt pondsduring operation have been designed for the 1:20 ARI.


No comments were received from initial consultation with government agencies. Tarcoola Gold is required tocomply with the relevant provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1993 and Natural ResourcesManagement Act 2004.


The relevant acts of legislation that surface water use and management within the project area are discussedin detail in Section 2 and include:

n Mining Act 1971n Natural Resources Management Act 2004n Environment Protection Act 1993n Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2012.


7.6.3.1 Impact event analysis – surface water

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts to groundwater. A detailed discussion isincluded in the following sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.20.

Table 7.20 Impact event analysis – surface water


Consequences

T25 Alteration of naturaldrainage flow systemsduring construction andoperation

Surface water runoff Surface water andWDE

Reduction or increase inwater flow impacting waterdependent ecosystems(WDE) and water quality.

T26 Alteration of naturaldrainage flow systemsduring operation and postclosure

Additional surfacewater flows to pre-mining flows

Third party propertyand infrastructure

Inundation of third partyproperty and infrastructure




Consequences

T27 Exposure of soils anderosion during constructionand operation

Surface water runoff Surface water andWDE

Contamination of surfacewater

T28 Storage and use of fueland chemicals at mine siteand/or borefield.

Spills and leakage Surface water andWDE


T29 NaCN in pregnant liquorpond, transfer pipelinesand heap leach operations

Spills and overflow Surface water andWDE


T30 Transport and use ofsodium cyanide

Spillage Surface water andSWE


7.6.3.2 Altered flow regimes impacting WDE and water quality

Surface water runoff from the site currently flows to the north to playa lakes and to the south and west wheretemporary ponding may occur behind the railway embankments prior to draining to playa lakes via pipesinstalled below the embankments. Alteration to surface contours could result in altered runoff patterns andreduced or increased flows causing a:

n loss or increased flow to the playa lakesn decrease in quality of the water due to erosion and sediment discharge from the site.

These changes in water volume or quality could affect downstream WDE in these areas.

7.6.3.3 Additional surface water flow to pre-mining flows and impact on third partyproperty and infrastructure

Additional surface water flow to pre-mining flows due to drain diversion could have an impact on third partyproperty and infrastructure due to inundation.

7.6.3.4 Exposure of soils and erosion impacting surface water (siltation) and waterdependent ecosystems

Surface water flows across the site have the potential to collect, transport and release sediment laden waterfrom the site originating from ROM stockpiles, waste rock storage, roads and process areas. Potentialimpacts to the environment include:

n increases in the sediment loadn decrease in water quality through increases in; turbidity, TSS, decrease in dissolved oxygen and

changes in pHn subsequent impacts to flora and fauna.

7.6.3.5 Contamination of surface water from the storage and use of chemicals and fuelsand impact on water dependent ecosystems

It is possible that a spill or leak may occur at the mine and borefield contaminating the surface water (duringor post rainfall events), from any of the following sources:




This could result in degradation of surface water by:

n changes in pHn addition of toxic elementsn addition of fuels or oils.

7.6.3.6 Contamination of surface water as a result of seepage and overflow frompregnant liquor pond and heap leach operations

Contamination of surface water could occur due to seepage and spillage of solutions of sodium cyanideduring the processing of ore:

n seepage from the pregnant liquor pond and heap leach operationn uncontrolled release of liquor from the pregnant liquor pond and heap leach operation, including through

overtopping or pipeline breaks.

7.6.3.7 Contamination of surface water during transport of sodium cyanide

Contamination of surface water could occur if there are traffic accidents involving vehicles during thetransport of sodium cyanide to the site.


7.6.4.1 Altered flow regimes impacting WDE and water quality

The likelihood and consequence could be reduced by implementing the following control and managementstrategies:

n avoid unnecessary disturbance of existing natural drainage areasn incorporate diversion of upstream runoff to protect mining operations and infrastructure from surface

flowsn undertake visual inspections of surface water control measures after rainfall events to confirm they are

operating in accordance with design and remediate if necessary.

7.6.4.2 Additional surface water flows to pre-mining flows and impact on third partyproperty and infrastructure

The likelihood and consequence could be reduced by implementing the following control and managementmeasures:

n avoid unnecessary disturbance of existing natural drainage areasn undertake regular visual inspections of surface water control measures after rainfall events to confirm

they are operating in accordance with design and remediate if necessaryn undertake regular inspections of third party property and infrastructure adjacent to the mining lease to

confirm there have not been any impacts and remediate if necessaryn design covers consistent with the principle of limiting the ingress of water and airn armour the external slopes and tops of the heap leach stockpiles with inert rock to reduce the potential

for erosion and exposure of acid forming material.



7.6.4.3 Exposure of soils and erosion impacting surface water (siltation) and impact onwater dependent ecosystems

The likelihood and consequence may be reduced by implementing the following control and managementstrategies:

n runoff from the site will be collected in drainage swales and directed to sediment traps prior to dischargeoff-site

n diversion of up-slope surface water runoffn design roads to include drainage control measuresn regular visual inspections and maintenance of surface water control systems will be undertaken during

operations immediately after rainfall events and if required remediation undertakenn a surface water quality monitoring program will be developed and implemented during operations for

those periods where there is surface water runoff and accumulationn opportunistic use of water that accumulates in sediment traps and the open pit in the process operations

(subject to acceptable quality) or used in other operations, such as dust suppression, to minimise needfor off-site release.

7.6.4.4 Contamination of surface water from storage and use of chemicals and fuelsand impact on water dependent ecosystems


n fuel, oil and chemical storage and brine disposal will be designed and maintained in accordance withEPA and Australian Standards as appropriate


n chemical and fuel management procedures will be developed and include emergency response andclean up requirements

n implementation of a surface water monitoring program for those periods where there is surface waterrunoff and accumulation.

7.6.4.5 Contamination of surface water due to seepage, pipeline break and overtoppingof from pregnant liquor pond and heap leach operations and impact on waterdependent ecosystems

The following management measures would be implemented as part of a best practice approach:

n pregnant liquor pond, heap leach operations and liquor collection channels to be designed with liningsystems to reduce the potential for lateral seepage

n regular inspection of pipelines for leakage or failuren design of storage ponds incorporate 1:100 ARI, 24 hour and 5 day rainfall event to ensure that there will

not be overtoppingn establishment and implementation of Surface Water Management Plan.


The risks of impact to surface water will be significantly reduced by adopting management and monitoringprocedures consistent with the requirements of SafeWork SA and ensuring that all transport vehicles haveappropriate spill containment/cleanup kits.





Table 7.21 Risk assessment – surface water





T25

Altered flow regimesdue to diversion oflocal drainage linesimpacting WDE andwater quality

Possible Minor Moderate Avoid unnecessary disturbance to existingdrainage areas.

Design surface water diversion channels toaccommodate natural flow regimes.

Regular inspections and maintenance of sedimentand erosion control measures immediately afterrainfall events to confirm operating in accordancewith design and remediate if necessary.

Unlikely Minor Low

T26

Additional surfacewater flow to pre-mining flowsimpacting third partyproperty andinfrastructure


Design surface water diversion channels toaccommodate natural flow regimes for 1:20 ARI(Section 4.8.1.1).

Regular inspections and maintenance of sedimentand erosion control measures immediately afterrainfall events to confirm operating in accordancewith design and remediate if necessary.

Regular inspections of third party property andinfrastructure adjacent to the mining lease toconfirm there have not been any impacts andremediate if necessary.

The proposed site measures are in excess ofcurrent stormwater measures.

Unlikely Minor Low







T27

Reduction in surfacewater quality throughsedimentcontamination(siltation) due toexposure of soils andimpact on WDE

Possible Minor Moderate Run off from site to be collected in diversionchannels and directed through sediment trapsprior to discharge to the environment.

Diversion of upslope surface water runoff.

Design of roads to incorporate appropriatedrainage (where practicable).

Controlled application of saline water for dustsuppression.

Design of operations to include opportunistic useof this water and water caught in pit back throughoperations (e.g. dust suppression) to minimise theneed for off- site release.

Regular inspections and maintenance of sedimentand erosion control systems immediately afterrainfall events and remediate incidents by divertingflows appropriately and/or treating surface water (ifrequired).

A surface water quality monitoring programconsistent with the risks will be developed andimplemented during operations.

Unlikely Minor Low







T28

Surface watercontamination due tostorage and use ofchemical sand fueland impact on WDE

Possible Minor Moderate Design fuel, oil and chemical storage inaccordance with EPA and Australian Standards.

Maintain fuel, oil and chemical storage areasduring operations.

Undertake regular inspections of areas to ensureintegrity of bunded and spill containment areasand correct use of storage and distribution areas.


Management of on-site waste management facilityin accordance, operating procedures and EPAlicence.

Implementation of a surface water monitoringprogram consistent with risks.

Unlikely Minor Low

T29

Contamination ofsurface water andimpact on WDE dueto overflow frompregnant liquor pond,barren ponds,transfer pipelines andheap leachoperations

Possible Minor Moderate Pregnant liquor pond, heap leach operations andliquor collection channels have been designed withlining systems to reduce the potential for lateralseepage.

Regular inspection for pipeline leakage or failure.

Design of storage ponds incorporate 1:100 ARI,24 hour and 5 day rainfall event and 0.5 mfreeboard to ensure that there will not beovertopping.

Unlikely Moderate Moderate







T30

Contamination ofsurface water andimpact on WDE dueto spillage duringtransport and use ofNaCN

Unlikely Minor Low Implementation of Hazardous ChemicalsTransport Management Plan. Storage andmanagement of cyanide will comply with SafeWorkSA requirements and Australian Standards.

Site and specific area inductions will outline therisks associated with cyanide. Specific operatingprocedures will be developed for storage andmanagement, including mixing of cyanide.

Training of contractors and personnel inemergency procedures in the event of spills.

Unlikely Minor Low

Note: PRL = primary risk level with no control and management strategies; RRL = residual risk level after implementation of control and management strategies; L = Low; M = Moderate; H = High




7.6.6.1 Altered flow regimes impacting on WDE and water quality

On the basis of the low annual rainfall in the area, the low ground surface gradients and absence ofpronounced surface drainage features and the proposed control and management measures it is consideredthat the residual impacts are likely to be low and acceptable.

7.6.6.2 Additional surface water flows to pre-mining flows and impact on third partyproperty and infrastructure

During operation there will be installation of additional drainage and siltation ponds which will provide anadditional level of control of surface water which exceeds the current measures of stormwater control.Therefore for the operation stage of the project the potential risks are low.

The design of covers and closure for the heap leach stockpile and waste rock storage would limit thepotential for acid conditions and discharge to surface. Additional details are included in Section 8.

It is concluded that the risks are low and acceptable.

7.6.6.3 Exposure of soils and erosion impacting surface water (siltation) and impact onwater dependent ecosystems

The external slopes of the waste rock storage facility will be established with flat concave slopes andarmoured with fresh non-acid forming rock which will reduce the potential for erosion. The installation ofupslope surface water runoff diversion and sediment control systems will further reduce the potential foruncontrolled sediment discharge from the site.

With the implementation of the above control and management measures it is unlikely that erosion andsediment discharge and impact on off-site areas would occur.

7.6.6.4 Contamination of surface water from storage and use of chemicals and fuelsand impact on water dependent ecosystems

The surrounding area consists of essentially flat topography and there is an absence of pronounced surfacedrainage features. The nearest perennial drainage features are located 2.5 km to the north of the ML.Potential spills would therefore have a minor local impact.

The implementation of the control and management measures should mitigate adverse contamination ofsurface water from fuels, chemicals used in process and waste material, including brine from the RO plan.As the primary risk levels for the RO and waste material is low no outcomes and measurement criteria havebeen developed.

7.6.6.5 Contamination of surface water due to seepage, pipeline break and overtoppingof pregnant liquor pond and heap leach operations and impact on waterdependent ecosystems

On the basis of the design that includes the establishment of a HDPE double lining system in pregnant liquorpond with leak detection and combined HDPE and compacted clay lining system for the heap leach pad andnormal operating procedures the rate of seepage is expected to be negligible.



The liquor storage pond and barren pond have been designed to incorporate the 1:100 ARI, 24 hour and5 day rainfall event to ensure that there will not be overtopping. In addition there is a 0.5 m freeboardincorporated in the design.

Pipelines will be equipped with leak detection equipment that will indicate when there is a pipeline leakage orfailure.

The stability assessment for the heap leach stockpile indicated minimum FOS under static loading conditionsof 1.03 for shallow circular failures, essentially rilling of the external slope (Figure 4.23), which would notaffect the integrity of the heap leach operation. Under the pseudo-static seismic loading conditions thecalculated FOS was 0.95 (Figure 4.26). The analysis essentially indicates that earthquake loading has aminor effect on the FOS with both being effectively 1.0 or at equilibrium. Surface water tension as a result ofthe application of the leaching solution is likely to improve the stability. Given the conservative selection ofthe angle of friction for the heap leach material and the low risk of earthquakes in the area it is consideredthat there is not a significant risk of instability.

Low angles of friction normally occur at the interface between the HDPE liner and compacted clay liner andcan result in a block failure involving sliding along the HDPE liner. The design includes a textured HDPE linerwhich has a higher angle of friction (typically 3° to 5° greater) than the smooth HDPE liner. The assessmentincluded analysis for failure along the HDPE/clay liner interface and failure through the clay liner orfoundation material. The analysis indicates a FOS for a block failure under static loading conditions of 1.53along the HDPE liner and 1.71 through the clay liner/foundation (Figure 4.24 and Figure 4.25). The FOSunder pseudo-static earthquake loading are 1.39 and 1.56 respectively (Figure 4.28 and Figure 4.29).

The results indicate that the heap leach stockpile has FOS for large scale failure that exceed commonlyadopted FOS for both normal static conditions and under pseudo-static earthquake loading.

As cyanide undergoes degradation in the environment through a range of processes including volatilisation,precipitation, chemical decomposition, adsorption, photolytic reactions and microbial degradation the risk ofimpact should there be an excursion from the treatment facilities is considered to be low.

On the basis of this assessment it is concluded that the residual risks are acceptably low.


The proposed control and management strategies are considered to be acceptable to mitigate potentialimpact on surface water. As the primary risk level is low no outcomes and measurement criteria have beendeveloped.


Tarcoola Gold is committed to the following outcomes during construction and operation of the mine. Itshould be noted that notwithstanding that impacts of surface water runoff on third party property andinfrastructure during operation has been determined as a low primary risk due to the introduction ofadditional stormwater control measures and draft outcome and measurement criteria have been included inTable 7.22.



Table 7.22 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – surface water


T25,T26,T27,T28,T29

No surface watercontaminated as aresult of miningoperations leaves themining lease area orresults in contaminationof soil on or off thelease area.

Mining operations donot cause inundation ofthird party property andinfrastructure by water(to a greater extentthan would be expectedto occur prior to miningoperationscommencing).

Water quality monitoring at surface watermonitoring locations (Figure 7.7) when wateris flowing from lease for the followingparameters, TSS, CNwad, pH and heavymetals, TRH.

Audit of inspections of silt traps and drainagecontainment systems after rain events thatgenerate runoff demonstrate systems areoperating in accordance with the designspecifications.

Annual audit of bunding and fuel, oil andchemical storage management recordsdemonstrate that facilities are designed,constructed and operated in accordance withEPA Guideline (EPA 080/07).

Independent audit of heap leach processdesign (including heap leach pad, ponds,plant and drains) prior to construction andafter construction to demonstrate of heapleach system, including ponds is inaccordance with approved design.

Any incident of stormwatercontrol infrastructure not beingmaintained and intervention.

Any incident of hazardousmaterial storage not incompliance with EPA Guideline(EPA 080/07).

Any incident of hazardoussubstance spills not managed inaccordance with DangerousSubstances Management Plan.


As indicated previously there are no permanently flowing drainage lines. Therefore monitoring will beundertaken following rainfall events that generate surface water flows at designated discharge points fromthe ML to determine water quality.

Data Source: DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map No: 2200005A_GIS_034_E

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 250 500


Surface Water Monitoring

Last Resource



Gold Process Plant




TARCOOLA

125135

120

130

140

115

145

150

155 160

160

135

140

140

140

150

115

145

135

13012

0

145

150

140

130

145

140

140

135

120

145

150

Surface water monitoring locationProduction water bore5m contourDrainSurface flowSite layout featureHaul and access road

RoadTrack/roadRailWater pipeline access trackWater pipelineNextgen fibre optic cableTelstra cable

Proposed mineral lease boundaryHaul and access roadROMOfficesCrusher and agglomerateCamp areaHard stand

Subsoil stockpileTopsoil stockpileWater alignmentPondHeap leach processingPit outlineWaste rock dump

1:25,000



www.pbworld.com


WPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_034_E.mxd



7.7 ARD


7.7.1.1 Context

Experience at other mines in South Australia and other jurisdictions has shown that mining of ore or wasterock that contains sulphides can result in acid rock drainage (ARD) and potential environmental impacts ifnot managed. As some of the rocks at the Tarcoola Gold Project contain sulphides there is a possibility ofthe creation of ARD with any future mining.

Sulphides such as pyrite, galena and sphalerite occur in the Perseverance area and lesser amounts ofarsenopyrite, chalcopyrite and bornite have been intersected.

An initial ARD study was undertaken in 2013 to assess whether there was a risk of potential acid generation.Additional analyses were undertaken in 2014 to further refine the distribution of rock units that may havepotential for ARD.

Additional investigations to further refine the distribution of PAF/NAF material will be undertaken anddocumented in the PEPR. Detailed engineering design documentation will also be provided and verified byan independent suitable qualified professional. The construction of the WRF and heap leach operation willbe independently audited to demonstrate compliance with the design.


The DSD and EPA indicated that due consideration had to be given in relation to the presence of materialsthat had the potential to generate ARD, the management of PAF material in the waste rock storage facilityand heap leach stockpiles during operation and at closure.


The relevant Acts relating to roads and highways in the State include:

n Environment Protection Act, 1993n Mining Act, 1971n Natural Resources Management Act, 2004n Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy, 2012.

7.7.3 Potential construction and operation impacts

Traffic related issues that have been identified for the project are related to two specific elements.

7.7.3.1 Impact event analysis – ARD

The excavation, storage and management of rock containing sulphides has the potential for ARD conditionsto be developed. A detailed discussion is included in the following sections and an impact event analysisincluded in Table 7.23.



Table 7.23 Impact event analysis – ARD


Consequences

T31 ARD from waste rock, oreand low grade stockpile



Contamination ofgroundwater by heavymetals, low pH and salts andimpact on GDE

T32 ARD from heap leachstockpile



Contamination ofgroundwater by heavymetals and high pH and saltsand impact on GDE

T33 ARD from open pit Seepage togroundwater


Contamination ofgroundwater by heavymetals, low pH and salts andimpact on GDE

T34 ARD from the waste rockstorage, ore and low gradestockpile

Seepage and runoffto surface water

Surface water andWDE

Contamination of surfacewater by heavy metals, lowpH and salts and impact onWDE


Seepage and runoffto surface water

Surface water andWDE

Contamination of surfacewater by heavy metals, lowpH and salts and impact onWDE

T36 ARD from the waste rockstorage, ore and low gradestockpile

Seepage to soil andrunoff

Soil Contamination of soil byheavy metals, low pH andsalts


Seepage to soil andrunoff

Soil Contamination of soil byheavy metals, high pH andsalts

7.7.3.2 Contamination of groundwater due to ARD from waste rock storage, ore andlow grade stockpile and impact on local pastoral bores and groundwaterdependent ecosystems

Establishment of PAF storage areas within the waste rock storage facility, ore and low grade stockpile couldresult in groundwater contamination by heavy metals, low pH and salts and impact to existing pastoral boresand groundwater dependent ecosystems.

7.7.3.3 Contamination of groundwater due to ARD seepage from heap leach stockpileand impact on local pastoral bores and groundwater dependent ecosystems

Establishment of heap leach stockpile could result in ARD seepage to groundwater contamination by heavymetals, high pH and salts and impact to existing pastoral bores and groundwater dependent ecosystems.

7.7.3.4 Contamination of groundwater due to ARD from open pit and impact on localpastoral bores and groundwater dependent ecosystems

Sulphides present in the open pit could produce ARD and result seepage from the open pit (if a pit lakeforms) leading to groundwater contamination by heavy metals, low pH and salts and impact to existingpastoral bores and groundwater dependent ecosystems.



7.7.3.5 Contamination of surface water due to ARD from waste rock storage, ore andlow grade stockpile and impact on water dependent ecosystems

If the risk of acid rock drainage from the waste rock storage, ore and low grade stockpiles was not managedproperly it could result in degradation of surface water quality due to changes in pH and water chemistry andsubsequent reduction in habitat quality and impact on water dependent ecosystems (WDE).

7.7.3.6 Contamination of surface water due to ARD from heap leach stockpile andimpact on WDE

If the risk of acid rock drainage from the heap leach stockpile was not managed properly it could result indegradation of surface water quality due to changes in pH and water chemistry (heavy metals and salts) andsubsequent reduction in habitat quality and impact on WDE.

7.7.3.7 Contamination of soil due to ARD from waste rock storage, ore and low gradestockpiles

ARD could occur from the waste rock storage, ore and low grade stockpile area has the potential to affectsoil quality. If the risk of acid rock drainage was not managed properly it could result in:

n damage to soil structuren contamination of soil by heavy metals, low pH and salts.

7.7.3.8 Contamination of soil due to ARD from heap leach stockpile

ARD could occur from the heap leach stockpile and affect soil quality. If the risk of acid rock drainage wasnot managed properly it could result in:

n damage to soil structuren contamination of soil by heavy metals, high pH and salts.


7.7.4.1 Contamination of groundwater due to ARD from waste rock storage, ore andlow grade stockpiles and impact on local pastoral bores and groundwaterdependent ecosystems


n the design will include areas for encapsulating PAF material in waste rock storagen a program to undertake checking for PAF material during mining activities will be developed and

implemented (refer to Section 7.7.8)4 pre-production grade control and PAF definition of all waste rock material drilling will be undertaken4 definition of waste blocks of PAF and NAF material4 direct total sulphur concentrations in the drill samples will be measured with a hand held instrument4 daily tracking of PAF placement in the WRF and records kept on site4 paddock dumping of PAF material into pre-determined locations and recorded4 5 m separation between PAF cells and top and bottom of WRF and external portion of PAF cell to

be below top of WRF and not within sloping portion of WRFn installation of a surface runoff collection system around the perimeter of ore and low grade stockpilesn implementation of a groundwater monitoring program



n undertake progressive rehabilitation where applicable to reduce the potential for ARD to occur fromwaste rock storage

n develop and implement ARD Management Plan as part of the PEPR.



n the design will include a double liner (compacted clay and HDPE) in the heap leach stockpile area (referto Section 4.7.3)

n implementation of a groundwater monitoring programn develop and implement ARD Management Plan as part of the PEPR.



n dewatering will result in groundwater inflow to the pitn water that collects in the pit will be captured and use in processn implementation of a groundwater monitoring programn develop and implement ARD Management Plan as part of the PEPR.

7.7.4.4 Contamination of surface water due to ARD from waste rock storage, ore andlow grade stockpile and impact on WDE




be below top of WRF and not within sloping portion of WRFn installation of a surface runoff collection system around the perimeter of ore and low grade stockpilesn implementation of a groundwater monitoring programn undertake progressive rehabilitation where applicable to reduce the potential for ARD to occur from

waste rock storagen develop and implement ARD Management Plan as part of the PEPR.



7.7.4.5 Contamination of surface water due to ARD from heap leach stockpile andimpact on water dependent ecosystems


n the design will include a double liner(compacted clay and HDPE) in the heap leach stockpile area (referto Section 4.7.3)






be below top of WRF and not within sloping portion of WRFn installation of a surface runoff collection system around the perimeter of ore and low grade stockpilesn implementation of a groundwater monitoring programn undertake progressive rehabilitation where applicable to reduce the potential for ARD to occur from

waste rock storagen develop and implement ARD Management Plan as part of the PEPR.



n the design will include a double liner(compacted clay and HDPE) in the heap leach stockpile area (referto Section 4.7.3)






Table 7.24 Risk assessment – ARD





T31

Contamination ofgroundwater byheavy metals, low pHand salts and impacton pastoral bores andgroundwaterdependentecosystems as aresult of acid rockdrainage from wasterock storage, ore andlow grade stockpile

Possible Minor Moderate Design waste rock storage facility/area to includeencapsulation of PAF material.PAF material to be located centrally in WRF(Section 4.8 and Figure 4.30).A program to undertake checking for PAF materialduring mining activities will be developed andimplemented.Pre-production grade control and PAF definition ofall waste rock material drilling will be undertaken.Definition of waste blocks of PAF and NAFmaterial.Direct total sulphur concentrations in the drillsamples will be measured with a hand heldinstrument.Daily tracking of PAF placement in the WRF andrecords kept on site.Paddock dumping of PAF material into pre-determined locations and recorded.5 m separation between PAF cells and top andbottom of WRF and external portion of PAF cell tobe below top of WRF and not within slopingportion of WRF.Install surface runoff collection system aroundperimeter of ore and low grade stockpile areas.Implement a program to undertake ongoingmonitoring of water quality including nearbypastoral bores.Undertake progressive rehabilitation wherepracticable on lower slopes.Implement a program to undertake periodicchecking of acid rock drainage potential duringmining activities (accepting that ARD may notoccur in the short term).

Unlikely Minor Low







T32

Contamination ofgroundwater byheavy metals, highpH and salts andimpact on pastoralbores andgroundwaterdependentecosystems as aresult of acid rockdrainage from heapleach stockpile

Possible Minor Moderate The design will include a double liner (compactedclay and HDPE) in the heap leach stockpile area(refer to Section 4.7.3).

Implementation of a groundwater monitoringprogram.

Develop and implement ARD Management Planas part of the PEPR.

Unlikely Minor Low

T33

Contamination ofgroundwater byheavy metals, low pHand salts and impacton pastoral bores andgroundwaterdependentecosystems as aresult of acid rockdrainage from openpit

Unlikely Minor Low Dewatering will result in groundwater inflow to thepit.

Water that collects in the pit will be captured andused in process.



Unlikely Minor Low

T34

Contamination ofsurface water byheavy metals, low pHand salts due to ARDfrom the waste rockstorage facility, oreand low gradestockpile

Possible Minor Moderate Design waste rock storage facility to includeencapsulation of PAF material.

Develop and implement a program to undertakeperiodic checking of potentially acid formingmaterial during mining activities.

Develop Acid Rock Drainage Management Plan.

Collection of drainage from ore stockpile area andlow grade stockpiles.

Unlikely Minor Low







T35

Contamination ofsurface water byheavy metals, highpH and salts due toARD from the heapleach stockpile

Possible Minor Moderate The design will include a double liner (compactedclay and HDPE) in the heap leach stockpile area(refer to Section 4.7.3)



Unlikely Minor Low

T36

Contamination of soilby heavy metals, lowpH and salts due toacid rock drainagefrom waste rockstorage, ore and lowgrade stockpile

Possible Minor Moderate Design waste rock storage facility/area to includeencapsulation of PAF material (if required).

Develop and implement a program to undertakeperiodic checking of potentially acid formingmaterial during mining activities.

Develop Acid Rock Drainage Management Planand provide in PEPR.

Collection of drainage from ore stockpile area andlow grade stockpiles.

Unlikely Minor Low

T37

Contamination of soilby heavy metals, highpH and salts due toacid rock drainagefrom heap leach

Possible Minor Moderate The design will include a double liner (compactedclay and HDPE) in the heap leach stockpile area(refer to Section 4.7.3).



Unlikely Minor Low




7.7.6.1 Contamination of groundwater due to ARD from waste rock storage, ore andlow grade stockpile and impact on local pastoral bores and groundwaterdependent ecosystems

Testing of a range of representative samples of waste rock, low grade ore and ore has been undertaken. Theresults indicate that some of the waste rock is PAF and the Euro Limestone is acid consuming.

The potential for ARD to impact groundwater is considered to be low given the low volume of PAF material.The presence of a reasonable thickness of weathered siltstone in the foundations would attenuate potentialcontaminants.


The proposed control and management measures are considered reasonable to manage potential impactsrelating to ARD. On this basis the potential for ARD drainage is considered to be low.



The proposed design for the heap leach stockpile area includes a double liner (compacted clay and HDPE).Taking this into consideration and the proposed control and management measures the risks of significantimpact is negligible.


The analytical groundwater modelling has indicated that the open pit will be a permanent groundwater sinkand seepage out of the open pit will not occur. As any ARD seepage from the pit walls during operation willbe captured in the pit for re-use seepage to groundwater is unlikely.

The proposed control and management measures are considered reasonable to manage potential impactsrelating to ARD. On this basis the potential for ARD drainage is considered to be low.

7.7.6.4 Contamination of surface water due to ARD from waste rock storage, ore andlow grade stockpile and impact on WDE

Testing of a range of representative samples of waste rock, low grade ore and ore has been undertaken. Theresults indicate that some of the waste rock is PAF and the Euro Limestone is acid consuming.

The potential for ARD to impact surface water is considered to be low given the low volume of PAF material.

The proposed control and management measures are considered reasonable to manage potential impactsrelating to ARD. On this basis the potential for ARD drainage is considered to be low. As the primary risklevel is low no outcomes and measurement criteria have been developed.



7.7.6.5 Contamination of surface water due to ARD from heap leach stockpile andimpact on water dependent ecosystems



The acid drainage assessment has indicated that waste rock is predominantly non-acid forming with a lowpercentage of material being low capacity PAF. Taking this into consideration and the proposed control andmanagement measures the risks of significant impact is negligible.




Table 7.25 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – ARD


T34,T35

All PAF materials within the heapleach stockpile and WRF arechemically stable

Annual audit of ongoing PAFmaterial management recordsdemonstrates material isaccounted for and placed in cellswithin the WRF in accordancewith design.

An audit by a suitably qualifiedand experienced independentexpert, prior to constructionindicates the design of the heapleach pad and lining system andPAF storage in WRF areadequate.

An audit by a suitably qualifiedand experienced independentexpert following constructiondemonstrates that the heapleach pad and lining system hasbeen constructed in accordancewith the approved design.


Section 7.5.8 provides information on groundwater monitoring provisions, which includes parametersassociated with ARD.

As indicated previously there are no permanently flowing drainage lines. Therefore monitoring of surfacewater will be undertaken following rainfall events at designated discharge points from the MLA to determinewater quality.

Independently audited design of the heap leach pad and lining system and WRF design and management ofPAF will be included in the ARD Management Plan and submitted in the PEPR. PAF material managementas part of operational management procedures (including daily tracking of PAF placement in the WRF) willbe undertaken and records kept on site.



As part of mining operations pre-production grade control and PAF definition of all waste rock material drillingwill be undertaken. This will lead to the definition of waste blocks of PAF and NAF material. Direct totalsulphur concentrations in the drill samples will be measured with a hand held instrument. As discussedpreviously there is a direct correlation between total sulphur and sulphide sulphur. A cut-off of >0.3% totalsulphur is proposed to be used to define what is PAF material and what is NAF material. All PAF material willbe encapsulated in the waste rock storage facility.

In addition daily visual inspection of the waste storage facility, low grade stockpile and heap leach area toassess whether ARD is occurring. Due to the time lag for generation of acid conditions it is unlikely that therewill be visual evidence of ARD.

Groundwater monitoring will be in accordance with the provisions in Section 7.5 and as amended in theGroundwater Management Plan included in the PEPR.



7.8 Air quality


7.8.1.1 Context

The major components of the Tarcoola Project are located about 3.4 km from the western side of Tarcoolatownship where there are some residences which are used infrequently by railway workers (Figure 3.2).Tarcoola township itself is currently abandoned with no residents.

The nearest inhabited locations to the proposed open pit are the Wilgena station homestead which is located22 km southeast and Mulgathing station homestead which is located 73 km northwest of the proposed openpit. There are several pastoral outstations in the general area which are infrequently used during sheepmustering and shearing:

n Malbooma outstation – 33 km west of the open pitn Ambrosia outstation – 47 km northwest of the open pitn Carnding Road outstation – 18 km north-northwest of the open pitn Ealbara outstation – 32 km north-northeast of the open pitn Gibraltar outstation – 34 km north-northwest of the open pitn Mentor outstation – 41 km northeast of the open pit.

Due to sparse vegetation the area is prone to potential wind erosion dust contributions (at times of dryconditions and high winds) which can lead to elevated concentrations of dust from time to time.

No site specific air quality monitoring data has been collected for the Tarcoola Gold Project. Discussion withthe EPA has indicated that an annual baseline level for PM10 of between 10 and 15 µg/m3 would beappropriate.

Table 7.26 denotes the adopted baseline air quality data used in the air quality impact assessment and theair quality assessment is included as Appendix K.

Table 7.26 Adopted baseline air quality concentrations

Pollutant Averaging period Baseline concentration

TSP Annual 20 µg/m3

PM10 24 hour 25 µg/m3

Annual 15 µg/m3

PM2.5 24 hour 12.5 µg/m3

Annual 2.5 µg/m-

Dust deposition Monthly 2 g/m2/month


The stakeholder views are indicated in Section 6 and have been taken into consideration in the riskassessment process.

Discussion with Rob Mitchell the then Manager Air Science, Air & Noise Branch at the EPA on13 March 2013 confirmed that a baseline annual value for PM10 of between 10 and 15 µg/m3 would beappropriate, with the latter being selected for the project.




The relevant legislation that regulates air quality and its impacts include the:

n Environment Protection Act 1993n Environment Protection (Air Quality) Policy 1994n Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007.

In addition the following guidelines and standards are applicable:

n Air quality impact assessment using design ground level pollutant concentrations (DGLCs)’ 2006n National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (NEPM)n National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 1995) for total suspended particles (TSP)n National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council (NERDDC, 1988) for dust

deposition.

The adopted standards/goals for this air quality assessment are presented in Table 7.27. In the absence of aSouth Australia guideline level for dust deposition the NSW guideline level of 4 g/m2/month was selected.

Table 7.27 Ambient air quality goals

Pollutant Averagingperiod

Goals Exceedencesallowed per year

Source

TSP Annual 90 µg/m3 (1) n/a NHMRC

PM10(2) 24 hour 50 µg/m3 5 NEPM

PM2.5(3) 24 hour 25 µg/m3 – NEPM

Annual 8 µg/m3 – NEPM

Dust deposition 24 hour 4 g/m2/month(4) n/a NERDDC

(1) µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic metre(2) PM10 = Particulate matter ≤ 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter(3) PM2.5 = Particulate matter ≤ 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter(4) g/m2/month = grams per metre square per month


7.8.3.1 Impact event analysis – air quality

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts on air quality. A detailed discussion isincluded in the following sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.28.

Table 7.28 Impact event analysis – air quality


Consequences

T38 Dust generation fromoperations (clearance,heap leach operations,stockpiles, WRF, drillingand blasting)

Air transport Pastoral lease holderand Tarcoolatownship

Nuisance

Impact on human health andamenity

T39 Combustion emissionsfrom mining plant andequipment

Air transport Tarcoola township Increase in regionalgreenhouse gas emissions




Consequences

T40 Use of diesel fuel, sewagetreatment plant, and wastestorage

Air transport Tarcoola township Nuisance odours

T41 Use of cyanide in heapleach and processing

Air transport Tarcoola township Nuisance odours

7.8.3.2 Dust emission from mining operations

During construction and operation and rehabilitation there could be an increase in dust generation and animpact on air quality as a result of:

n vehicle movements on unpaved roadsn wind-blown dust from stockpiles and freshly exposed areas onsiten drilling and blastingn handling, transfer and storage of ore and heap leach materialsn heavy earthwork operations such as excavation and earth moving activitiesn development of haul and access roadsn construction of workshops, process plant, equipment laydown areas and other infrastructure.

The emission of dust has the potential to result in:

n impacts to human healthn deposition of dust on native vegetation (this is discussed in Section 7.2.3.2)n impact to safety of road users.

The waste rock storage area will be rehabilitated on a progressive basis with inert waste rock and salvagedtopsoil, which will reduce the amount of dust. Movement on unpaved roads by haul trucks and light vehicleswill also generate dust. The generation of dust from the mining operations and haul roads will be controlledby the application of water.

7.8.3.3 Use of sodium cyanide resulting in processing plant emissions

Cyanide used in the heap leach and the carbon column adsorption and elution extraction process produceshydrogen cyanide (HCN) and are potential sources of fugitive emissions. These emissions are anticipated tobe very low and would be effectively managed by installing gas monitors to detect any dangerous levels ofHCN in the carbon column adsorption and elution tank area. In the heap leach area it is anticipated thatemissions would diffuse readily. Therefore HCN emissions have not been considered further in thisassessment.

7.8.3.4 Greenhouse gas emissions and combustion emissions from plant andequipment

The emissions of greenhouse gases and combustion products (carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide andnitrogen dioxide) and particulate matter from fuel combustion associated with earthmoving plant andequipment, diesel generators and vehicles will occur during construction and operation.

Due to the remote location of the Project it will be necessary to generate 1.2 MW of power through the use ofdiesel generators. Emissions from the diesel fired generators are expected to include nitrous oxides (NOx),particulate matter, sulphur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) and low levels of volatile organiccompounds (VOCs), and trace levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Emissions from the diesel



generators are anticipated to diffuse readily, and it can be assumed these emissions are not anticipated toimpact the sensitive receptors.

Emissions are anticipated to arise from the combustion of diesel and petrol fuel from employee light vehiclesand a small number of visitor cars, and delivery vehicles entering and leaving the Project’s site. Vehicleemissions would also be generated from the grader, excavator, front end loader, haul trucks, water cart, rockbreaker, drilling rig and bulldozer. Emissions from the haul trucks and other onsite equipment are expectedto include NOx, particulate matter, SO2 and CO and low levels of VOCs and trace levels of PAHs are alsoanticipated. Emissions from the vehicles are anticipated to diffuse readily, and it can be assumed theseemissions are not anticipated to impact at sensitive receivers.

The largest source of emissions is from the mine’s operational phase, followed by emissions associated withland clearing during the construction phase (Appendix I). Emissions generated throughout the constructionphase are comparatively minor to the project’s total emissions. Over the lifetime of the project, it is estimatedthat the project will emit a total of 82,996 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (t CO2-e) (Table 7.29).

Table 7.29 Total Scope 1 emissions during clearing, construction and operation

Activity/phase Duration Total Scope 1 GHG emissions(t CO2-e)

Construction (including vegetation clearing) 3 months 10,386

Vegetation Clearing part of construction 3,504

Operation 4 years 72,611

Total 82,996

Overall, Australia’s total direct (scope 1) annual emissions for 2011/2012 were 554.6 Mt CO2-e (2014c) andAustralia’s direct (scope 1) annual emissions from the mining sector in 2011/2012 were 66 Mt CO2-e (DoE,2014d). By comparison, the annual operation of the mine is projected to represent approximately 0.003% ofAustralia’s total direct emissions and 0.028% of Australia’s total direct mining emissions respectively.

The Tarcoola Gold annual emissions are equivalent to 0.37% of the 2011/2012 South Australian miningsector direct emissions (DoE 2014d) and 0.06% of South Australia’s overall 2011/2012 direct emissions(DoE, 2014a).

7.8.3.5 Odour

Slight odours may also be detectable close to the emission source(s). However, based on the setting of theproject site, the likely ambient air quality characteristics and transient nature of odorous emissions, adverseodour impacts are not expected.

Some minor odour emissions may be generated as part of the Project’s general operation. These willprimarily be associated with the heap leach and the carbon column adsorption and elution process. Minimalodour emissions are anticipated and off site odours are not expected.




7.8.4.1 Dust emissions from mining operations

The following management measures will be adopted for the project:

Construction

n Limiting vehicle movements to designated entries and exits, haulage routes and parking areas.

n Visually monitor dust and where necessary implement the following measures:

4 apply water to exposed surfaces that are causing dust generation when necessary4 Securely fix tailgates of road transport trucks prior to loading and immediately after unloading4 prevent where possible, or remove, mud and dirt being tracked onto sealed road surfaces.

n Where practicable avoid or minimise dust generating activities (particularly clearing and excavating)during dry and windy conditions.

n Limit the area and duration of exposed or unconsolidated areas. For example, stage vegetationstripping or grading where possible, where practicable apply vegetation mulch to soil stockpiles orsurfaces left standing for extended periods.

n Revegetation activities should proceed as soon as practicable after construction activities are completedwithin a disturbed area.

n Construction plant and equipment should be well maintained and regularly serviced.

Operation

n Use of water carts to maintain damp conditions in high activity areas.

n Imposing speed restrictions to not >50 km/hr on haul roads.

n Where practicable and consistent with management of materials stockpiling the coarser material on theouter edges of stockpiled material.

n Procedures/plans will be developed and implemented to address dust and general air quality issues onsite during construction and operation. They will include management requirements such as reportingand cessation of works in the event of extreme wind conditions.

7.8.4.2 Greenhouse gas emission and combustion emissions from plant and equipment

The following management measures are proposed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions duringconstruction:

n minimising the disturbance boundary of land clearing where it is necessary for operational safetyn implementing structural design according to the relevant state and national sustainability building

guidelinesn where feasible sourcing of materials for construction with a lower content of embodied emissions and

maximising recycled content in materialsn sourcing materials and labour locally where possible to minimise transportation GHG emissionn optimising freight and transport of personnel to site and minimising overall vehicle numbers.

Similar principles and measures would apply in reducing operational emissions as in construction emissions.During the operational phase, the overriding objective will be to improve operational efficiencies, wherepracticable, by implementing best practice technologies to reduce energy consumption and subsequent GHGemissions.



7.8.4.3 Odour

The likelihood and consequences may be reduced by implementing the following control and managementstrategies:

n all site infrastructure will be designed in accordance with Australian Standards and best practicen facilities will meet EPA design requirementsn sewerage system will meet EPA and Department of Health requirementsn no specific operational management measures will be implemented due to remoteness of the project

area.





Table 7.30 Risk assessment – air quality





T38

Increase in dustlevels due tooperations leads toimpacts on pastorallease holder andTarcoola township

Possible Minor Moderate Manage vegetation clearance and grounddisturbance.

Design trafficable and working areas on site toincorporate sealing with compacted material (asappropriate for design specification) andimplement vehicle speed restrictions and traffic todedicated formed roads. Implement dustsuppression measures.

Control blasting to reduce dust emissions.

Progressive rehabilitation of waste rock storagesand external slopes of heap leach stockpile wherepracticable.

Suspension of works in the event of extreme windconditions.

Unlikely Minor Low

T39

Emissions fromcombustion frommining plant andequipment resultingin greenhouse gasemissions

Unlikely Minor Low Fuel combustion generators for power generation,borefield pumps, mining equipment and vehicles tomeet EPA requirements, Australian standards andSA regulations (as appropriate).

Equipment and vehicles to be maintained andserviced in accordance with manufacturer’srequirements.


T40

Odour affecting airquality

Unlikely Minor Low All site infrastructure to be designed in accordancewith Australian Standards and best practice.Facilities to also meet EPA design requirements.

Septic tank system to meet EPA and Departmentof Health requirements.

Mining operations are also not considered to beinherently odorous developments.

Rare Insignificant Low







T41

Use of NaCN inprocessing resultingin potentialemissions of HCN

Unlikely Minor Low Natural breakdown of toxic components inatmosphere through volatilization and UV

Storage and use of cyanide in accordance withSafework SA requirements and AustralianStandards

Unlikely Minor Low




7.8.6.1 Dust emission from mining operations

It is not possible to have complete dust suppression in relation to construction and mining operations.

The closest potential receptors are the residences in Tarcoola township located about 3.4 km from theoperations (although at the present time there were no permanent residents). Given the distances from theoperations the impacts are considered to be negligible and this has been confirmed by air quality modelling(Table 7.31).

Table 7.31 Predicted impact for maximum 24 hour average PM10 concentrations for all scenarios(µg/m3)

ID Incremental Cumulative

Year 1 Year 3 Year 1 Year 3

Goal: 50 µg/m3

R1 (Tarcoola residence) 16.7 13.7 41.7 38.7

R2 (Wilgena Homestead) 3.1 2.6 28.1 27.6

R3 (Malbooma outstation) 2.0 1.7 27.0 26.7

R4 (Carnding Road outstation) 2.9 2.5 27.9 27.5

R5 (Ealbara outstation) 3.3 2.9 28.3 27.9

R6 (Gibraltar outstation) 3.2 2.7 28.2 27.7

R7 (Mentor outstation) 5.3 4.4 30.3 29.4

As indicated in Section 7.6.1.1 there are two additional potential receptors, Mulgathing station (73 kmnorthwest of open pit) and Ambrosia outstation (47 km northwest of the open pit).

The results indicate that maximum incremental and cumulative PM10 24 hour impacts are predicted to meetair quality goals at R1 to R7. A typical contour plot of emissions for years 1 and 2 are indicated in Figure 7.8and Figure 7.9.

Review of the PM10 contour plots indicates that predicted maximum dust concentrations at the western edgeof Tarcoola have the potential to exceed ambient air quality goals. Monitoring of dust concentrations at thewestern end of Tarcoola is not proposed. It is considered that “managing by exception” is appropriate giventhe low risk associated with this aspect.

A complaints register will be established to record and respond to any issues raised by the local communityrelating to air emissions from construction and operations. Any complaints will be investigated andaddressed. In the event that air emissions become an issue for residents in Tarcoola township or otherpotential receptors (based on complaints received) Tarcoola Gold will develop an Air Quality ManagementPlan for implementation which may include the installation of monitoring equipment.

In relation to Mulgathing homestead station and Ambrosia outstation it is extremely unlikely that dust fromthe construction activities and mining operations would impact these residential receptors due to the largedistance between the open pit and the receptors. Particulate matter would not be transported to both ofthese receptors as it would be dispersed over the significant distances. This assessment is supported by thefact that for Carnding Road outstation, located 19 km northwest of the mine, the modelling was predicted tohave a maximum cumulative impact of 27.9 µg/m3 for PM10 concentrations over a 24 hour period, which ismore than 20 µg/m3 below the criterion.

Data source: WPG Resources, DEWNR, DPTI.DSD, ESRI DigitalGlobe

Map no: 2200005A_GIS_020_C

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 250 500


Predicted cumulative impacts for maximum 24 hour average PM10> for Year 1 (µg/m3)

4540

50

6070

80

90

100

110

30

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230240

250

260

280

290

300 310

320

330

42

350

400

60

40

40

140

40

40

40

40

150

50

50

40

40

60

40

40

40

30

40

50

50

150

100

40

R1TARCOOLA

LegendKey townSensitive receptorPM10 concentration contour for Year 1 (µg/m3)TrackLocal roadMain roadTarcoola mine planRailwayProposed mineral lease area

Site accessroad

WILGENAHOMESTEAD

MALBOOMAOUTSTATION


R3 R1R2

TARCOOLA

1:40,000

Date: 28/07/2015Scale ratio correct when printed at A3

Projection: Transverse MercatorCoordinate system: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 53

90

80

110

100

120

130

140

150

16070

170180 190200210

220

230

240

250260

270280

290

300

60

310

320

330

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410420

440

450

460

470

500

530

50

930

260

190

100

140

180

390

380

150

150

130

www.pbworld.com




Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 500 1,000


Predicted cumulative impacts for maximum 24 hour average PM10 Year 3 (µg/m3)

40

50

60

70

8090

30

100

110

120130

140

150 160

170

180

190140

40170

160120

40

40

60

40

40

160

60

60

40

40

150

150

40

R1TARCOOLA

Sensitive receptorPM10 concentrationcontour for Year 3 (µg/m3)Tarcoola mine planRailwayProposed mineral leasearea

1:40,000



www.pbworld.com



WILGENAHOMESTEAD

MALBOOMAOUTSTATION


R3 R1R2

TARCOOLA

70

60

80

90 100

110

50

130

120

140

150160

170

180

190 200

210

60

120150

150

190

130

120

140

190

140

130

160

140

150

170

150

130



The predicted impacts for PM2.5 maximum 24 hour average and annual averages are presented inTable 7.32.

Table 7.32 Predicted impact for maximum 24 hour average and annual average PM2.5 concentrationsfor scenarios 1 and 3 (µg/m3)


24hr Annual 24hr Annual 24hr Annual 24hr Annual

Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

Goals 25 8 25 8 25 8 25 8

R1 1.6 <0.1 1.7 <0.1 14.1 2.5 14.2 2.6

R2 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 12.8 2.5 12.8 2.5

R3 0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 12.7 2.5 12.7 2.5

R4 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 12.8 2.5 12.8 2.5

R5 0.3 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 12.8 2.5 12.9 2.5

R6 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 12.8 2.5 12.8 2.5

R7 0.5 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 13.0 2.5 13.0 2.5

Modelling results for scenario 1 and 3 indicate that the Project’s operations would comply with NEPMmaximum 24 hour average goal of 25 µg/m3 at sensitive receptors R1 to R7. The incremental and cumulativepredicted annual average impacts for PM2.5 did not exceed NEPM’s criterion of 8 µg/m3 at any sensitivereceptors for all years modelled. Mulgathing station and Ambrosia outstation would also comply with thegoals.

The predicted incremental and cumulative impacts for the annual average TSP concentrations are shown inTable 7.33.

Table 7.33 Predicted impact for annual average TSP concentrations for all scenarios (µg/m3)


Annual average(Year 1)




Goal 90 90

R1 1.4 1.4 21.4 21.4

R2 0.2 0.2 20.2 20.2

R3 0.2 0.2 20.2 20.2

R4 0.4 0.4 20.4 20.4

R5 0.4 0.4 20.4 20.4

R6 0.3 0.3 20.3 20.3

R7 0.3 0.3 20.3 20.3

The predicted impacts for the amenity pollutants TSP concentration were below the air quality goal of90 µg/m3 (NHMRC recommended) at all sensitive receptors investigated. Mulgathing station and Ambrosiaoutstation would also comply with the goals.



The predicted the incremental and cumulative impacts for the monthly average dust deposition levels areshown in Table 7.34 and Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3.

Table 7.34 Predicted impact for monthly deposited dust for all scenarios (g/m2/month)


Monthly average(Year 1)




Goal 4 4

R1 0.01 0.01 2.0 2.0

R2 <0.01 <0.01 2.0 2.0

R3 <0.01 <0.01 2.0 2.0

R4 <0.01 <0.01 2.0 2.0

R5 <0.01 <0.01 2.0 2.0

R6 <0.01 <0.01 2.0 2.0

R7 <0.01 <0.01 2.0 2.0

Incremental dust deposition levels were well below the adopted goal of 4 g/m2/month. The most significantcontribution to dust deposition levels was the estimated background concentrations (2 g/m2/month).

Review of the deposition contour plots indicates impacts are essentially restricted to the pit and adjacentmine areas and unlikely to significantly affect surrounding vegetation. Outside this area dust deposition ratesare predicted to be insignificant.

7.8.6.2 Greenhouse gases and combustion emissions and combustion emissions fromplant and equipment

The emissions of greenhouse gases and combustion products (carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide andnitrogen dioxide) and particulate matter from fuel combustion associated with earthmoving plant andequipment, diesel generators and vehicles will occur during construction and operation.

The largest source of emissions is from the mine’s operational phase, followed by emissions associated withland clearing during the construction phase. Emissions generated throughout the construction phase arecomparatively minor to the project’s total emissions.

Over the lifetime of the project, it is estimated that the project will emit a total of 82,996 tonnes of carbondioxide equivalent (t CO2-e).

Overall, Australia’s total direct (scope 1) annual emissions for 2011/2012 were 554.6 M tonne CO2-e andAustralia’s direct (scope 1) annual emissions from the mining sector in 2011/2012 were 66 M tonne CO2-e(DoE, 2014d). By comparison, the annual operation of the mine is projected to represent approximately0.003% of Australia’s total direct emissions and 0.028% of Australia’s total direct mining emissionsrespectively.

The Tarcoola Gold annual emissions are equivalent to 0.37% of the 2011/2012 of South Australian miningsector direct emissions and 0.06% of South Australia’s overall 2011/2012 direct emissions (DoE, 2014a).

On this basis the project would not lead to significant additional emissions and the risk is therefore low.




7.8.6.3 Odour

Implementation of the proposed control and management measures will mitigate any adverse impacts due toodours emitted from combustion products and waste.



The primary risk levels for odour, combustion products and greenhouse gases are low, therefore nooutcomes and measurement criteria have been developed for these components. As there could be potentialfor mine related traffic to generate dust while travelling through or near Tarcoola township, Tarcoola Gold iscommitted to the following outcome during construction and operation of the mine (Table 7.35).

Table 7.35 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – air quality


T38 No public health and/orpublic nuisance impacts tolocal residents from airemissions and/or dustgenerated by miningoperations.

Investigation of dust complaints demonstratesthat the mine operator did not cause or could notreasonably have prevented the incidentoccurring. All complaints acknowledged within48 hours and closed out within 7 days or asagreed with the Director of Mines. If complaintsnot resolved Tenement holder will undertakecontinuous monitoring using instrumentation(TEOM or other acceptable to the EPA) todemonstrate that dust emissions are withinregulatory levels.


In dealing with dust emissions from operations, in particular traffic generated dust impacts to residents inTarcoola township (noting that at the time of investigations there were no resident in Tarcoola), it isconsidered that “managing by exception” is appropriate given the low risk associated with this aspect. As aresult, no specific monitoring measures have been developed.

A complaints register will be established to record and respond to any issues raised by the local communityrelating to air emissions from construction and operations. Any complaints will be investigated andaddressed. In the event that air emissions become an issue for residents in Tarcoola township or otherpotential receptors (based on complaints received) Tarcoola Gold will develop an Air Quality ManagementPlan for implementation which may include air quality monitoring.

As part of normal operations gas monitors will be installed on the top of the leaching tanks and monitoredcontinuously to ensure that the plant is evacuated should HCN levels become dangerous. In terms of themonitoring of GHG emissions will include:

n regular monitoring, auditing and reporting on energy, resource use and GHG emissions from all relevantactivities

n monitoring against Key Performance Indicators for plant efficiency and GHG intensity.



7.9 Noise


7.9.1.1 Context

The Tarcoola Gold Project is located in an isolated area with low ambient background noise levels. There areno significant anthropogenic sources of noise located within the project area. Noise activities in the projectarea include the limited existing traffic along the road west of Tarcoola township (some of which is related torailway line maintenance), the generator that provides power to Tarcoola township and rail activity along boththe Trans Australian and Adelaide to Darwin rail lines (including shunting). Rail traffic on the Trans Australianrailway line is fairly frequent and may potentially mask noise impacts from the Tarcoola Project at residencesin Tarcoola township.

Attended noise monitoring in the Tarcoola area has indicated that the day time noise environments at thenearest residential receptors are influenced by road traffic noise, human activities and the local fauna (birds).The locations of the attended noise monitoring locations are indicated in Figure 3.2.

The township of Tarcoola is located approximately 3.4 kilometres east of the Tarcoola Project operationalareas.

The sensitive receptors around the Tarcoola Project site have been identified and are presented inTable 7.36 and indicated in Figure 3.2. The closest residences are on the western side of Tarcoola township.There are currently no permanent residents in Tarcoola township and some housing is used infrequently byrailway workers.

Table 7.36 Sensitive receiver information

ReceptorNo

Location MGA 53Easting (m)

MGA 53Northing (m)

Elevation(m ASL)

Approximatedistance from openpit

R1 Western end ofTarcoola

458403 6602603 123 3.4 km east

R2 Wilgena homestead 475590 6595890 140 22 km southeast

R3 Malboomaoutstation

421390 6604940 165 33 km west

R4 Carnding Roadoutstation(1)

440950 6615670 123 18 km north northwest

R5 Ealbara outstation(1) 469260 6632260 145 32 km north northeast

R6 Gibraltaroutstation(1)

441300 6635230 155 34 km northwest

R7 Mentor outstation(1) 482090 6633470 163 41 km northeast

R8 Mulgathinghomestead

402670 6654060 208 73 km northeast

R9 Ambrosia outstation 416880 6631310 167 47 km northeast

(1) Outstations are used infrequently



During construction and operation mine personnel will be located in an accommodation village within the MLand/or residences in Tarcoola.

The assessment (Appendix A) has considered noise vibration impacts due to:

n mining and mineral processing operations and associated activitiesn operational road traffic noise.

In addition the assessment considered noise and vibration related to construction activities and constructiontraffic noise.


Key stakeholders in relation to noise and vibration include EPA (Noise), DSD and Safework SA (groundvibration), DPTI (transport noise), residents in Tarcoola township and pastoral station homesteads.

Based on the EP Noise Policy and discussion with the EPA and the presence of the Tarcoola township withinclose proximity to the proposed project the following noise levels are applicable for potential receptors inTarcoola township:

n 52 dB(A) between the hours of 7 am and 10 pm; andn 45 dB(A) between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am.

For the pastoral stations and outstations which would be classified as rural industry the following noise levelstypically apply:


When predicting noise levels for comparison with the goal levels of the EP Noise Policy, penalties may beapplied if the noise exhibits “annoying” characteristics of tone, impulse, low frequency or modulation. Thesevary from 5 dB(A) for one characteristic to 8 dB(A) for two characteristics and 10 dB(A) for threecharacteristics. A penalty of 5 dB(A) have been applied to the EPA Noise Policy levels.

Therefore based on the zoning of the area, the proposed nature of development for the project and theapplication of the 5 dB(A) penalty the applicable “goal noise levels” adopted for the project are:

Residential


Rural industry


Based on the discussions with stakeholders the above “noise level goals” are considered appropriate for theprojects and were used in the assessment.


The relevant acts and guidelines relevant to noise and vibration in South Australia were discussed in detail inSection 2 and are summarised below.



In South Australia there are no statutory limits for vibration. However the General Environmental Duty of theEP Act applies. Assessment of vibration levels are based on other standards (refer to Appendix A fordetails):

n Environment Protection Act 1993n Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.n The SA Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure’s (DPTI) Road Traffic Noise Guidelines

(RTNG) has been adopted to establish the project specific noise criteria for the road traffic noise fromthe proposed access road.

n The construction noise associated with the Tarcoola Gold Project is to meet the requirements of theEPP Noise, Part 6 – Special noise control provision, Division 1 – Construction noise.


7.9.3.1 Impact event analysis – noise

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts due to noise. A detailed discussion isincluded in the following sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.37.

Table 7.37 Impact event analysis – noise


Consequences

T42 Construction andoperational use of vehicles,machinery

Noise Pastoral lease holderand Tarcoolatownship

Disturbance and impact onamenity

7.9.3.2 Disturbance to neighbours as a result of noise from mining activities

During both construction and operational phases of the project there is potential for impacts to residents inTarcoola township (when residents are present) and itinerant railway workers by noise from mining activitiessuch as:

n vehicle movement (including reversing alarms)n machinery (e.g. drills, loaders, haul trucks, excavators and other ancillary equipment)n blasting operations (noise and vibration from this aspect are covered in Section 7.16).

If noise were to affect sensitive receptors it could result in:

n disturbance to normal behaviour (e.g. sleeping patterns)n associated hearing problems.


7.9.4.1 Disturbance to sensitive receptors as a result of noise from mining activities

Construction noise

n All site workers (including subcontractors and temporary workforce) will be made aware of the potentialfor noise impacts upon Tarcoola township and encouraged to take all practical and reasonablemeasures to minimise noise during the course of their activities.

n Noise suppression devices will be maintained to the manufacturer’s specifications. Internal combustionengines are to be fitted with a suitable muffler in good working order.



n Equipment which is used intermittently will be shut down when not in use.n All engine covers will be kept closed while equipment is operating.n As far as possible, materials dropped from heights into or out of trucks will be minimised.n Where possible, trucks associated with the work will not be left standing with their engine operating.n All plant on site will be operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and, where

necessary, have current registration licences.

Operational noise

The following control and management strategies will be implemented as part of a best practice approach tomining activities:

n If practicable and consistent with the efficient operations during night trucks associated withloading/unloading will not be left standing with their engines operating.

n All employees at the Tarcoola Gold Project facility will be made aware of the potential for noise impactsupon local residents and receptors and encouraged to take all practical and reasonable measures tominimise noise during the course of their activities.

n Fixed equipment (i.e. pumps, generators, compressors) will be located as far as possible from thenearest receptors.

n Equipment which is used intermittently will be shut down when not in use.n All engine covers will be kept closed while equipment is operating.n As far as possible, materials dropped from heights into or out of trucks will be minimised.n All plant on site will be operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and, where

necessary, have current registration licences.n Noise suppression devices will be maintained to the manufacturer’s specifications. Internal combustion

engines are to be fitted with a suitable muffler in good working order.n As far as practicable stockpiles will be located as far as possible from the nearest receptors.n A complaints register will be maintained and noise complaints will be investigated and noise monitoring

may be undertaken to identify and quantify the issue and determine options to minimise impacts.





Table 7.38 Risk assessment – noise

Aspect andimpact




T42

Disturbance tosensitive receptorsdue to noise fromvehicles, equipmentand plant operation

Unlikely Minor Low Include noise abatement design measures on siteinfrastructure e.g. generators, material handlingmachinery.

Use of mobile mine machinery with noiseabatement devices that meet standards andcurrent best design capability.

Maintain noise abatement devices on mineinfrastructure and mobile machinery/vehicles.

Service machinery regularly in accordance withmanufacturing requirements.

In the event noise and vibration does become anoperational issue (based on complaints receivedor another indicator) a Noise and VibrationManagement Plan will be developed forimplementation.





7.9.6.1 Construction

Noise

A summary of the predicted day and night LAeq and LAmax noise levels at the nearest potentially affectedreceptors is provided in Table 7.39. Comparisons of the predicted levels with the adopted construction noiseobjectives are also presented.

The predicted noise levels depend upon the number of plant items and equipment operating at any one timeand their approximate location relative to the receptor of interest. A receptor will therefore experience arange of values, representing the variation in construction noise depending upon the location of the particularconstruction activity and the likelihood of the equipment of interest operating simultaneously.

The predictions represent worst-case scenarios, as reported noise levels include the cumulative impact fromall works occurring at the same time.

Table 7.39 Predicted construction noise emission levels

Separationdistance(kilometres)

Potentially mostaffected nearestreceptors

Predicted operational noise level– dB(A)(1)(2)

LAeq LAeqObjectives

LAmax LAmaxObjectives

3.4 Tarcoola township 47 45 54 60

19 Carnding Road outstation 31 45 39 60

22 Wilgena Homestead 30 45 38 60

(1) Predicted construction noise levels at these receptors include cumulative impacts within the proposed work activity.(2) The predicted levels are calculated based on Neutral meteorological condition only.

Construction noise is expected to comply at all locations. In a worst case scenario without taking into accountatmospheric or ground absorption with all items of plant operating at their rated sound power levels, thepredicted construction noise level of 47 dB(A) at the Tarcoola township exceeds the LAeq noise goal of45 dB(A). However as previously mentioned, it is highly unlikely all construction equipment would beoperating at their maximum sound power levels at any one time.

Road traffic

The increases in total vehicle traffic volumes on Augusta Highway and Stuart Highway are up to 0.3% and5% respectively. These increases on Augusta Highway and Stuart Highway will increase the road trafficnoise by not more than 0.2 dB which is not perceptible by the average human ear.

The additional vehicles on the Tarcoola to Glendambo Road will increase the road traffic noise by about2 dB(A) only when vehicles are operating which is considered “hardly perceivable” (referenced from NSWOffice of Environment and Heritage’s Noise Guide for Local Government). Based on this assessment, theadditional vehicles on the access roads associated with the Tarcoola Project construction activities are notconsidered to cause significant change in the function of the roads and perceptible increase in road trafficnoise. Therefore, noise treatment to attenuate road traffic noise on Tarcoola to Glendambo Road will not berequired.



7.9.6.2 Operations

Noise

A summary of the predicted day and night LAeq and LAmax noise levels at the potentially affected receptors isprovided in Table 7.40. Comparisons of the predicted levels with the adopted industrial noise objectives arealso presented.

The predicted noise levels depend upon the number of plant items and equipment operating at any one timeand their approximate location relative to the receptor of interest.

The predictions represent worst-case scenarios, as reported noise levels include the cumulative impact fromall works occurring at the same time. A conservative 5 dB(A) attenuation from the Tarcoola Ridge betweenthe project site (i.e. mining operations and processing plant) and the nearest receptor in Tarcoola have beentaken into account in predicting the operational noise levels.

It is also noted that the works would not be continuous (for example the crusher would only be operatingduring day time) and for extended periods of time noise levels would be expected to be lower than thecalculated levels.

Table 7.40 Predicted operational noise emission levels

Work activity Separationdistance at

closest point(kilometres)

Potentially mostaffectedreceptors

Predicted operational noise level– dB(A)(1)(2)(3)

LAeq LAeqObjectiveday/night

LAmax LAmaxObjective

Mine site 3.4 Tarcoola township 39 47/40 47 60

19 Carnding Roadoutstation

25 52/45 33 60

22 WilgenaHomestead

23 52/45 31 60

ProcessingPlant

4 Tarcoola township 44 47/40 52 60


31 52/45 39 60

23 WilgenaHomestead

29 52/45 37 60

PowerGenerators



6 52/45 14 60

23 WilgenaHomestead

4 52/45 12 60

Borefield WaterSupply



5 52/45 13 60

19 Wilgena StationHomestead

5 52/45 13 60

(1) Predicted operational noise levels at these receptors include cumulative impacts within the proposed work activity.(2) These predicted internal noise levels are calculated based on a standard facade construction which provides a 20 dB(A)

attenuation from external noise sources.(3) The predicted levels are calculated based on Neutral meteorological condition only.



Noise levels from the operations of the Tarcoola Gold Project have been predicted through the application ofthe point to point distance separation calculation. It should be noted the calculations do not take intoconsideration the mitigating or enhancing effects of terrain, screening or meteorological conditions, thereforeproviding a measure of conservatism. Based on the results of the assessment, it is expected that theoperational noise levels of the proposed four work activities of the Tarcoola Project should comply with theproject specific day and night LAeq objectives and the LAmax objective. Based on the calculation methodologyoutlined above, noise levels from the processing plant have been predicted to potentially exceed LAeq nighttime noise goals by up to 4 dB(A). The operational noise is primarily defined by the Lokotrack LT106 mobilesingle toggle jaw crusher which is understood to have a 8 hour day shift operation and therefore should notcontribute to operational noise emanating from the project during the night time. However it does have arated sound power level of 124 dB(A) SWL. While cumulative operational noise is expected to comply withadopted noise goals, it is recommended sound attenuation options for this item of plant be investigated. Aconservative assumption of 6 dB(A) increase in noise levels during noise enhancing weather condition hasbeen made for night time operations. The operational noise impacts at surrounding receptors are likely tocomply with the project night time noise objectives during noise enhancing weather condition.

Based on the above noise impact assessment of the Tarcoola Project operations, additional noisemanagement and mitigation measures will not be required.

Road traffic

The increases in total vehicle traffic volumes the project will generate on the Augusta Highway and StuartHighway are insignificant. These increases on Augusta Highway and Stuart Highway will increase the roadtraffic noise by not more than 0.2 dB which is not perceptible by the average human ear.

The additional vehicles on the Tarcoola to Glendambo Road will increase the road traffic noise by about1.7 dB(A) when the vehicles are on the road which is considered “hardly perceivable” (referenced from NSWOffice of Environment and Heritage’s Noise Guide for Local Government).

Based on the assessment, the additional vehicles associated with the Tarcoola Project operation are notconsidered to cause significant change in the function of the roads and perceptible increase in road trafficnoise. Therefore, noise treatment to attenuate road traffic noise will not be required.

Rail traffic on the Trans Australian railway line is fairly frequent and may potentially mask noise impacts fromthe Tarcoola Project at residences in the Tarcoola township.


No outcomes and measurement criteria have been developed as the primary risk levels for noise andvibration are low.


In dealing with noise, it is considered that “managing by exception” is appropriate given the low riskassociated with this aspect to mining operations. As a result, no specific monitoring measures have beendeveloped. In the event that noise becomes an operation issue on site (based on complaints received),Tarcoola Gold will develop a Noise Management Plan for implementation on site.



7.10 Soil and land disturbance


7.10.1.1 Context

The Tarcoola Gold Project is located in a semi-arid area with variable vegetation cover and characterised bygentle slopes with either outcropping rock of the Hiltaba Granite Suite or Tarcoola Formation sediments anda mantle of colluvium consisting predominantly of gravelly silty sand.

Site investigations as part of an initial site contamination assessment indicated the topsoil materialcomprised the following:

n Silty sand, fine to coarse grained, brown, trace low plasticity clay and fine gravel.n Gravelly sand, fine to coarse grained, pale brown to olive brown, fine to medium grained sub-angular

gravel with low plasticity clay.n Sand, fine to coarse grained, olive brown, with low plasticity clay, trace fine to coarse grained sub-


Below the topsoil layer the DCP testing indicates denser material which was interpreted as colluvium/subsoilextending to a depth of between 0.4 m to 0.5 m.

This is consistent with geotechnical investigations undertaken as part of the open pit studies (boreholesTAD001 and TAD002) which indicate that the red brown and light grey brown colluvium has a thickness ofabout 0.4 m and is underlain by extremely-highly weathered sediments of the Tarcoola Formation.


Stakeholders include the DEWNR (erosion), DSD and EPA. DSD has indicated that retention of the quantityand quality of topsoil is important for the project.


The legislation applicable to topsoil and subsoil include the following:

n Mining Act 1971n Environment Protection Act 1993n Natural Resources Management Act 2004.


7.10.3.1 Impact event analysis –Soil and land disturbance

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts to soil. A detailed discussion is included in thefollowing sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.41.



Table 7.41 Impact event analysis – Soil and land disturbance


Consequences

T43 Land clearance Exposure anddisturbance of soil

Soil Loss of soil quantity

T44 Use of saline water for dustsuppression

Overspray andrunoff

Soil Loss of soil structure andcontamination

T45 Process water supply pipeline Spill and leakage Soil Loss of soil structure andcontamination

T46 Storage and use of fuel andchemicals (including NaCN) atmine site and/or borefield.

Spills and leakage Soil Soil contamination

T47 Establishment of roads, laydownareas, stockpile platforms,hardstands

Soil compaction Soil Poor rehabilitation/re-vegetation

7.10.3.2 Soil erosion due to clearance and exposure of soils resulting from miningactivities

During both the construction and operation phases of the project there is potential for soil erosion frommining activities.

If soil erosion is not properly managed it could result in damage to soil structure, increased sedimentation indrainage lines, reduced efficiency of the site drainage system and loss of top soil.

7.10.3.3 Damage to soil structure and quality resulting from use of saline water for dustsuppression

Use of saline water for dust suppression on roads could adversely affect the soil structure and quality. If notmanaged properly this may affect the abundance of or potential for native vegetation to grow within theregion.

7.10.3.4 Adverse effects to soil quality resulting from saline water spilling from the watersupply pipeline

Leaks or spills from the water supply pipeline may result in saline water spilling over the soil. This couldoccur if the pipe was damaged from extreme temperatures or vehicles. If a spill did occur it could result indamage to soil structure, increased soil salinity and reduced fertility of soil.

7.10.3.5 Soil contamination from chemicals (including NaCN) and fuels

Spills or leaks may occur from any of the following sources:


Soil contamination could result leading to degradation of surface water and groundwater.



7.10.3.6 Soil compaction

Compaction of soil can occur due to the establishment of infrastructure, hardstand areas, soil stockpiles, haulroads and access roads. If not adequately managed soil compaction can reduce water infiltration causingadditional runoff and hinder the establishment of vegetation.


7.10.4.1 Soil erosion due to clearance and exposure of soils resulting from miningactivities


n staged clearing to remove topsoils and subsoil from only the required footprint of the projectcomponents and undertake progressive rehabilitation

n ensure stockpile locations are documented for management and future rehabilitationn design will incorporate surface water drainage control measures to protect stockpiles and reduce

erosion and sediment lossn regular inspections and maintenance of sediment and erosion control devicesn operational activities will keep to established and designated track and work zonesn high-traffic areas to be sealed with road base where practicable.

7.10.4.2 Damage to soil structure and quality resulting from use of saline water for dustsuppression


n design roads with appropriate drainage control systemsn minimise overspray through the controlled application of water on unsealed surfacesn management procedures for use of saline water for dust suppression will be developed and

implemented.

7.10.4.3 Adverse effects to soil quality resulting from saline water spilling from the watersupply pipeline


n design requirements of water supply pipeline will consider environmental conditions (e.g. UV tolerantpolypropylene and flow requirements)

n daily visual inspections of entire length of pipeline will be undertakenn repair leakages within 24 hours of observation.

7.10.4.4 Soil contamination from chemicals (including NaCN), fuels

The likelihood and consequence may be reduced by implementing the following design and operationalmanagement measures:

n fuel, oil and chemical storage areas will be designed and maintained in accordance EPA and AustralianStandards as appropriate




n chemical and fuel management procedures will be developed and include emergency response andclean up requirements.

7.10.4.5 Soil compaction

The likelihood and consequence may be reduced by implementing the following design and operationalmanagement measures:

n removal of hardstand areasn scarifying compacted areasn spreading of topsoil.





Table 7.42 Risk assessment – Soil and land disturbance





T43

Erosion of topsoil incleared and disturbedareas across theproject area resultingin loss of soil quantity

Possible Minor Moderate Minimise potential erosion through staged clearingand progressive rehabilitation.

Strip topsoil and excavate subsoil only from thoseareas that will be disturbed by mining operations.

Ensure stockpiles are appropriately mapped anddocumented for management and rehabilitationpurposes.

Use erosion control techniques to protectstockpiles and minimise erosion and sedimentloss.

Select soil stockpile locations avoiding workingareas, areas of natural drainage and on site trafficroutes.

Regular inspections and maintenance of sedimentand erosion control devices.

Operational activities will keep to established anddesignated track and work zones.

Erosion control measures will be included in a SoilManagement Plan in the PEPR.

Possible Minor Moderate

T44

Increased level of saltin top soil due tosaline water use fordust suppressionactivities

Unlikely Minor Low Design roads with appropriate drainage controlmeasures.

Minimise overspray and implement controlledwater application.

Management procedures for use of saline waterfor dust suppression will be developed andimplemented.

Unlikely Minor Low







T45

Increased level of saltin top soil due to spillsfrom water supplypipeline

Unlikely Minor Low Consider design requirements of water supplypipeline e.g. UV tolerant HDPE.

Daily visual inspections of entire length of pipelinewill be undertaken and repair any leakages within24 hours of observation.

Unlikely Minor Low

T46

Soil contaminationfrom fuels andchemicals (includingNaCN)

Unlikely Minor Low Design fuel, oil and chemical storage inaccordance with EPA and Australian Standards.

Regular inspections will be undertaken to ensureintegrity of bunded and spill containment areasand correct use of storage and distribution areas.


Management of waste storage facility inaccordance with design and operating procedures.


Unlikely Minor Low

T47

Soil compactionresulting in poorrevegetation

Unlikely Minor Low Removal of hardstand areas.Scarifying of compacted areas.

Spreading of topsoil.

Unlikely Minor Low

Note: PRL = primary risk level with no control and management strategies; RRL = residual risk level after implementation of control and management strategies; L = Low; M = Moderate; H = High




The establishment of bunding for the fuel and chemical storage areas and prompt clean-up should effectivelyprevent significant contamination. The loss of soil quantity may be minimised through reducing landclearance, the separate stockpiling of topsoil and subsoil, progressive rehabilitation, revegetation andadopting the proposed control and management measures. On this basis the impact is considered to beinsignificant and the residual impact low.

In addition impacts will also be minimised by the removal of hardstand and other trafficked and compactedareas and implementation of the proposed management measures.


Tarcoola Gold is committed to the following outcomes during construction and operation of the mine:

Table 7.43 Environmental outcomes and measurement criteria – soil and land disturbance


T43 Existing (pre-mining) soilquantity and quality ismaintained.

Baseline data on topsoil and subsoil materials tocharacterise pre-mining quality in areas proposedto be disturbed will be collected prior tocommencement of site activities.

Soil stockpiles will be stabilised to prevent lossesof quantity due to wind and runoff erosion andquality due to infestation of weeds as detailed inthe Soil Management Plan that will be developedin the PEPR.

Records demonstrate that all chemical and fuelspills >20Lwithin the lease areas are recorded,reported to the EPA and DSD (as required) andclean up actions completed in accordance withSoil Management Plan and Emergency and SpillManagement Plan and NEPM 2013 industrial landuse soil chemical levels.

Regular and post-significant rainfall eventsinspection records demonstrate that silt traps,contour banks, formed drains and other erosioncontrol structures are in place and maintained.

Records maintained onsite demonstrate thattopsoil and subsoil havebeen stripped,stockpiled in delineatedand labelled stockpilelocations.


Monitoring will involve the following:

n regular inspection of drainage and sediment control structures and overburden stockpiles duringconstruction and operation

n reporting of incidents relating to spills or leakage from chemical and fuel storage and distributionfacilities

n monitoring to confirm that rehabilitation is undertaken in accordance with EPA requirementsn record and respond to complaints relating to impacts on pastoral activities and the public.



7.11 Traffic


7.11.1.1 Context

Construction phase

During construction the expected average heavy vehicle traffic is estimated to be 2 vehicles per day. This isbased on a total requirement of 150 heavy vehicles during the 3 month construction phase and assumesvehicle movements are concentrated within 5 days of the week for 12 weeks.

As the construction traffic is concentrated within a 3 month period, it will have minimal long term impact. Inthe short term, it will not add significantly to the large volumes of heavy vehicle traffic already operatingbetween Port Augusta and Glendambo. Tarcoola Gold will take into consideration the presence of cattlegrids during the construction period to ensure potential impact is minimised.

The traffic impact on the Glendambo to Tarcoola road during construction will be similar to that of theoperational phase (refer to below).

Operation phase

During normal mining operations it is estimated that there would be in the range of two to three heavy vehiclemovements per week, or a total two way volume of traffic of up to six per week. The existing commercialvehicle daily two way traffic is as follows:

n Port Wakefield to Port Augusta – 950n Port Augusta to Pimba – 250n Pimba to Glendambo – 140.

The commercial/heavy vehicle traffic on the Glendambo to Tarcoola road is estimated at 20% of the AADTas the actual data is not available through DPTI.

The Tarcoola Gold Project will have minimal impact on the route between Adelaide and Glendambo, via PortAugusta, which already supports large volumes of heavy traffic.

It is likely that the Tarcoola Gold Project will have a minimal impact on heavy vehicle traffic on theGlendambo to Tarcoola road. Light vehicle traffic on this road will also increase, however the impact on roadconditions will be dominated by the heavy traffic with the light vehicles causing minimal road wear.


Stakeholders include the DPTI, residents at Tarcoola, Kingoonya and the Wilgena and Mulgathingpastoralists. The following issues were raise by DPTI:

n sufficient time will need to be allowed to enable road transports to clear railway level crossingsn operation of proposed vehicles need to be consistent with existing road geometry, cattle grid capacity

and unsealed road conditionsn consideration of roadside vegetation is required.

The pastoralists had no comments relating to traffic.




The relevant Acts relating to roads and highways in the State include:

n Highways Act, 1926n Local Government Act, 1999.


Traffic related issues that have been identified for the project are related to two specific elements.

7.11.3.1 Impact event analysis – Traffic

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts. A detailed discussion is included in thefollowing sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.44.

Table 7.44 Impact event analysis – Traffic


Consequences

T48 Heavy and light vehicle trafficmovements during constructionand operation

Use of existingroads

Pastoral lesseespublic andemployees

Reduced public safety onroads, mine access and railcrossings

7.11.3.2 Safety issues from increased traffic due to mine construction and operationvehicles

During the course of the project there is potential for increased safety issues on local and regional roads andrail crossings from increased traffic required during construction and operation phases.

If safety impacts are not properly managed it could result in increased road accidents resulting in vehicledamage and possible injury to company drivers and the public.



The likelihood and consequences may be reduced by implementing the following control and managementstrategies:

n liaise with DPTI to determine requirements (if any) for access and safety signage at the junction of thesite access road and western side of Tarcoola and rail line crossings

n restriction of traffic speeds to 40 km/h and use of air brakes through Tarcoola and Kingoonyan induction into site proceduresn all vehicle operators have appropriate licencesn development and implementation of Traffic Management Plan.





Table 7.45 Risk assessment – traffic impacts





T48

Increased safetyissues for pastoralist,public and employeesfrom increased trafficon local and regionalroads and railcrossings.

Possible Minor Moderate Development and implementation of TrafficManagement Plan.

Liaise with DPTI to determine requirements for railline and grid crossings if required.

Installation of appropriate signage at the siteaccess intersection in consultation with DPTI.

Restriction of traffic speed to the lower of signedspeed limit or 40 km/h and restriction on use ofairbrakes through Tarcoola and Kingoonyatownship.

Induction to site procedures.

All vehicle operators to hold the appropriatedrivers licence.






Given the remoteness of the region, the separation distance to the nearest potential sensitive receiver inTarcoola (noting that at the time of assessment the town had no permanent residents) and that the operationwill be FIFO it is not expected there will be any major impacts on safety within the region.

The potential for increased accidents due to increased traffic would be mitigated by the implementation of theTraffic Management Plan and training of drivers.


Draft outcomes and measurement criteria are included in the table below. Impacts of transport of fuel,chemicals (including NaCN) are addressed in Section 7.4 (Fauna) and Section 7.17 (Safety).

Table 7.46 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – traffic


T48 No traffic accidents involving thepublic at mine access points thatcould have been reasonablyprevented by the tenement holder.

Independent investigations within14 days or other time period asagreed with the Director of Minesof all recorded traffic accidents atmine access points indicate thatthey could not have beenreasonably prevented throughimplementation of precautionarymeasures or not due to projectrelated traffic.

Induction records indicate allpersonnel inducted as to trafficawareness.

Any incident or complaint relatedto project traffic.


A complaints register will be established to record and respond to any issues raised by the local communityrelating to traffic from construction and operations. Any complaints will be investigated and addressed.

All road accidents and near misses will be recorded and will be investigated to confirm they wereunavoidable and not caused by Tarcoola Gold.

All staff will be inducted as to the requirements of the Traffic Management Plan and records kept of theinduction.



7.12 Aboriginal and European heritage


7.12.1.1 Context

Aboriginal heritage

There are no sites within the ML area listed on the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects which ismaintained by the Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

The proposed ML and surrounding area is held under native title by the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjarapeople.

A survey of the proposed ML area and associated infrastructure was undertaken on 17 November 2013 bythe AMYAC representing the Native Title Claimant group (refer to Section 3).

European heritage

The assessment in Section 3 indicated there are a number of European heritage sites from historical miningactivities within the ML site.

Geological heritage

The assessment in Section 3 indicated there are no items of geological heritage within the ML site.


Stakeholders include the AMYAC, representing the native title claimants and SANTS.

The AMYAC representatives have defined four No Go areas within the Mineral Claim area where no onground works of any kind or vehicle access is permitted. Clearance has been granted for the proposed openpit, waste rock dump, internal access tracks, heap leach pad, processing plant, accommodation village andoffices as these components are not within the No Go areas. Access corridors have been granted within twoof the No Go areas to enable access and on ground works relating to groundwater bores. The AMYAC hasalso requested that ground disturbance activities be minimised within 100 m of the centreline of the railwaylines.

The above issues have been taken into consideration in the risk assessment process.


The relevant legislation that protect the South Australia’s and Australia’s cultural and European heritage andprovides a framework for ongoing management include:

n Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988n Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994n Heritage Places Act 1993n Native Title Amendment Act 1988 (Cth).




Issues and risk levels associated with Aboriginal and European heritage are related to the establishment andoperation of the mine, and specifically the potential for:

n disturbance to Aboriginal sitesn disturbance to European heritage sitesn disturbance of geological monument.

7.12.3.1 Impact event analysis – Heritage

Construction, operation and rehabilitation can result in impacts to aboriginal and European heritage sites. Adetailed discussion is included in the following sections and an impact event analysis included in Table 7.47.

Table 7.47 Impact event analysis – Heritage


Consequences

T49 Disturbance or destruction ofAboriginal heritage sites bymining operations

Uncoveringsites/artefacts ordisturbing existingheritage sites

Aboriginal heritage Uncoveringsites/artefacts ordisturbing existingheritage sites

T50 Disturbance or destruction ofEuropean heritage sites bymining operations

Uncovering sites ordisturbing existingheritage sites

European heritage Uncovering sites ordisturbing existingheritage sites

NA Disturbance or destruction ofgeological heritage sites bymining operations

No crediblepathway due to noknown sites

NA NA

7.12.3.2 Disturbance to Aboriginal sites (without prior approval)

The likelihood of disturbing Aboriginal sites (without prior approval) is considered unlikely due to the surveyindicating those areas that are not to be accessed by the operations.

7.12.3.3 Disturbance to European heritage sites (without prior approval)

The ML includes a number of European heritage sites from previous mining activities. Tarcoola Gold hascommenced discussions with DSD and Heritage SA and has received in principal agreement for the removalof material from the historic Tarcoola Blocks heap leach area which can be used as a base layer within theproposed heap leach pads (subject to acquiring necessary permits from State Heritage). In addition at thediscretion of Tarcoola Gold it is intended to remove extraneous material (PVC piping and hoses, loosecorrugated iron, etc) and other objects from the most recent mining activities (circa 1990). It may be feasibleto also consolidate some heritage items within for example the machinery dump area.

7.12.3.4 Disturbance to geological heritage sites (without prior approval)

No geological heritage sites have been identified within or in close proximity to the ML site and othercomponents of the project. The likelihood of disturbing geological heritage sites is considered to be unlikelyand the consequence of this being minor.





The following control and management strategies will be implemented:

n locate project components in order to avoid disturbance of identified Aboriginal heritage sites (refer toSection 3.13.1)

n develop Heritage Management Plan with procedures to be implemented in the event a discovery ismade. Protocol to also address statutory reporting requirements as per legislation

n restrict vehicle access to site access tracks and project roads to prevent damage to identified and un-known sites

n monitor the status of the heritage sites and implementation of the Heritage Management Plann establish and implement procedures should new sites be discovered during site worksn undertake induction of personnel on responsibilities under the Act, procedures relating to ground

disturbance and identified sites, and reporting requirements.

7.12.4.2 Disturbance of European and to geological heritage sites (without priorapproval)

The following control and management strategies will be implemented in relation to any unknown sites thatmay be discovered:

n develop Heritage Management Plan with procedures to be implemented in the event a discovery ismade. Protocol to also to address statutory reporting requirements as per legislation

n restrict vehicle access to site access tracks and project roadsn establish and implement procedures should new sites be discovered during site worksn monitor the status of the heritage sites and implementation of the Non-Indigenous Heritage

Management Plann undertake induction of personnel on responsibilities under the Act, procedures relating to ground

disturbance and identified sites, and reporting requirements.





Table 7.48 Risk assessment – Aboriginal, European and geological heritage





T49

Disturbance ordestruction ofAboriginal heritagesites by miningoperations

Possible Minor Moderate Mining operations designed to avoid knownAboriginal heritage sites.

Implement protocol and procedures with theAMYAC for the discovery of Aboriginal sites/relicsand in the event a discovery is made.

Include procedure in mine operationalmanagement plans and Indigenous HeritageManagement Plan.

Include as part of employee and contractorinduction process.

Restrict vehicle access to site access tracks andproject roads to prevent damage to identified andun-known sites. Clear mark identified sites anddesignate as "no go" zones and prohibit access tothese sites.

Monitor the status of the heritage sites andimplementation of the Heritage Management Plan.

Establish and implement procedures should newsites be discovered during site works.

Undertake induction of personnel onresponsibilities under the Act, procedures relatingto ground disturbance and identified sites, andreporting requirements.

Unlikely Minor Low







T50

Disturbance toEuropean heritagesites

Possible Minor Moderate Mining operations designed to avoid known non-indigenous heritage sites.

Include procedure in mine operationalmanagement plans and Heritage ManagementPlan developed in accordance with requirement ofDEWNR.

Include as part of employee and contractorinduction process.

Restrict vehicle access to site access tracks andproject roads to prevent damage to identified andun-known sites.

Establish and implement procedures should newsites be discovered during site works.

Undertake induction of personnel onresponsibilities under the Act, procedures relatingto ground disturbance and identified sites, andreporting requirements.

Unlikely Minor Low





Disturbance of identified aboriginal heritage sites will be unlikely as site clearance has been undertaken ofproject components and no-go zones have been identified.

Ongoing awareness and management of the risks will be required during construction and operation toensure un-known sites are not impacted. The proposed management measure should mitigate significantimpacts.

7.12.6.2 Disturbance of European and to geological heritage sites (without priorapproval)

Ongoing awareness and management of the risks will be required during construction and operation toensure known and un-known European heritage sites are not impacted. The proposed managementmeasure should mitigate significant impacts.

The risks of disturbing geological monuments is not a credible risk as there are no geological monumentswithin the proposed ML or within close proximity.


Tarcoola Gold is committed to the following outcomes during construction and operation of the mine.

Table 7.49 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – Aboriginal, European and geological heritage


T49 No disturbance to Aboriginal heritagesites, objects or artefacts unless priorapproval under the relevant legislationhas been obtained.

Audit of records kept on sitedemonstrates that upon discoveries ofsuspected Aboriginal heritage sites,objects or artefacts work ceased untilappropriate authorisation under therelevant legislation has been obtained.

T50 No disturbance to European heritagesites and objects unless prior approvalunder the relevant legislation has beenobtained.

Audit of records kept on sitedemonstrates compliance withHeritage Places Act 1993, andHeritage Management Plan.


Regular audit to ensure compliance with legislation requirements.



7.13 Visual amenity


7.13.1.1 Context

The Tarcoola Gold Project is situated on the northern side of the Tarcoola Ridge which varies in height from120 mAHD to 165 mAHD and there is not a direct line of site from residences at Tarcoola. The waste rockstorage and heap leach stockpile would be visible from trains operating on the Central Australian RailwayLine and the accommodation village from the Trans Australian railway line.

The nearest residence in Tarcoola (which is currently un-occupied) is located 3.4 km east of the mainoperations.

There are no significant light sources in the area due to the infrequent residents in town. Minor light sourceswould occur during infrequent night traffic, night time operations associated with railway activity and theinfrequent use of buildings by railway workers and exploration personnel.

The highest structure associated with the project is the waste rock storage area which is expected to extendto about 30 m above the natural surface.


Stakeholders include DSD, potential residents in Tarcoola township. Community groups have been briefedon the project and no issues were raised.

The above issues have been taken into consideration in the risk assessment process.


The relevant legislation that requires that visual amenity impacts include the following:

n Mining Act 1971n Environment Protection Act 1993.


7.13.3.1 Impact event analysis


Table 7.50 Impact event analysis – visual amenity


Consequences

T51 Light emission at night Visual Tarcoola residents Reduced amenity

T52 Establishment of waste rock storageand heap leach stockpile

Visual Residents in Tarcoolaand railway travellers

Reduced visualamenity



7.13.3.2 Reduced visual amenity

Given the localised nature of the mine disturbance and the reduced line of site due to the presence of theTarcoola Ridge the visual impact to at Tarcoola township is not expected to be significant.

The accommodation village will be visible from the Tarcoola road and the trans-Australian rail line, andtravellers on the Adelaide to Darwin railway will have a direct line of site to the operations.

7.13.3.3 Disturbance due to light spill

Due to the low potential for a direct line of site from Tarcoola township it is unlikely that there would besignificant light spill impacts from the construction and mining operations. Pastoral stations are unlikely to beimpacted due to the separation distance.



The following control and management strategies will reduce the potential impacts:

n placement of mine infrastructure determined (as far as practicable) to minimise visual impact in terms oflocation and colour

n design of waste rock storage facility and heap leach stockpiles to incorporate elements that assists withprogressive rehabilitation and vegetation

n the Native Vegetation Management Plan and Mine Rehabilitation and Closure Plan will specificallyoutline an approach for progressive rehabilitation.


The following control and management strategies will reduce the potential impacts:

n use of directional lights targeted to work areas and for safety management.





Table 7.51 Risk assessment – visual amenity

Aspect and impact& ID


Likelihood Consequence Primary risk Likelihood Consequence Residual risk

T51

Loss of amenity due tolighting.

Unlikely Minor Low Use of directional lights targeted to work areas andfor safety management.


T52

Reduced visual amenityin project area (localand regional area).

Unlikely Minor Low Placement of mine infrastructure determined (as faras practicable) to minimise visual impact in terms oflocation and colour.

Project design incorporates requirement tominimise land disturbance.

Design of waste rock storage facility and heapleach stockpile to incorporate elements that assistswith progressive rehabilitation and vegetation (referto Section 8.6).






Establishment of the waste rock storage facility and heap leach stockpile will change the landscape. Theopen pit, waste rock storage facility and heap leach stockpile will be visible from the railway lines but notfrom Tarcoola township. The presence of mining activities will provide an interest factor to rail travellers. Theconstruction and mining operations would occur over a five year period before final rehabilitation. On thisbasis while there will be a visual impact during operations the long term residual impact is considered to below.


Use of directional lighting will assist in minimising the impact during evenings. Lighting from theaccommodation village will be visible but the residual impact is considered to be low.


No outcomes and measurement criteria have been developed for visual impact and light disturbance as theprimary risk levels are low. Refer to Section 8 for closure and rehabilitation aspects relating to landformissues.


A complaints register will be established to record and respond to any issues raised by the local communityrelating to visual amenity, such as light impact and adverse visual impact on the landscape. If necessarymitigation measures will be implemented where practicable.



7.14 Radiation, asbestiform minerals and silica


7.14.1.1 Context

A review of the SARIG geological data base indicated that uranium analysis had been undertaken on 4samples of granitic rocks from stratigraphic borehole TD2 SADME and one sample of siltstone from boreholeTD4 SADME, both located in the Tarcoola area at similar depths to the open pit.

Concentrations of uranium ranged from less than 4 ppm to 6 ppm in TD2 SADME and 4 ppm in TD4SADME.

The results are comparable to the Tunkillia Suite Granite and other related granites (MESA Journal 34,July 2004) which indicated uranium concentrations varying from 0.83 ppm to 6.56 ppm.

It is concluded that the risk associated with potential exposure to radioactive minerals are insignificant andno specific additional assessment is considered warranted. Geologists will regularly check for uraniferousminerals in the ore. In the unlikely event that uraniferous minerals are observed the risk will be reassessedand appropriate control measures developed.

The Wilgena Hill Jaspilite which outcrops 15 km east of Tarcoola township contains subordinate amounts ofinterlayered carbonate, calc-silicate and quartzite. Jaspilite typically consists of alternating layers of jasperand iron oxide. In other parts of Eyre Peninsula and interstate metamorphosed banded iron formationscontain asbestiform minerals such as riebeckite (asbestiform crocidolite).

Geological mapping by Hein et al identified a banded iron formation (jaspilite) about 4.7 km northeast of theproposed Perseverance open pit, which is similar to the Wilgena Hill Jaspilite, although no direct correlationhas been established. The Wilgena Hill Jaspilite has not been identified within the project site however theupper part of the Peela Conglomerate contains occasional jaspilite clasts.

The potential for the asbestiform minerals to be to be present at the project site is considered to be low,given the composition of the jaspillite.

Silica (quartz) is a mineral component of quartzite, granite rocks and sandy soils which are present at theTarcoola project site.


Stakeholders include DSD and SafeWork SA. No specific stakeholder issues relating to asbestiform mineralshave been raised. The assessment is based on DSD requirements.


The relevant act that governs radiation and asbestiform minerals in the State and provides a framework forongoing management are discussed in detail in Section 2 and include:

n Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986n Environment Protection Act 1993.





It is possible that the inhalation of asbestiform minerals and silica in dust may cause human health impactswith moderate consequences if present. As indicated in Section 7.14.1.1 concentrations of radioactivesubstance are very low so there would be no impacts to humans or fauna. An impact event analysis isincluded in Table 7.52.

Table 7.52 Impact event analysis – Radiation, asbestiform and silica minerals


Consequences

T53 Excavation of materials containingasbestiform minerals

Air emission Humans and fauna Adverse health effectsif present

T54 Excavation of materials containingradioactive minerals

Air emission Humans and fauna Adverse health effectsunlikely due toinsignificantconcentrations

T55 Excavation of materials that containsilica

Air emission Humans Adverse health effectsif present


The following control and management strategies would mitigate potential impacts of abestiform minerals:

n inspection of development to determine the presence or not of calc-silicate units that may containasbestiform minerals

n dust suppression and personal monitoring to be implemented for operations if asbestiform mineralsdetected

n design waste rock storage facility to include encapsulation if required.

If silica material is detected it would be managed in accordance with SafeWork SA requirements.





Table 7.53 Risk acceptance – asbestiform minerals





T53

Excavation anddisposal of materialscontainingasbestiform mineralsleads to detrimentaleffects to human andfauna health.

Possible Moderate High (ifpresent)

Identify the presence of potential asbestiformcontaining rock formations.

Develop a Fibrous Minerals Management Planconsistent with WA Guidelines if any such materialis detected, which could include:

n Design control measures to deal with fibrousand asbestiform minerals includes the provisionof mobile plant with sealed cabins andappropriate filtered air conditioning systems.

n Any fibrous or asbestiform minerals andcontaminated Personal Protection Equipment(PPE), vehicle air-conditioning filters or otherprotective air filtration systems from equipmentoperating in designated restricted areas wouldbe double bagged and disposed with the rawasbestiform material within the waste rockdump (WRF).

n Design waste rock storage facility/area toinclude encapsulation of asbestiform material (ifrequired).


T54

Excavation ofmaterials containingradioactive minerals

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

T55

Excavation ofmaterials that containsilica

Unlikely Minor Low If silica material detected would be managed inaccordance with SafeWork SA requirements

Unlikely Minor Low




Given the distance of the mining operations from potential non-mine receptors and the control andmanagement measures the residual impacts are considered to be low.


Table 7.54 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – asbestiform materials


T53 No risk to human health fromasbestiform minerals

If any fibrous material is detected inopen pit and WRF, annual audit offibrous and asbestiform mineralsmanagement procedures andactions by an appropriately qualifiedOccupational Hygienist,demonstrates compliance with theFibrous Minerals Management Plan.


As indicated in Section 4.2.7 it is unlikely that there will be asbestiform minerals present given the geologicalenvironment and nature of materials.

Should potential asbestos containing material be detected, samples will be sent away for analysis. Ifasbestiform minerals are detected appropriate management will be undertaken, including:

n wetting down of asbestos containing materialn placement within internal portions of the waste rock storage facility.



7.15 Waste (commercial and industrial)


7.15.1.1 Context

Commercial waste includes food scraps and other biodegradable materials from the accommodation camp,crib rooms and offices. This material will be collected in rubbish bins and disposed within an on-site landfill.

Estimates on the total waste for the project have been based on other similar projects and an assumption of1.5 kg of waste per day. A small mining operation generated a total of 10,950 m3 of waste over the six yearmine life for 250–300 people. The Tarcoola Project accommodation village will house less than half of thepeople (80) and the mine is expected to operate over 4 years. Therefore it is expected that the totalcommercial waste volume would be about 3,500 m3.

On the basis of existing groundwater quality, volume of waste and risk of pollution the proposed landfill wouldbe classified as an S- (EPA Landfill Guidelines 2007).

The landfill would be established in an area of the lease that is underlain by Sullivan shale which wouldprovide a natural low permeability liner.

An EPA licence will be required and development of a Landfill Environmental Management Plan (LEMP).

Materials currently able to be recycled, such as glass, bottles, aluminium and metal cans, paper, plastics,cardboard and other packaging will be collected in separate bins and transported off-site for recycling.

Spent engine oils will be collected and placed in sealed drums temporarily stored in a bunded area to containpotential spills and ultimately transported for off-site disposal or recycling at an EPA licensed liquid wastetreatment facility.

Used batteries will be stored on pallets in specific enclosures and subsequently transported off-site fordisposal or recycling at an EPA licensed facility.

The mining operations will generate tyres that are no longer useable. EPA exemptions mat be sought on anannual basis for large tyres from earth moving equipment to be buried in the waste storage facility under atleast 20 m of waste rock material. All other tyres will be disposed off-site by an EPA licensed contractor.


DSD and EPA are of the view that all waste materials should be managed to ensure that the risks to theenvironment are acceptably low. This has been taken into consideration in the risk assessment process.



n Mining Act 1971n Environment Protection Act 1993n Environment Protection (Waste to Resources) Policy 2010n Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy, 2012.






Table 7.55 Impact event analysis – waste


Consequences

T56 Waste disposal (commercial andindustrial) during construction andoperation

Seepage Surface water,groundwater

Contamination of surfacewater and groundwater andimpact on WDE & GDE

T57 Waste disposal (commercial andindustrial) during construction andoperation

Air emission(odour),windblown litter

Residents inTarcoola

Loss of amenity

T58 Sewage storage and treatmentduring construction and operation

Spills andleakage

Surface waterand groundwater

Contamination of surfacewater, groundwater andimpact on WDE & GDE

T59 Generation of brine from RO plantduring construction and operation

Spills andleakage

Surface water,soil andgroundwater

Contamination of soil,surface water groundwaterand impact on WDE & GDE

7.15.3.2 Contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater from waste products andRO plant

Contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater could occur as a result of spills or leakage from thefollowing sources:

n waste productsn brine from RO plant.

7.15.3.3 Contamination of surface water and groundwater with sewage

Site facilities would include the development of a septic tank system. Seepage of sewage is not likely toresult in significant impacts to surface water and groundwater.


7.15.4.1 Contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater from waste products andbrine from RO plant


n segregation of waste at source for recycling where feasible,n segregation of potentially hazardous waste for pickup by licensed contractorn operation of waste management storage areas in accordance with EPA requirementsn brine from the RO will be place in truck tankers and transported to the process water pond for re-usen implementation of a groundwater monitoring program.



7.15.4.2 Contamination of surface water and groundwater with sewage and loss ofenvironmental values

The following management measures would be implemented as part of a best practice approach:

n the septic system will be located to avoid potential contamination of natural surface water drainageareas

n the septic system will be self-contained and designed in accordance with EPA and Department forHealth requirements

n the septic system on site will be maintained in accordance with the design and manufacturersrequirements

n surface water monitoring will be undertaken as part of the mining operations when there is runoff.





Table 7.56 Risk assessment – waste

Aspect and impact &ID




T56Contamination of surfacewater and groundwaterdue to waste storageand disposal(commercial andindustrial) and impact onWDE & GDE

Unlikely Minor Low Management of waste storage facility inaccordance with design and operating proceduresas approved by EPA. Implementation ofgroundwater and surface water management plan


T57Loss of amenity due toodour and litter

Unlikely Minor Low Management of waste storage facility inaccordance with design and operating proceduresas approved by EPA.


T58Contamination of surfacewater and groundwaterdue to sewage treatmentand impact on WDE &GDE

Unlikely Minor Low Septic system to be located to avoid potentialcontamination of surface waters off site.Design septic system in accordance withappropriate standards and ensure the designconsiders the appropriate Peak Wet WeatherFlow.The sewage treatment plant and septic systemwill be self-contained and designed in accordancewith EPA and Department for Health requirementsSeptic system to be maintained in accordancewith design requirements and manufacturersrequirements.Surface water monitoring will be undertaken inaccordance with risks.


T59Contamination of soilsurface water andgroundwater due towaste brine from ROplant and impact onWDE & GDE

Unlikely Minor Low Maintain RO plant in accordance with design andmanufacturers specifications.Re-use brine by mixing with process water.





The implementation of the control and management measures should mitigate adverse contamination of soil,surface water and groundwater from waste material and brine from the RO plan. The process water pondhas sufficient capacity to store the brine from the RO plant.

All primary risks associated with waste disposal have been assessed as ‘Low’ given the nature of waste,volumes of waste, location and groundwater conditions.


While the risk assessment indicates a low primary risk of impact on groundwater, surface water and soilsfrom the waste disposal on site draft outcome and measurement criteria have been developed due to therequirement for an EPA licence and landfill environmental management plan (LEMP) under the EnvironmentProtection Act 1993.

Table 7.57 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – waste

ID Outcomes Measurement criteria Leading indicatorcriteria

T56 All industrial and commercial waste onsite managed in accordance with EPAlicence.

Independent audit by appropriatelyqualified consultant indicates thatlandfill has been constructed inaccordance with the EPA approveddesign.

Records maintained onsite indicate that allwaste (noteconomically able to berecycled) has beendisposed at the EPAlicensed facility.


Monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with the EPA conditions of licence for the on-site landfill.



7.16 Blasting


7.16.1.1 Context

Blasting associated with development of the open pit has the potential to generate fly-rock which couldimpact the public either travelling on adjacent roads and on railways and railway infrastructure. In additionblasting could result in vibration, noise (overpressure).


Stakeholders include DSD, railway operators, potential residents in Tarcoola township. Community groupshave been briefed on the project and no issues were raised.



n Mining Act 1971n Work Health and Safety Act 2012n Australian Standard AS 2187.2 Explosive – Storage and Use Part 2: Use of Explosive 2006 was used to

assess blasting noise and vibration criteria.



A detailed discussion is included in the following sections and an impact event analysis included inTable 7.61.

Table 7.58 Impact event analysis – Blasting


Consequences

T60 Blasting in open pit Ground vibration Buildings andresidents in Tarcoola

Damage to buildings

Impact on amenity

T61 Blasting in open pit Noise (over pressure) Residents in Tarcoola Impact on amenity

T62 Blasting in open pit Fly-rock Public on adjacentroads and railways

Impact on health andsafety

T63 Blasting in open pit Fly-rock Railway infrastructure Impact on railwayinfrastructure

7.16.3.1 Ground vibrations from blasting resulting in impact to buildings in Tarcoola andloss of amenity

Blasting associate with development of the open pit could result in unacceptable ground vibrations resultingin damage to buildings in Tarcoola and loss of amenity due to nuisance.



7.16.3.2 Impact to amenity of residents in Tarcoola due to blasting noise (overpressure)

Blasting could result in unacceptable noise (overpressure) which could impact residents in Tarcoola.

7.16.3.3 Impact no health and safety due to fly-rock

Blasting in the open pit if not appropriately managed could result in fly-rock which has the potential to impactthe health and safety of the public travelling on adjacent roads and railways.

7.16.3.4 Impact on railway infrastructure due to fly-rock

Blasting in the open pit if not appropriately managed could result in fly-rock which has the potential to impactrailway infrastructure.


7.16.4.1 Ground vibration from blasting resulting in impact on buildings

Blasting will be undertaken to ensure that ground vibrations are in accordance with Australian Standards.

7.16.4.2 Impact to amenity of residents in Tarcoola due to blasting noise (overpressure)

Blasting will be undertaken to ensure that blast overpressure are in accordance with Australian Standards.

7.16.4.3 Impact to health and safety and railway infrastructure due to fly-rock

Common blasting practice dictates that exclusion zones are established for the safety of personnel andequipment at open pit mines. The exclusion zones proposed for Tarcoola are 300 metres for equipment and600 m for personnel. The green outline on Figure 7.10 below is the 600 m exclusion zone for personnel fromthe edge of the Perseverance and Last Resource pits.

The exclusion zone is located entirely within the proposed ML area. At the southern end of the pit, thedistance from the proposed pit wall to the Central Australian Railway Line is 700 m. To reduce the risk totrains travelling along the railway line, blasting at Tarcoola will be designed to fire towards the north-east andwill be undertaken around active train schedules for the Central Australian Railway Line. Tarcoola Gold willliaise with the rail operator to ensure that blasting times are not coincident with rail movements.

The potential impact to adjacent road users is considered to be highly unlikely given the separationdistances.



Figure 7.10 Blast exclusion zone





Table 7.59 Risk assessment – Blasting





T60

Production ofvibration associatedwith blasting resultingin damage to property

Unlikely Minor Low Blasting activities will comply withAS 2187.2-2006 with respect to human comfortlevels for vibration.

Monitoring of vibration impacts by complaintsregister.

Residences are greater than 3 km from open pit.


T61

Production of noisefrom blasting resultingin disturbance tosensitive receptors

Unlikely Minor Low Compliance with noise (overpressure) limits.Monitoring of noise by complaints register.

Residences are greater than 3 km from open pit.


T62

Impact to publichealth and safety torailway and roadusers due to fly-rock

Unlikely Major High Blasting will be designed to fire towards the north-east and will be undertaken around active trainschedules for the Central Australian Railway Line.Tarcoola Gold will liaise with the rail operator toensure that blasting times are not coincident withrail movements.

Unlikely Minor Low

T63

Impact on railwayinfrastructure due tofly-rock

Unlikely Major High Blasting will be designed to fire towards the north-east and will be undertaken around active trainschedules for the Central Australian Railway Line.Tarcoola Gold will liaise with the rail operator toensure that blasting times are not coincident withrail movements.

Unlikely Minor Low




The implementation of the management and control measures should restrict the potential residual impactsdue to noise from blasting. The proposed blasting management measures will mitigate impact due to fly-rock.

Based on the assessment (Appendix A) of the vibration impacts at Tarcoola township, ground vibrationimpacts from the operation of the drill rigs at the surrounding receptors with greater separation distances arepredicted to comply with the structural vibration and human comfort vibration objectives.

As compliance with the vibration objectives has been predicted, vibration control measures for the operationof the Tarcoola Project will not be required.



Table 7.60 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – blasting


T62,T63

No public nuisance and safety impactsor damage to third party property fromair blast, vibration or fly rock caused byblasting or unplanned fly rock events.

Blast records kept on site (andprovided to DSD on request)demonstrate that vibration for eachblast has been measured at locationsspecified in the drill and blastmanagement plan, and that they arewithin the current AS 2187.2.

All exceedances have been reviewedand the cause recorded and rectified.

Blast records for each blast kept onsite (and provided to DSD on request)demonstrate no fly rock beyondmining lease or unplanned fly rockevents.


In dealing with vibration, it is considered that “managing by exception” is appropriate given the low riskassociated with this aspect to mining operations. As a result, no specific monitoring measures have beendeveloped. In the event that vibration becomes an operation issue on site (based on complaints received),Tarcoola Gold will develop a Vibration Management Plan for implementation on site.

A complaints register will be established to record and respond to any issues raised by the local communityrelating to ground vibrations and noise (overpressure).



7.17 Public safety


7.17.1.1 Context

The mine site is not proposed to be fenced and as the mine will operate on a continuous basis, access byany individual not authorised to be on site is likely to be identified and promptly dealt with by authorised minesite personnel as part of the mining operations.


Stakeholders include DSD, potential residents in Tarcoola township. Community groups have been briefedon the project and no issues were raised.



n Mining Act 1971n Crown Land Management Act 2009n Work Health and Safety Act 2012.




Table 7.61 Impact event analysis – Public safety


Consequences

T64 Open pit, waste rock and heapleach construction and operation

Unauthorised accessto site

General public Death and injury topublic

T65 Transport of fuels, chemicals(including sodium cyanide)

Accidents Pastoralists, public Impact to health andsafety

7.17.3.2 Injury or death due to unauthorised public access to mining operations

Unauthorised access to the mining operations could result in injury or death due to collision with miningvehicles and equipment, falls into process ponds and the open pit.

7.17.3.3 Impact to health and safety related to accidents during the transport of fuels andchemicals (including NaCN)

All fuels and chemicals for processing will be transported to the site. There is potential for accidents to occuron off-site roads which could impact the health and safety of the public and pastoralists.




7.17.4.1 Injury or death due to unauthorised public access to mining operations


n implementation of comprehensive Site Safety Policy and Proceduresn provide emergency response capability during mining operations and undertake ongoing liaison with

local emergency services and nearby mining operationsn establishment of security at the main entrancen installation of warning signsn installation of signs prohibiting unauthorised accessn escorting unauthorised persons from the site.

7.17.4.2 Impact to health and safety related to accidents during the transport of fuels andchemicals (including NaCN)

To minimise the potential impacts will be reduced by implementation of a hazardous chemicals transportmanagement plan that is consistent with legislation and sodium cyanide management guidelines. Training ofpersonnel in emergency procedures in the event of spills will be undertaken.





Table 7.62 Risk assessment – public safety





T64

Death and injury topublic due tounauthorised access

Possible Moderate Extreme Adopt practices to protect the health and safety ofneighbouring pastoral leaseholders and the publicfrom mining activities.

Maintain warning signage, implementation of siteinduction, visitor sign in and site access protocols.

Control entry and exit points to the site.


T65

Impact to health andsafety due totransport of NaCN

Possible Minor Moderate Implementation of Hazardous Chemicals TransportManagement Plan to be consistent with legislationand sodium cyanide management guidelines.Training of personnel in emergency procedures inthe event of spills.

Unlikely Minor Low




The implementation of the management and control measures should restrict the potential residual impactsassociated with injury or death due to unauthorised access and accidents associated with the transport ofprocess chemicals to the site.



Table 7.63 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – public safety


T64 Ensure that unauthorised entry to theML does not result in public injuriesand/or deaths that could have beenreasonably prevented.

Reports by independent third partyare completed within 14 days or asagreed with the Director of Mines andindicate injury and or death to thepublic through unauthorised entrycould not have been reasonablyprevented.

T65 No adverse impact to public as a resultof transport of fuels, chemicals(including NaCN) to site.

Audit of records indicatesimplementation of Hazardousmaterials Management Plan asapproved by SafeWork SA


A complaints register will be established to record and respond to any issues raised by the local communityrelating to near misses due to unauthorised access and incidents during transport of hazardous substancesused in processing.



7.18 Land use, third party property and infrastructure


7.18.1.1 Context

The Tarcoola Gold proposed mine site is within 22 and 73 km of Wilgena station and Mulgathing stationrespectively. The immediate surrounding area is crown land which is part of the designated Tarcoola town.The nearest dwelling is located 3.4 km east of the main operational areas although there are no permanentresidents currently in Tarcoola township.

The largest nearest population centres are at Coober Pedy and Roxby Downs located about 260 km and310 km respectively from the site.

The nearest emergency services are at Roxby Downs and Coober Pedy and the nearest hospital is at RoxbyDowns. Police and fire services are located at Coober Pedy and Roxby Downs. The Flying Doctor service isaccessed via the air strips available on many of the neighbouring pastoral properties and the Tarcoolaairstrip.


Key stakeholders include the Wilgena, North Well and Mulgathing station pastoralists and the following:

n Kingoonya and Area Progress Associationn Glendambo & District Progress Association Inc.n South Australian Farmer’s Federationn Coober Pedy Area Schooln Business owners in the regionn Royal Flying Doctorsn Country Fire Servicen emergency services (Police and Ambulance)n employment agencies and providersn training providersn schools.

Issues raised by the stakeholders are included in Section 6.4.

7.18.2 Legislation

The relevant legislation governing the socio economic impact of mining are:

n Mining Act, 1971n Work Health and Safety Act 2012n Native Vegetation Act 1992n Natural Resources Management Act 2004.






Table 7.64 Impact event analysis – land use, third party property and infrastructure


Consequences

T66 Activities associated with fuelsand flammable chemicals andequipment that could be asource of ignition

Fire Pastoralists andTarcoola residents

Damage to adjacentpublic or privateproperty

T67 Heavy and light vehiclemovements during constructionand operation

Use of existing roads Residents (whenpresent) in Tarcoola)

Pastoralists east ofTarcoola

Collision with andInjury or death tostock

T68 Activities of personnel duringconstruction and operation

Pressure on localservices such ashealth, education andrecreation.Inappropriate workerbehaviour in localcommunity.

Local and regionalcommunity

Disruption to thecommunity

T69 Man power for construction andoperation

Competition forlabour

Pastoralists and localand regionalcommunity

Reduction inemployees forpastoralist andregional industry

T70 Heavy and light vehiclemovements during constructionand operation

Use of existing roads DPTI Increase roadmaintenance

T71 Emergency Incident duringconstruction and operation onsite

Site incident requiringemergency services

Local and regionalemergency services

Pressure on localemergency servicesand CFS

7.18.3.2 Damage (including fire) to adjacent public or private property

Construction and mining operations could result in damage to adjacent public and private property.

Fire originating from construction and mining operations has the potential to result in a risk to public safety ifnot managed properly.

7.18.3.3 Decrease in pastoralists’ income

Given that the Tarcoola Gold Project area is not within the Wilgena and Mulgathing pastoral leases it isunlikely that there would be significant impact on the pastoralist income.

7.18.3.4 Injuries to grazing stock as a result of mining traffic

Grazing stock could be injured by mining traffic along the Tarcoola to Glendambo Road. This may result in aloss of income for the Wilgena and North Well station pastoralists if not managed.



7.18.3.5 Pressure on local emergency services

Pressure could be put on local emergency services in response to a major safety incident occurring at thesite.

7.18.3.6 Competition for skilled labour

Competition for skilled labour with other mining projects and availability of personnel for pastoral activitiescould occur. If this does occur it could result in:

n existing mining operations and the pastoralist not being able to attract enough labourers to completework schedules

n existing mining operations and the pastoralist having to increase labourers’ pay to attract themn other mining operations in the region and the pastoralist having to advertise for labourers in other

regions of the state.

7.18.3.7 Increased road maintenance requirements

The following control and management strategies may reduce the likelihood and consequence:

n negotiation with DPTI (if required) to determine appropriate maintenance requirements for relevantportions of Glendambo to Tarcoola road including rail line crossings

n implementation of Traffic Management Plan.

7.18.3.8 Employment opportunities for local residents

Employment opportunities for residents in the region could arise from the establishment of the mine duringboth construction and operational phases. Increased job opportunities may lead to:

n economic benefits for local communityn higher employment rates for regionn improved lifestyle conditions for employees.

Given that this impact is positive, no design and operational management measures are required and as aresult no residual risk assessment has been undertaken. This impact will therefore, not be discussed in thefollowing sections.

However establishment of the operations could impact the availability of employees for local pastoral useand regional industry – any applications for employment from these sources will not be acceded to withoutprior consultation with current employers.


7.18.4.1 Damage (including fire) to adjacent public or private property


n implementation of comprehensive Site Safety Policy and Proceduresn provide emergency response capability during mining operations and undertake ongoing liaison with

local emergency services and nearby mining operations.



7.18.4.2 Decrease in pastoralists’ income

The likelihood and consequence of any impact to adjoining pastoralists is considered minimal.

7.18.4.3 Pressure on local emergency services


n liaise with local emergency services and nearby mining operationsn maintain emergency response capability during mining operations (including training, mock incidents)n compliance with AS 5062-2006, Fire protection of mobile and transportable equipment.

7.18.4.4 Pressure on local services such as health, education and recreation andinappropriate worker behaviour in local community

n Ongoing engagement with the community through implementation of Stakeholder Engagement Plann Support for local recreational/sporting groupsn Implementation of Company Code of Behaviour and Induction programn Establishment of Complaints Registern Implementation of site newsletter.

7.18.4.5 Increased road maintenance requirements

The following control and management strategies may reduce the likelihood and consequence:

n negotiation with DPTI (if required) to determine appropriate maintenance requirements for relevantportions of Glendambo to Tarcoola road including rail line crossings

n implementation of Traffic Management Plan.

7.18.4.6 Competition for skilled labour leading to a reduction in employees for pastoralistand regional industry

The likelihood and consequence may be reduced by implementing the control and management strategies:

n liaise with local training providersn plan for provision of specific training for employees.


The results of risk levels determined in accordance with the risk assessment process outlined in Section 7.1are provided in Table 7.65. The results demonstrate that the risks from these impacts are considered to below. The two exceptions are:

1. Competition for skilled labour, with a medium risk level is considered as low as reasonably practicablegiven the influence that Tarcoola Gold is able to have over this issue.

2. Provision of employment opportunities for local residents which is considered a medium risk is drawnfrom a positive impact and therefore, considered acceptable.

With all control and management measures the risks associated with decrease in pastoralist’s income andpressure on local emergency services will be managed and controlled so that the associated risks are as lowas reasonably practicable.



Table 7.65 Risk assessment – adjacent land use, third party property and infrastructure





T66

Damage (includingfire) to adjacent publicor private property

Possible Major Extreme Implementation of comprehensive Site SafetyPolicy and Procedures.

Provide emergency response capability duringmining operations and undertake ongoing liaisonwith local emergency services and nearby miningoperations.


T67

Collisions withgrazing stock (noneshould be on site)

Unlikely Minor Low Restrictions on haulage and access road speeds.

Timing of haulage movements to be consideredand minimised during early morning/late evening(where possible) to minimise potential collisionswith livestock.

Unlikely Minor Low

T68

Pressure on localservices such ashealth, education andrecreation.Inappropriate workerbehaviour in localcommunity.

Unlikely Minor Low The majority of workers are expected to be FIFO.

Ongoing engagement with the community throughimplementation of Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

Implementation of Company Code of Behaviourand Induction program.

Establishment of Complaints Register.

Implementation of site newsletter.

Unlikely Minor Low

T69

Competition forlabour reduction inemployees forpastoralist andregional industry

Unlikely Minor Low Majority of workers expected to be FIFO.

Liaise with local training providers and support forlocal training opportunities.

Plan for provision of specific training foremployees.








T70

Increased roadmaintenancerequirements due toincreased vehicletraffic from miningactivities.

Possible Minor Moderate Reach agreement with DPTI (if required) regardingmaintenance requirements for relevant portion ofTarcoola to Glendambo Road.

Implementation of Traffic Management Plan(including speed restrictions, road inspections).


T71

Pressure on localemergency servicesand CFS

Possible Minor Moderate Implementation of comprehensive Site SafetyPolicy and Procedures.

Provide emergency response capability duringmining operations and undertake training andmock incidents.

Ongoing liaison with local emergency services andnearby mining operations.

Compliance with AS 5062-2006. Fire protection ofmobile and transportable equipment.

Compliance with regulatory requirements.

Unlikely Minor Low




There will be a need of about 100 people during construction and about 80 during mining operations. Whilethis could result in local and regional competition for skilled employees, it is considered unlikely as mostpersonnel will be FIFO and not local.

There may be a need for external emergency services providers to attend emergency incidents at the site.While this could impact response times to other local and regional incidents the provision of a site basedemergency response team and the safety culture adopted by Tarcoola Gold should ensure there is notsignificant pressure on the external services.

The construction and operation of the mine has the potential to impact the existing lifestyle and communitywellbeing in nearby towns. Tarcoola Gold is committed to maintaining good stakeholder relations, havetransparent communication and working with community groups in a co-operative manner. It is consideredthat there is unlikely to be significant impacts and the resultant risks are low.

Implementation of an agreed road maintenance program will ensure that the public roads are maintained tothe same existing standard. On this basis the potential for impacts on current users is not significant.

The proposed management measures are considered to be consistent with other mining projects.


Tarcoola Gold is committed to the following outcomes during construction and operation of the mine.Potential impacts to railway infrastructure and health and safety from blasting vibration and fly rock havebeen addressed through outcome and measured criteria in Section 7.16.

Table 7.66 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria – adjacent land use, third party property andinfrastructure


T66,T70,T71

No adverse impacts to third partyland use and no unauthoriseddamage to adjacent public orprivate property and infrastructureas a result of miningoperations(including uncontrolledfires and geotechnicalfailure),other than those agreedbetween the Tenement Holder andthe affected user.

Records of investigations carried outwithin 14 days or as agreed by Director ofMines show that damage (includingcaused by uncontrolled fires) to adjacentpublic or private property andinfrastructure was not attributable tomining operations.

7.18.8 Monitoring

A complaints register will be established to record and respond to any issues raised by the local communityrelating to construction and operations. Any complaints will be investigated and addressed.

There will also be regular liaison with emergency services providers, police and community groups to ensurethat site personnel are not creating social impacts during travel to and from the site.

All staff will be inducted as to the requirements of the Traffic Management Plan and records kept of theinduction.



7.19 Consolidated summary of draft outcomes and measurement criteriaTable 7.67 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria for construction, operation and closure

ID Outcome Measurement criteria Criteria

What will bemeasured(and how)

Locations Outcomeachievement

Frequency Controldata

Vegetation

T1, T2,T3, T4,T5

No permanent loss ofabundance or diversity ofnative vegetation on oroff the ML through:

n clearancen dust/contamination

depositionn fire, orn other damage.

Annual vegetation survey at impact monitoringsites demonstrates no significant difference inabundance and diversity of vegetationcompared to control monitoring sites(Figure 7.1).

Ground surveys of operational areasdemonstrates that the total clearance does notexceed the approved clearance area.

Abundance anddiversity ofvegetation

Extent ofvegetationclearance

Impactmonitoringsites(Figure 7.1)

ML area

No permanentloss

No unauthorisedclearance onmining lease

Annual Baselinesurvey atcontrol sites(Figure 7.1)

Planindicatingapprovedvegetationclearance

Fauna

T10,T11,T13,T14,T15

No native fauna injuriesor death caused bymining operations(including fire) that couldhave been reasonablyprevented.

Records of and investigations of fauna injuriesor deaths on the ML demonstrate that the mineoperator did not cause or could not havereasonably prevented the injury or death fromoccurring.

Results of regular site inspections demonstratethat fixed lighting meets the requirements ofAS 4282-1997 control of the obtrusive effectsof outdoor lighting.

Incidence offauna injuriesand deathcaused byminingoperations

ML area No preventableinjuries and deathdue to miningoperations

Annual NA

T12 No adverse impact tofauna as a result oftransport and use ofNaCN to site.

Records of ongoing audits confirmimplementation of Hazardous materialsManagement Plan as approved by SafeWorkSA

Impact on fauna Lease andadjacent area

No adverse effect As required Records ofIncidents







Weeds, pests and pathogens

T16,T17,T18,T19

No increased abundanceor introduction of new orsustained increase inabundance of existingweed or pest and/orpathogen species on theML or adjoining property(caused by miningoperations).

Annual survey of cleared and operationalareas for weed establishment indicate no newweed or pest and/or pathogen speciesincursions or increase in weed density ordistribution compared to controlsites(Figure 7.1).Records of pathogens identified within the siteand measures taken kept on site todemonstrate appropriate actions have beentaken.Leading Indicator:Inspection records for vehicles and machinerydemonstrate that all vehicles and machineryhave been certified as clean before operatingon site.

Abundance orintroduction ofnew weeds orsustainedincrease ofweeds or pestand/or pathogenspecies

ML area andadjoiningproperty

No statisticalincrease

Annual Baselinesurvey atcontrol sites(Figure 7.1)

Groundwater

T20,T21

No adverse impact to thequality of groundwater toexisting users andgroundwater dependentecosystems caused bymining operations.

Quarterly monitoring of parameters (CN wad,pH, Ec, TDS, anions, cations, nitrate andheavy metals) in third party water bores(Figure 7.4) indicates groundwater quality iswithin 10% of baseline water quality.Frequency of monitoring reduced to sixmonthly after one year.Leading Indicator:No increasing trend in parameters (CNwad,pH, Ec) in monitoring bores within the MLFigure 7.4).Records demonstrate that all CN spills withinthe ML areas are recorded, reported to theEPA, SafeWork SA and DSD (as required) andclean up actions completed, in accordancewith Emergency and Spill Management Plan.

Ground watersamplesanalysed for eCN wad, pH, Ec,TDS, anions,cations, nitrateand heavymetals

Third partyextractionbores andmonitoringbores in lease

Groundwaterquality within 10%of baseline

Quarterly in 1st

year and sixmonthly thereafter

Baselinewater qualityGroundwaterManagementPlan







T22,T23

No adverse impact to thequantity of groundwaterto existing users andgroundwater dependentecosystems caused bymining operations.

Quarterly monitoring of groundwaterlevels/drawdown in third party water bores arewithin 10% of baseline levels (Figure 7.4).Frequency of monitoring reduced to sixmonthly after one year.

Groundwaterlevels

Third partyextractionbores(Figure 7.4)

Within 10% ofbaseline levels

Quarterly andthereafterevery sixmonths

Baseline dataand predicteddrawdownlevels

Leading Indicator:Quarterly monitoring of groundwater levels inmonitoring bores within the ML (Figure 7.4) arewithin 10% of modelled levels.

Groundwaterlevels

Monitoringbores withinML(Figure 7.4)

Within 10% ofbaseline levels

Quarterly Baseline dataand predicteddrawdownlevels

Surface water

T25,T26,T27,T28,T29

No surface watercontaminated as a resultof mining operationsleaves the mining leasearea or results incontamination of soil onor off the lease area.Mining operations do notcause inundation of thirdparty property andinfrastructure by water (toa greater extent thanwould be expected tooccur prior to miningoperations commencing).

Water quality monitoring at surface watermonitoring locations (Figure 7.7) when water isflowing from lease are within 10% of baselinesurface water or the following parameters,TSS, CNwad, pH and heavy metals, TRH.Audit of inspections of silt traps and drainagecontainment systems after rain events thatgenerate runoff demonstrate systems areoperating in accordance with the designspecifications.Annual audit of bunding and fuel, oil andchemical storage management recordsdemonstrate that facilities are designed,constructed and operated in accordance withEPA Guideline (EPA 080/07).

Water qualityparameters ofTSS, CNwad,pH and heavymetals, TRH.Construction ofwatermanagementstructures builtas per thedesign

ML area(Figure 7.7)

No adverseimpact with waterquality within 10%of baseline whenwater flowing.Designspecifications met

As required

Afterconstruction

Baselinewater quality

Designspecifications

Operation andmaintenance ofsilt traps anddrainagecontainmentsystems throughinspection andwritten report

ML areaupslope ofdrainage pipesthrough railembankment

Designspecifications met

Followingrainfall eventsthat generaterunoff

Designspecifications







Independent audit of heap leach processdesign (including heap leach pad, ponds, plantand drains) prior to construction and afterconstruction to demonstrate heap leachsystem is in accordance with approved design.Leading Indicator:Any incident of stormwater controlinfrastructure not being maintained andintervention.Any incident finding of hazardous materialstorage not in compliance with EPA Guideline(EPA 080/07).Any incident of hazardous substance spills notmanaged in accordance with DangerousSubstances Management Plan.

Consistency ofdesign andoperation withEPA BundingGuidelines

Fuel, oil andchemicalstorage areas

In accordancewith EPAGuideline(EPA 080/07)

Annual Designspecifications

Independentaudit of heapleach processdesign(including heapleach pad,ponds, plant anddrains) prior toconstruction andafterconstruction todemonstrateheap leachsystem is inaccordance withapproveddesign.

Heap leachsystem

Designspecifications met

At completionof design andfollowingconstruction

Approveddesign







ARD

T31,T32,T34,T35,T36,T37

All PAF material withinthe heap leach stockpileand WRF are chemicallystable

An audit by a suitably qualified andexperienced independent expert, prior toconstruction indicates the design of the heapleach lining system will achieve the proposedoutcome and following construction that thelining system has been constructed inaccordance with the approved design criteriaand are chemically stable.

Annual audit of ongoing PAF materialmanagement records demonstrates indicatesthat PAF material is accounted for and placedin cells within the WRF in accordance withdesign.

Audit by asuitably qualifiedand experiencedindependentexpert liningsystem design

Audit of PAFmaterialmovement

WRF All PAF materialplaced within cellin WRF

Annual Sulphurcontent >0.3%

Air quality

T38 No public health and/ornuisance impacts to localresidents from airemissions and dustgenerated by miningoperations (dustdeposition impactsincluded in vegetationsection).

Investigation of dust complaints demonstratesthat the mine operator did not cause or couldnot reasonably have prevented the incidentoccurring. All complaints acknowledged within48 hours and closed out within 7 days or asagreed with the Director of Mines. If complaintsnot resolved Tenement holder will undertakecontinuous monitoring using instrumentation(TEOM or other acceptable to the EPA) todemonstrate that dust emissions are withinregulatory levels.

Complaintsregarding dustfrom miningoperations

Residentialareas inTarcoola whenresidentspresent

Mine operator didnot cause or couldnot reasonablyhave preventedthe incidentoccurring.

All complaintsacknowledgedwithin 48 hoursand closed outwithin 7 days oras agreed with theDirector of Mines.

As required NEPM AirQuality







Soil and land disturbance

T43 Existing (pre-mining) soilquantity and quality ismaintained.

Baseline data on topsoil and subsoil materialsto characterise pre-mining quality in areasproposed to be disturbed will be collected priorto commencement of site activities.

Soil stockpiles will be stabilised to preventlosses of quantity due to wind and runofferosion and quality due to infestation of weedsas detailed in the Soil Management Plan thatwill be developed in the PEPR.

Records demonstrate that all chemical and fuelspills <20Lwithin the lease areas are recorded,reported to the EPA and DSD (as required)and clean up actions completed, in accordancewith Soil Management Plan and Emergencyand Spill Management Plan and NEPM 2013industrial land use soil chemical levels.

Weekly and after significant rainfall eventsinspection records demonstrate that silt traps,contour banks, formed drains and othererosion control structures are in place andmaintained.

Correct removaland storage oftopsoil andsubsoil

Management ofall chemical andfuel spill

Topsoil andsub-soilstorage areas

Fuel, chemicalstorage areas,site refuellingareas

All topsoil andsubsoil stockpiledin designatedareas

No soilcontamination toexceed ANZECCindustrial land use

As required SoilManagementPlan

Emergencyand SpillManagementPlan

NEPMGuideline2013







Traffic

T48 No traffic accidentsinvolving the public atmine access points thatcould have beenreasonably prevented bythe tenement holder

Impacts of transport offuel, chemicals (includingNaCN) discussed infauna and safety sections

Independent investigations within 14 days orother time period as agreed with the Director ofMines of all recorded traffic accidents at mineaccess points indicate that they could not havebeen reasonably prevented throughimplementation of precautionary measures ornot due to project related traffic.

Leading Indicator:Induction records indicate all personnelinducted as to traffic awareness.

Any incident or complaint related to projecttraffic.

Traffic accidentsby independentinvestigation

Mine siteaccess points

No trafficaccidentsinvolving thepublic at mineaccess point thatcould have beenreasonablyprevented

As requiredandindependentinvestigationswithin 14 daysor as agreedby Director ofMines

TrafficManagementPlan

Aboriginal heritage

T49 No disturbance toAboriginal heritage sites,objects or artefactsunless prior approvalunder the relevantlegislation has beenobtained.

Audit of records kept on site demonstrate thatupon discoveries of suspected Aboriginalheritage sites, objects or artefacts, workceased until appropriate authorisation underthe relevant legislation has been obtained.

Disturbance toAboriginalheritage sites,objects orartefacts

ML area No unauthoriseddisturbance toAboriginalheritage site,objects orartefacts

As required AboriginalHeritage Act1988

HeritageManagementPlan

European heritage

T50 No disturbance toEuropean heritage sitesand objects unless priorapproval under therelevant legislation hasbeen obtained.

Audit of records kept on site demonstratecompliance with Heritage Places Act 1993 andHeritage Management Plan.

Disturbance toEuropeanheritage sites

ML area No unauthoriseddisturbanceunless priorapproval underrelevantlegislation

As required HeritagePlaces Act1993, andHeritageManagementPlan







Asbestiform minerals

T53 No risk to human healthfrom asbestiformminerals.

If any fibrous material is detected in open pitand WRF, annual audit of fibrous andasbestiform minerals management proceduresand actions by an appropriately qualifiedOccupational Hygienist, demonstratescompliance with the Fibrous MineralsManagement Plan.

Audit byindependentoccupationalhygienistindicatescompliance withFibrous MineralsManagementPlan

ML area wherepotential forexposure

Compliance withFibrous MineralsManagement Plan

As requiredwhen potentialasbestiformcontainingmaterialexposed inopen pit

FibrousMineralsManagementPlan

Waste

T56 All industrial andcommercial waste on sitemanaged in accordancewith EPA licence.

Independent audit by appropriately qualifiedconsultant indicates that landfill has beenconstructed in accordance with the EPAapproved design.Leading IndicatorRecords maintained on site indicate that allwaste (not economically able to be recycled)has been disposed at the EPA licensed facility.

Independentaudit byappropriatelyqualifiedconsultant ofconstruction oflandfill

Landfill site Construction oflandfill inaccordance withEPA approveddesign

Prior toconstruction

EPA approvedlandfill design

Blasting

T62,T63

No public nuisance andsafety impacts ordamage to third partyproperty from air blast,vibration or fly rockcaused by blasting orunplanned fly rockevents.

Blast records kept on site (and provided toDSD on request) demonstrate that vibration foreach blast has been measured at locationsspecified in the drill and blast managementplan, and that they are within the currentAS 2187.2.All exceedances have been reviewed and thecause recorded and rectified.Blast records for each blast kept on site (andprovided to DSD on request) demonstrate nofly rock beyond mining lease or unplanned flyrock events.

Blast recordskept on site inaccordance withAS 2187.2 andprovided to DSDon requestExceedancesreviewed andcauses rectified

Locationsspecified indrill and blastmanagementplanML area

No publicnuisance andsafety impactsand damage tothird partypropertyNo fly rockbeyond ML area

As required Drill and blastmanagementplan







Public Safety

T64 No injuries and or deathsto the public resultingfrom unauthorised entryto the site that could havebeen reasonablyprevented.

Reports by independent third party arecompleted within 14 days or as agreed with theDirector of Mines and indicate that injury ordeath to the public through unauthorised entrycould not have been reasonably prevented.

Reports byindependentthird party ofunauthorisedentry andresultant deathor injury

ML area No public injuriesand or deathsresulting fromunauthorisedentry to the site

Report within14 days or asagreed byDirector ofMines

NA

T65 No adverse impact topublic as a result oftransport of fuels,chemicals (includingNaCN) to site.

Annual audit of records indicatesimplementation of Hazardous materialsManagement Plan as approved by SafeWorkSA

Records ofcompliance withHazardousMaterialsManagementPlan

ML andadjacent area

No adverseimpact

Annual HazardousmaterialsManagementPlan

Adjacent land use and third party property

T69,T70,T71

No unauthorised damageto (including caused byfire) adjacent public orprivate property orinfrastructure, other thanas agreed between thelessee and affected user.

Records of investigations carried out within14 days or as agreed by Director of Minesshow that damage (including caused by fire) toadjacent public or private property andinfrastructure was not attributable to miningoperations.

Damage toadjacent publicand privateproperty andinfrastructure

Adjacentpublic orprivateproperty

No unauthoriseddamage (includingcaused by fire)

Investigationswithin 14 daysor as agreedby Director ofMines

NA



8. Mine closure and postcompletion

8.1 IntroductionPlanning for mine closure is a continuing process that commenced through development of the TarcoolaGold Project and will be progressively refined and adapted as the project develops. A key aspect of the mineclosure for the project is progressive rehabilitation during operations.

This draft mine closure and rehabilitation plan (MCRP) has been prepared taking into consideration thefollowing guidance documents:

n Guidelines for Miners: Preparation of a Mining Lease Proposal and Mining and Rehabilitation Program(MARP) Version 4.11, PIRSA 2011

n Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry – Mine Closure andCompletion, DRET, 2009

n Strategic Framework for Mine Closure, ANZMEC, 2000.

8.2 ObjectivesThe general objectives of the MCRP are to:

n protect the environment and the health and safety of the publicn minimise adverse environmental impacts after cessation of mining operationsn enable agreed post mining land use(s).

The following specific aims are sought:

n the risks to the health and safety of the public and fauna are as low as reasonably practicaln no compromise of the quality and quantity of ground and or surface water to existing users and water

dependent ecosystemsn all mine waste materials left onsite are chemically and physically stablen no industrial or commercial waste left onsiten the pit void is secured against inadvertent public accessn where applicable for all disturbed areas re-establishment of the pre-mining native ecosystem and

landscape functionn closure of the mine takes into consideration stakeholder issues and concerns.

8.3 ContextThe current land use in the proposed ML is predominantly disturbed land as a result of historical miningactivities. The area proposed for the workshop, offices and heap leach operations is generally existingnatural landscape. Additional disturbance has occurred as a result of exploration activities with a number ofaccess tracks and drilling sites present.

Following rehabilitation of the operations it is intended that the ML area will be rehabilitated to a stableecological value (as far practicable).



8.4 Stakeholder involvement and issuesTarcoola Gold has an active program of consultation with relevant stakeholders who may be affected by theproject as well as the local community. Closure of the mine will form part of the overall consultation programinvolving both formal and informal consultation (refer Section 6 and Appendix G).

The objectives for stakeholder involvement are to ensure that issues raised by stakeholders are considered.

The following closure issues have been raised with Tarcoola Gold:

n long term impact (if any) on groundwatern safety associated with the open pitn return of the land to an agreed land use.

Key stakeholders that have an interest in the project closure and rehabilitation include:

n DSD as the future regulator and other regulatory agenciesn Adjacent pastoral lease holdersn the managers of Wilgena, North Well and Mulgathing stationsn AMYAC native title holdersn local community.

8.5 Scope and description of closure domains

8.5.1 Closure domains

The proposed mining lease has been subdivided into several domains (Figure 8.1):

n current disturbance (historical workings ML4650, ML4667, ML5179 and ML5300) – Domain 1n open pit area and haul roads – Domain 2n infrastructure area – Domain 3

4 the processing plant4 pregnant solution pond and barren solution pond4 water supply pipeline and bores4 workshops and offices4 fuel storage area4 hardstand and ore laydown areas4 explosives magazine4 raw water storage pond4 accommodation village4 mine access road

n waste rock storage facility and spent heap leach stockpile – Domain 4n exploration areas, including drillholes, drill rig pads, sumps, trenches, tracks and grid lines – Domain 5.


Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 250 500


Closure Domains

Last Resource



Gold Process Plant




Tarcoola Township

Domain 3 Domain 5

Domain 3

Domain 4

Domain 1

Domain 2

Production water boreSite layout featureHaul and access roadRoadTrack/roadRailWater pipeline access trackWater pipelineNextgen fibre optic cableTelstra cable

Closure domainDomain 1Domain 2Domain 3Domain 4Domain 5Proposed mineral lease boundaryHaul and access roadROMOffices

Crusher and agglomerateCamp areaHard standSubsoil stockpileTopsoil stockpileWater alignmentPondHeap leach processingPit outlineWaste rock dump

1:25,000



www.pbworld.com





8.6 Closure strategies – proposed MLThis section presents further detail on the closure strategies for each domain and how this will be achieved.

8.6.1 Progressive rehabilitation

The 4 year mine life and the proposed development of the open pit, limits the potential for significantprogressive rehabilitation to be undertaken.

DSD requires rehabilitation of the current disturbance (historical Mineral Leases (ML4650, ML4667, ML5179and ML5300) which are currently held by Tarcoola Gold, a fully owned subsidiary of WPG Resources (referto Figure 1.3). There is currently no intention for Tarcoola Gold to actively mine underground within theexisting leases. Tarcoola Gold may undertake exploration activities within the existing MLs.

A State Heritage area has been declared over parts of the existing MLs, given the Tarcoola goldfield'simportance to the evolution of the State's history. Additional details are provided in Section 3.13.2 andlocations indicated in Figure 1.3 and Figures 8.2 and 8.3.

Tarcoola Gold has commenced discussions with Heritage SA and has received in principal agreement for theremoval of material from the historic Tarcoola Blocks heap leach area which may be able to be used as abase layer or cushion within the proposed heap leach pads. This activity would be undertaken as part ofdevelopment of the heap leach pad during the construction period. In addition at the discretion of TarcoolaGold it is intended to remove extraneous material (PVC piping and hoses, loose corrugated iron, etc) andother objects from the most recent mining activities (circa 1990). It may be feasible to also consolidate someheritage items within for example the machinery dump area. There is potential to (with State Heritagepermission) to remove and utilise existing tailings as base for heap leach pads and remove a number ofderelict metals tanks, drums and other similar materials scattered on the surface.

Where practicable, progressive rehabilitation under the proposed mining operations will occur on completedlower portions of the WRF, construction laydown areas not required for operations and other disturbed areassuch as borrow pits.

Topsoil, sub-soil removed during construction activities and selected waste rock for rehabilitation will beplaced in stockpiles close to areas where they will be used for rehabilitation, to minimise the need for doublehandling (Figure 4.1).

Trials will be undertaken to determine the most appropriate cover materials for the waste rock storage facilityand spent heap leach stockpile during the operation period. It is likely that the waste rock armouring will beselectively covered with subsoil and topsoil to enable establishment of vegetation.

8.6.2 Current disturbance (historical workings ML4650, ML4667, ML5179and ML5300) (Domain 1)

8.6.2.1 Heritage areas

Tarcoola Gold is exploring with the State Heritage Unit of DEWNR the potential to rehabilitate/‘clean-up’areas located within the defined State Heritage area. There is potential to (with State Heritage permission) toremove and utilise existing tailings as base for heap leach pads.

Tarcoola Gold has commenced discussions with Heritage SA and has received in principal agreement for theremoval of material from the historic Tarcoola Blocks heap leach area which can be used as a base layerwithin the proposed heap leach pads. In addition at the discretion of Tarcoola Gold it is intended to removeextraneous material (PVC piping and hoses, loose corrugated iron, etc) and other objects from the most



recent mining activities (circa 1990). It may be feasible to also consolidate some heritage items within forexample the machinery dump area.

Subject to approval the following rehabilitation is proposed to be undertaken:

n Excavate material from existing tailings dams and bunds and transport to the heap leach pad area foruse as cushion layer between the HDPE liner and the pregnant solution collection system. The materialwill be lightly wetted to minimise the potential for dust generation during excavation, transport and re-use.

n It is understood that there is a liner installed at the base of the leach pads. An assessment will be madeas to whether investigations of the post excavation footprint and downslope areas are required toassess soil chemical concentrations and determine whether additional rehabilitation is required.

n As the area will always be a State Heritage area relating to previous mining (industrial use) and accessto the site will be infrequent it is proposed to adopt the NEPM Industrial guideline levels or alternativelysite specific risk levels will be developed consistent with the land use.

n Safety signage will be posted at potential access locations indicating that the area is a registered StateHeritage site and safety issues will be posted (refer to Figure 8.4).

n Grade the disturbed area of the former leach pads and allow for natural revegetation. It is expected thatthe subsoil will be suitable for establishment of similar vegetation cover (salt bush) as exists in theadjacent undisturbed area.

A detailed rehabilitation plan will be included in the PEPR.

It is the intention of WPG to surrender the existing MLs (Figure 1.3) upon the grant of a new ML whereuponthe existing MLs will be incorporated in the proposed ML.

Data Source: EBS Ecology, DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map No: 2200005A_GIS_075_A

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 50 100


Machine dump state heritage area

Perseverance Pit

Water pipeline

Mineral claim 4376 boundary

Waste rockdump facility

Machinery Dump State heritage areaML 4650

ML 5179

ML 4667

ML 5300

TW1P

TW1PTW1PMine site layoutProposed mineral lease areaSouth Australian heritage(Tarcoola goldfields)Existing mineral lease

1:5,000



www.pbworld.com



Data Source: EBS Ecology, DPTI, DEWNR, DSD Map No: 2200005A_GIS_076_A

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 50 100


Geologist's well, North and Well no 2 state heritage areas


NorthState Heritage Area

Geologist's WellState Heritage Area

Well No 2State Heritage Area

Mineral claim 4376 boundary

Government battery tailingsGovernment battery

Proposed mineral lease areaSouth Australian heritage(Tarcoola goldfields)Mine site layout

1:5,000



www.pbworld.com





8.6.2.2 Outside state heritage

Areas that were mined post 1980 within the existing MLs will be rehabilitated by filling openings/excavations(including costeans) with inert waste rock. Signage indicating that the area is a registered State Heritage siteand safety issues will be posted (refer to Figure 8.4). Where appropriate, fencing will be installed. Arehabilitation plan will be included in the PEPR.

Figure 8.4 Safety signage

8.6.3 Mine pit (Domain 2)

Closure strategies for Domain 2 have been developed and are discussed in Table 8.1. These actions havebeen developed to assist in the achievement of outcomes and completion criteria. It is not proposed tobackfill either of the open pits as this has the potential to sterilise ore that is currently not economic but maybe economic with increased value of the gold/silver resource.

The stability analysis by PSM indicated the most significant potential slope failure was along planar beddingsurfaces dipping out of the northern pit wall at angles of 10° to 45° degrees.



Table 8.1 Closure strategies for closure of Domain 2 (conceptual)

Domain Strategy

Mine pit(s) (Domain 2) The open pit void(s) will remain as a permanent feature. Backfill of either of the open pitsas this has the potential to sterilise ore that is currently not economic but may be economicwith increased value of the gold/silver resource.

Groundwater will recover in the open pit over time and is likely to result in a limited extentsaline lake following significant rainfall. Under normal circumstance any infiltration hasbeen predicted to evaporate. While there is potential for ARD from parts of the open pitwalls the presence of limestone at the base of the open pit will minimise the risk of low pHand adverse water quality due to neutralisation of acidity. The open pit will be a permanentgroundwater sink therefore offsite seepage (if a pit lake forms) would not occur.

Establishment of a 2 m high bund around the perimeter with rock armouring on the externalslope to maintain integrity. The bund is proposed to be located 36 m to 55 m from the topof the open pit to ensure it remains in place if there is slumping of the upper sections of theopen pit.

Exit point(s) of the open pit will also be bunded to prevent vehicle access.

The proposed location of the bund has been determined using the methodology indicated and is consistentwith Safety Bund Walls Around Abandoned Open Pit Mines Guideline, (Western Australia Department ofIndustry Resources, 1997) (Figure 8.5).

Figure 8.5 Bund location for open pit wall in weathered and unweathered rock

The boundary between unweathered and weathered rock (as indicated in Figure 8.5) has been determinedfrom the cross sections and geological logs contained in the PSM report in Appendix H. The cross sectionsindicate that the top of fresh rock (TOFR or boundary between weathered and unweathered material) variesfrom approximately 52 m to 62 below the topographical surface.

On the basis of the assessment the bund would be located between 35 m to 55 m from the final open pitcrest, depending on the open pit slope geometry. The potential for slope failures to impact the proposedbund is considered to be negligible.



The abandonment bund for the Perseverance and Last Resource pits is expected to require between60,000 t to 90,000 t of material, paddock dumped out to form a 2 m high bund. The perimeter of the bund isestimated to be 1800 m long as shown in Figure 8.6.

Inert granite or quartzite can be used for the abandonment bund, as it is less likely to be affected by surfaceweathering processes. This material can be mined within the first 18 months of operation as placed in theproposed location depending on the operational aspects and economics of the project.

The ML is within unallocated Crown Land, west of the Tarcoola township and is not used for cattle or sheepgrazing. Given the proposed 2 m height of the bund it is unlikely that fauna would be at risk of harm.However given the close proximity to Tarcoola township a review will be undertaken at closure in relation tothe need to install a permanent fence around the open pit.



Figure 8.6 Approximate location of abandonment bund (shown in white) around the Perseverance and Last Resource Open Pits



8.6.4 Infrastructure (Domain 3)

Closure strategies for Domain 3 have been developed and are discussed in Table 8.2.


Domain Strategy

Infrastructure(including crushingplant, process plant,access roads,accommodationvillage, septicsystems, waterpipelines)

n Dismantle and remove crushing plant, conveyors, ore bins, etc, including concretefootings, pads, retaining walls. Subject to agreement with DSD the concrete pads wouldeither be disposed in the open pit or waste rock storage area.

n Dismantle and remove all process plant, including tanks and pipework.n Dismantle and remove all water and process pipelines, electricity power distribution

systems, water wells and pipelines.n All hardstand surfacing of haul roads, workshop areas and ROM pad will be scarified to

loosen compacted material and covered with previously stockpiled sub-soil and topsoiland revegetated. If contaminated the material will be disposed in the waste rock storagefacility.

n All geosynthetic lining of storage ponds will be folded into each pond.n The walls of ponds will be pushed in to the former pond area spread and covered with

sub-soil and topsoil and revegetated.n All offices, buildings crib rooms and workshop buildings will be removed from the site.n The accommodation village buildings and associated infrastructure will be dismantled and

removed.n All fuel tanks and associated infrastructure will be removed from the site.n The septic tank systems and pipelines will be removed from the site.n Any hydrocarbon contaminated soils will be excavated and bioremediated to a level that

will enable disposal in the waste rock storage facility.n Any installed site fencing will be removed.

Accommodation village

The rehabilitation aspects of the accommodation village have been summarised in Table 8.2 assuming that itis not required to be retained for other WPG projects or third parties. If rehabilitated, the completedrevegetated surface will be integrated with the natural land surface. Final contours of the rehabilitatedsurface have not been included as there is not a significant variation in levels from the pre-developmentlevels.

Water supply infrastructure

If the facilities are not required for other projects or third parties the following activities will be undertaken:

n removal of all above ground structures, e.g. tanks, pipes, pumpsn decommission water bores (unless negotiated with landowner to remain) in accordance with DSD and

DEWNR requirementsn remediate soil compaction by ripping along contour, e.g. roadsn re-compaction and making good of existing roadways/access tracksn revegetation of ripped areasn remove concrete pads and similar foundation structures with disposal in the open pit or waste rock

storage area, subject to approval by DSD.

Approval from DSD and the pastoral lessee would be required if the infrastructure in this domain was to beretained for other projects or third parties.

Roads

Allowances have been made in the rehabilitation to fully remove and remediate all access tracks and haulroads, however, this will be subject to consideration of potential on-going usage of the infrastructure by otherprojects and/or interested stakeholders.



The on-going usage and potential transfer of liabilities will be a matter for negotiation with DSD, the pastorallessee and the potentially interested stakeholders.

If the facilities are not required for other projects or third parties the following activities will be undertaken:

n remove concrete structures, e.g. culverts, headwallsn scrape mine surface area to remove residual ore or contamination and dispose in waste rock dumpn remediate soil compaction areas by ripping along contourn re-spread stockpiled topsoil to blend with local adjacent landformsn revegetation of ripped areas.

8.6.5 Spent heap leach stockpile, waste rock facility and low gradestockpile (Domain 4)

8.6.5.1 Closure strategies

Closure strategies for Domain 4 have been developed and are discussed in Table 8.3 below.


Domain Strategy

Spent heap leachstockpile, WRF andlow grade stockpile

n The spent heap leach stockpile and WRF will remain as permanent features.n The external surfaces will be established at a nominal overall 18° to 20° slope. Rock

armouring will be placed to reduce the potential for erosion.n The final surfaces will be covered with available material to form a self-sustaining cover.

Trials will be undertaken during operation to determine the optimum thickness andmaterial properties and slope profiles (e.g. stepped or concave).

n If low grade material that has been stockpiled in a specific location of the WRF is notprocessed at completion of operations the material will be incorporated into the WRF withappropriate cover material to minimise the potential for ARD.

The design of the WRF has taken into consideration the final height and slope to ensure that the structure issafe, stable and not prone to significant erosion.

The operating design of the WRF comprises of 37°, 10 m high batters with 10 m wide berms. Whenrehabilitated the WRF will have a continuous 18° to 20° slope from crest to toe.

Process plant equipment will be dismantled and removed. It is noted that leaching of the last ore will not becompleted for several months after stacking operations have ceased. Thus there will be an on-goingrequirement for adsorption and possibly other carbon processing equipment.

The leach ponds will be decommissioned last after leaching operations have been completed. The majorityof solutions will be irrigated over the heap and evaporated. Final solutions will be neutralised throughirrigation through the heap leach stockpile to a concentration of 0.5 mg/L total cyanide as detailed in theCyanide Code and consistent with the project risks (impact on surface water and groundwater). The pondliners will then be folded into each pond and the ponds and the walls will be pushed in, compacted andcovered with topsoil and seeded. Leaving the HDPE liners in place will provide a high level of protection fromseepage in the event of any residual seepage from the flushed heap leach stockpile. An alternative optionbeing considered is the use of limestone from the base of the open pit to be placed in the pond to neutraliseany residual chemicals after flushing has been completed.



8.6.5.2 Cover systems

There are a range of alternative cover systems that could be used (O’Kane and Ayres 2012):

n Store-release cover – arid and semi-arid climatesn Enhanced-store release cover – arid and semi-arid climatesn Barrier type cover – semi-humid and humid climatesn Cover system with engineered layers – semi humid and humid climates.

On the basis of climatic conditions it is considered that a store-release cover is appropriate for the TarcoolaProject. Barrier type systems, which typically comprise compacted clay, would be unsuitable as the claymaterial is likely to dry-out and crack leading to increased infiltration of water and drainage.

Typically the store-release cover consists of 1 m to 2 m of well graded soil or inert waste rock material. In theenhanced store release cover a reduced permeability layer, either compacted low permeability material atthe surface or a capillary break layer is installed.

During operation it is proposed to undertake trials of alternative store-release covers using available sitematerials. It is envisaged that the final cover could comprise limestone recovered from the base of the openpit and placed on the top surface of the heap leach stockpile and then covered with inert fresh waste rock(possible granite or quartzite) to create a hummocky profile. Topsoil would be applied in the hollows. Thehummock profile enables retention of water for vegetation.


Flushing of heap leach stockpile

Rehabilitation of heap leach stockpiles when undertaken on site typically involves flushing of the residualcyanide within the stockpile until such time as the concentration of cyanide in the stockpile reaches anacceptable level.

Where the ore contains potential ARD material flushing is not recommended as this results in a reduction ofthe alkalinity of the heap leach stockpile leading to potential release of cyanide and other contaminants.

KCA has proposed that at the end of the economic life of the project, the leached ore will be rinsed toremove residual cyanide species. The process will have multiple stages with the end result to have thecontained moisture of the heap with cyanide levels at or below guideline targets and also to leave theleached ore in a generally alkaline state to reduce acid rock drainage (ARD) potential. At the end of the leachcycle for the final lot of ore, the moisture content of the heap is expected to average 12.5%. With the twoprocess ponds at half of their capacity, the total volume of solution in the system will be ~108,600 m3.

The initial stage of operation will be recycling/sprinkling of leach solutions over the ore with fresh makeupwater added as required to maintain solution levels. Cyanide species will be degraded through volatilisation,ultraviolet (UV) photolysis, reaction with ore minerals and biological oxidation. The use of sprinklers willenhance the effects of volatilisation as well as UV degradation. Exposure of off-flow solutions in thecollection channel and in the ponds will also assist cyanide species attenuation.

At this point it is expected that these factors in conjunction with the acidic nature of the ores will result inrapid breakdown of cyanide species. Sampling and analysis of off-flow solutions will be conducted to monitorthis progress.

It is expected that one third of the stacked heap will be flushed at any given time with the recycling steptaking 60 days for each section of the heap leach. Additional time will be provided as necessary. For a60-day period of full pumping/recycling, the expected quantity of makeup water will be on the order of28,700 m3 for a “replacement” of 26% of the solution in the entire system. More critically, this will result in a



displacement wash equivalent of ~6 times the moisture content of the ore for the section of heap beingtreated.

During this recycling period, no alkalinity will be added to the system to ensure maximum volatilisation. Theacidic nature of the ores and the site water will further enhance cyanide species breakdown.

A portion of the off-flow solution will be processed through the activated carbon adsorption columns torecover any residual gold. The carbon will also assist in removing cyanide species through adsorption.

The next step in the closure process is the re-alkalisation of the heap. This will involve conversion of thecyanide mixing/dosing system to a hydrated lime slurry mixing/dosing system. Lime slurry will be added tothe heap off-flow solutions at a rate to achieve the buffer pH of 9.6. Recycling for a further displacementwash ratio of 4 will involve 30 days of treatment for each third of the heap. Monitoring of off-flow pH as wellas the other designated species (CNwad, total CN, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, thiocyanate) will be conductedon a routine basis.

The next step in the closure process is evaporation of residual leach solutions prior to final closure.Evaporative losses due to sprinkling are expected to average 10.5% on an annual basis. A conservativecalculation incorporating the lower evaporation rate of 9% suggests that the majority of the pond solution canbe evaporated in 30 days at the maximum pumping rate of190 m3/h. However, pumping will be winding downand only the ILS pump will be employed at ~130 m3/h. This pumping rate will be reduced step-wise to allowdrain-down from the majority of the heap. Calculations show that the majority of the water in the system canbe evaporated in less than 45 days.

Final evaporation of the contained pond solutions will employ misting sprays over the stormwater pond. Thisis the largest pond and sprays placed around the perimeter or on floats in the pond will reduce the remainingsolution volumes to near zero. Based on an enhanced evaporation rate of 20% and flow of 60 m3/h, finalevaporation is expected to take 6 to 10 days. A combined period of 60 days for final evaporation is expected.

During the final stages of evaporation, reclamation/rehabilitation of the heap can begin at one end while theother end is draining.

Overall timing requirements for rinsing, re-alkalising and final evaporation are expected to be as follows:

n Rinse/Recycling: 60 days per section, 3 sections = 180 daysn Re-alkalisation: 30 days per section, 3 sections = 90 daysn Final Evaporation: 60 days allowedn Total: 330 days.

After all solutions have been evaporated, the pond liners would be buried in the pond as it is backfilled. It isproposed to adopt the Cyanide Code concentration of 0.5 mg/L total cyanide as the target for flushing.Leaving the HDPE liners in place will provide a high level of protection from seepage in the event of anyresidual seepage from the flushed heap leach stockpile.

Cover of heap leach stockpile

Typically the topsoil varies in thickness from 100 mm to 150 mm and subsoil varies in thickness from400 mm to 500 mm. Assuming the lower bound thickness there is an estimated 8,170 bank cubic metres(BCM) of topsoil and 32,680 BCM of subsoil from the heap leach area. On the basis of the completed topsurface area of the heap leach storage area there would be a requirement for about 7,000 BCM of topsoiland 28,000 BCM of subsoil. This indicates that there may not be sufficient materials of topsoil and subsoil toplace on the sides. The excess topsoil and subsoil recovered from the pit area can be used to provideexcess cover over the heap leach area. The Euro Limestone mined during the life of the operation will bestockpiled separately for use during mine closure, due to its strong acid consuming properties.



Following completion of flushing the top of the heap leach stockpile could be prepared using two alternatives.One option could comprise either limestone or fresh granite recovered from the base of the open pit andplaced on the top surface of the heap leach stockpile as a capillary break. Another option could involvecompacting the agglomerated oxide spent ore to produce a lower permeability layer, however this may bedifficult due to the nature of the material and would be investigate during operations. Store release covershave been used at the Kidston gold mine in Queensland which has a higher rainfall than the Tarcoola area.The conceptual design included below has been based on the Kidston design and has taken intoconsideration the materials available at Tarcoola and the significantly lower rainfall conditions. Store releasecovers have been used at a number of mining facilities in Australia in arid or semi-arid regions. At theKidston gold mine in Queensland which has a higher rainfall than the Tarcoola area a store release coverwas adopted. The conceptual design included below has been based on the Kidston design and has takeninto consideration the materials available at Tarcoola and climatic conditions i.e. the significantly lowerrainfall conditions. The conceptual cover without compaction of the surface of the agglomerated ore wouldcomprise the following:

n Inert oxide and other waste rock would be paddock dumped on the final top surface to a thickness ofabout 1.5 m. A capillary break 0.5 m to 1.0 m thick of either limestone or inert fresh granite would beplaced between the top of heap leach and the cover material.

n The paddock dumped material would be flattened with a dozer but still retain a hummocky profile

n Available top soil would be placed in hollows on the top surface and dozed into the underlying material.

n The sides would comprise rock armouring interspersed with oxide waste rock in hollows. Any remainingsubsoil and topsoil would be used towards the base to enable vegetation. The aim being to mimic theexisting landscape, where the Tarcoola Ridge comprised rocky formation with vegetation mainly on thelower slopes. Rock armouring on the slopes will be completed using suitable fresh granite from the baseof the open pits.

Schematic cross sections of the conceptual cover to be placed on the top and sides of the spent heap leachstockpile are indicated in Figure 8.7.

Section 4.7.5 indicated FOS exceeding 1.5 for static loading conditions during operations. Followingrehabilitation the FOS would be greater than for the operational conditions as the external slopes areproposed to be about 20°.

During operation it is proposed to undertake trials of alternative store-release covers using available sitematerials and on the basis of further assessment in the PEPR stage.

8.6.5.4 Waste rock facility

For the top of the completed WRF there will be about 6,000 loose cubic metres (LCM) of topsoil and24,000 LCM of subsoil required for rehabilitation. For the sides there will be about 11,650 LCM of topsoil and46,600 LCM of subsoil required for rehabilitation. Typically the topsoil varies in thickness from 100 mm to150 mm and subsoil varies in thickness from 300 mm to 400 mm. Assuming the lower bound thickness thereis an estimated 17,650 LCM of topsoil and 70,600 LCM of subsoil. This suggests that there will be sufficienttopsoil and subsoil for rehabilitation. The total site balance for topsoil and subsoil is shown in Table 4.23. Theexcess topsoil and subsoil recovered from the open pit area can be used to provide excess cover over theWRD and heap leach areas.

Store release covers have been used at a number of mining facilities in Australia in arid and semi-aridclimates. At the Kidston gold mine in Queensland which has a higher rainfall than the Tarcoola area a storerelease cover was used. The conceptual design included below has been based on the Kidston design andhas taken into consideration the materials available at Tarcoola and climatic conditions i.e. the significantlylower rainfall conditions. This approach has been adopted below.



Figure 8.7 Conceptual cover for WRF and spent heap leach stockpile

Store release covers have been used at the Kidston gold mine in Queensland which has a higher rainfallthan the Tarcoola area. The conceptual design included below has been based on the Kidston design andhas taken into consideration the materials available at Tarcoola and the significantly lower rainfall conditions.

The cover material would comprise the more weathered/oxidised inert waste rock material which will havebeen placed initially at the approximate toe location of the WRF. The material will be recovered andpaddocked dumped to create a hummocky profile about 1.5 m thick. Available topsoil and subsoil would beplaced in the hollows and dozed in to the underlying weathered waste rock to encourage vegetation growth.It is expected that about 70% of the available topsoil and subsoil would be used on the surface. Thehummock profile enables retention of water for vegetation. In general the top surface would have a slightgradient toward the middle to ensure that there is no un-controlled surface water runoff over the side slopesand resultant erosion. A capillary break 0.5 m to 1.0 m thick of inert fresh granite would be placed betweenthe waste rock and the cover material.

Schematic cross sections of the conceptual cover to be placed on the top and sides of the WRF areindicated in Figure 8.7.



The lower sections would have inert rock armouring and oxide waste placed in the voids. The rock armouringwill be completed using suitable fresh granite from the base of the open pits. The remaining 30% of subsoiland topsoil would be used, concentrating on the lower portion to enable revegetation. The aim is to mimic theexisting ridge, which has hard rock slope with vegetation at the base (Photo 8.1).

Photo 8.1 Existing landscape at Tarcoola

The post completion landform contours are indicated in Figure 8.8 and cross sections are indicated inFigures 8.9 to 8.13. Three dimensional schematics after mine completion are provided in Figure 8.14 andFigure 8.15 and indicate the WRF and heap leach stockpiles while higher than the Tarcoola Ridge doprovide some continuity to the pre-mining ridgeline landform.

The external slopes are proposed to be about 20° which will result in a stable land form with FOS greaterthan 1.5.


Table 8.4 below shows the material balance for the conceptual cover of Domains 2, 3 and 4.

The volume of rock required for the conceptual cover for Domain 4 is based on 1.5 m thickness as shown inFigure 8.7.



Table 8.4 Materials balance for the conceptual cover of Domains 2, 3 and 4

RehabilitationDomain

Primary rehabmaterial

Secondary rehabmaterial

Topsoil (m3) Subsoil(m3)

Rock (m3)

2 (Open Pit) N/A N/A – – 35,000

3 (Infrastructure) Topsoil/subsoil fromoriginal location

10,970 43,840 –

4 (Heap Leach,WRF)

Topsoil/subsoil fromoriginal location andopen pit

Cover materialcomprising inertsandstone/siltstone andinert granite for rockarmouring, EuroLimestone for acidneutralisation.

33,580 134,320 369,750

Total 44,540 178,160 404,750

8.6.6 Exploration drillholes (Domain 5)

The following provides a summary of rehabilitation activities that would be undertaken for explorationactivities (Domain 5). At completion of drilling the boreholes will be completed in line with DSD InformationSheet M21: Mineral Exploration Drillholes – General Specifications for Construction and Backfilling. The drillsite will be rehabilitated and scarified on completion of the program. Where cleared, vegetation matter will bespread over the drill site to reduce visual impact and encourage vegetation re-generation.

Where it has been necessary to case the drillhole collars the following rehabilitation will be undertaken:

n the casing will be cut off below ground leveln all holes will be plugged and buriedn all rubbish will be collected for appropriate disposaln drill sites will be lightly raked and any compaction broken up to encourage re-growthn cyclone spoil will be spread or backfilled into the collar prior to capping.

Sumps that are established as part of exploration will be rehabilitated in accordance with DSD guidelines.

Data Source: DPTI, DSD, DMITRE Esri DigitalGlobe Map No: 2200005A_GIS_032_D

Author: RP

Approved by: AE

0 100 200


Site Layout after closure and rehabilitation

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2D1

D2

E2

E1 HeapLeachPadA1

WasteRockDump

A2

PerserverencePit(B)

LastResource

(B)

AbandonmentBund

150

145

140

130

155

135

160

140

135

160

165

453500

453500

454000

454000

454500

454500

455000

455000

455500

455500

456000

456000

6603

000

6603

000

6603

500

6603

500

6604

000

6604

000

1:7,500



www.pbworld.com


WPG Resources \\Apadlfil01\proj\W\WPG_RESOURCES_LTD\2200005A_TARCOOLA_MINING_LEASE_APPROVA\10_GIS\Projects\Maps\2200005A_GIS_032_D.mxd

Legend2m Abandonment bundCross sectionContour (5m)Proposed mineral lease area

Prop

osed

mine

ral le

ase b

ound

ary (

MC 43

76)

Data Source: WPG Resources, Geoscience Australia Map No: 2200005A_GIS_078_B

Author: RP

Approved by: AE


Cross section A post closure

A1 A2

180

Existing surface

Wast Rock Facility

Metres

Waste Rock Dump will berehabilitated with a slope of20 degrees

160

100

Metre

s(3

X ve

rtical

exag

gerat

ion)

Closure coverRefer to Figure 8.7

120

140

50 750

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

Date: 29/07/2015

www.pbworld.com




Author: RP

Approved by: AE


Cross section B post closure

B1 B2

180 Existing surface

Wast Rock Facility

Perseverance Pit

Metres

Waste Rock Dump will berehabilitated with a slope of20 degrees

2m Abandonment

Bund

2m Abandonment

Bund

150

100

Metre

s(3

x vert

ical

exag

gerat

ion)

50


50 900

850

800

750

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

950

Date: 29/07/2015

www.pbworld.com




Author: RP

Approved by: AE


Cross section C post closure

C1 C2

170

Existing surface

Existing surface

Perseverance Pit

Last Resource Pit

2mAbandonment

Bund2m

AbandonmentBund

90

Metres

150

Metre

s(3

X ve

rtical

exag

gerat

ion)

50

110

70

130

50 750

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

800

Date: 29/07/2015

www.pbworld.com




Author: RP

Approved by: AE


Cross section D post closure

D1 D2

160

Existing surface

Heap Leach Pad

Heap Leach Pad will berehabilitated with a slope of20 degrees

Metres

120

140

100

Metre

s(3

X ve

rtical

exag

gerat

ion)


50 600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

Date: 29/07/2015

www.pbworld.com




Author: RP

Approved by: AE


Cross section E post closure

E1 E2

160Existing surface

Heap Leach Pad

Heap Leach Pad will berehabilitated with a slope of20 degrees

120

140

Metres

Metre

s(3

X ve

rtical

exag

gerat

ion)

100



50 250

200

150

100

Date: 29/07/2015

www.pbworld.com





8.6.7 Final landform

The final landform design for the open pit, WRF and heap leach stockpile delivers a stable, safe and visuallyacceptable amenity beyond closure. Revegetation will be undertaken in accordance with species found inthe flora surveys of the mining areas.

The post completion landform contours are indicated in Figure 8.8 and cross sections are indicated inFigures 8.9 to 8.13. Three dimensional schematics after mine completion are provided in Figure 8.14 andFigure 8.15 and indicate the WSF and heap leach stockpiles while higher than the Tarcoola Ridge doprovide some continuity to the pre-mining ridgeline landform.

8.6.8 Early closure

While not planned, as with all mining projects, there is potential for early closure due to unforseen economicconditions, such a significant fall in the price of the commodity. In the event that this were to occurrehabilitation of the waste rock storage facility and heap leach operations would be required before achievingtheir design capacity. The following would be implemented:

n a pre-decommissioning review of the heap leach operations and WRF would be undertaken and aspecific closure plan developed in consultation with DSD and other stakeholders

n progressive rehabilitation may have commenced in some parts of the siten the slopes would be regraded to produce a final slope consistent with the agreed design and final cover

established as discussed in previous sections.

8.6.9 Closure studies

To finalise the closure strategy it is proposed to undertake a range of studies:

n testing of mine waste rock and soil to determine geotechnical material properties as part of PEPR andthrough operations

n conduct trials on site of possible covers through operationsn erosion and landform modelling to assess long term performance of the slopes as part of the PEPR and

revised in accordance with material testing results (if required)n hydrological modelling of the store release cover as part of PEPR and updated (if required) in

accordance with as material testing results to determine optimum thickness to limit the amount ofpotential infiltration.



Figure 8.14 View looking north from railway line at Tarcoola (Perseverance pit visible)

Heap leach Waste rockPerseverance open pit



Figure 8.15 View of final landforms looking SE from railway line (Perseverance pit visible)

Heap leach

Waste rock

Perseverance open pit



8.7 Environmental risk assessment current disturbance(historical workings ML4650, ML4667, ML5179 andML5300)

A summary of the potential impacts are included in Table 8.5 and the locations of current disturbance(historical workings ML4650, ML4667, ML5179 and ML5300) is included in Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.3.

Table 8.5 Summary of potential impacts, draft outcome and measurement criteria currentdisturbance (historical workings ML4650, ML4667, ML5179 and ML5300)

Aspect Potential impact PrimaryRisk

ResidualRisk

Outcome Measurementcriteria

General project closure

Fauna &flora

Poor vegetationcover and reducedspecies abundanceand diversityresulting in reducedecological function.

Moderate Low Post mining landform isrehabilitated,revegetated andintegrated with thesurrounding landscape

Post closure audit bysuitably qualifiedindependent expertdemonstrates theecosystem andlandscape function isresilient and trending tosustainability.

Increased densityand distribution ofweed species.

Low Low Predicted outcomes,have only beendeveloped forenvironmental aspectswith a PRL of moderateor higher.

Predictedmeasurement criteriaand leading indicatorshave only beendeveloped forenvironmental aspectswith a PRL of moderateor higher.

Increasedabundance ofintroduced pestspecies.



Surfacewater

Altered flow regimesdue to changes inlandform.



Surfacewater

Contamination due torunoff from historicalheap leach






ResidualRisk



Groundwater Availability ofgroundwater due tocontamination fromseepage.



Groundwater Contamination due toseepage fromhistorical heap leach



Land use Land use impact dueto poor compactionand reinstatement ofsoil duringrehabilitation.



Land use Land use impact dueto poor rehabilitationof historical heapleach operations.



Safety Access to open pit Moderate Low Post mining landformsare physically stableand risks to the healthand safety of the publicand fauna are as lowas reasonablepracticable.

Post closure audit by asuitably qualified andexperiencedindependent expertindicates:

n open pit, heap leachstockpile and WRFare geotechnicallystable

n the pit abandonmentbund has beenconstructed inaccordance with theapproved design

n warning signageinstalled

Safety Access to historicaladits, costeans andshafts

Moderate Low Post mining landformsare physically stableand risks to the healthand safety of the publicand fauna are as lowas reasonablepracticable

Post closure auditindicates:

n fencing has beeninstalled (if required)

n warning signageinstalled




ResidualRisk



Visualamenity

Rehabilitation will bepositive.



Waste Not all wasteremoved

Moderate Low All mine wastematerials left onsite arechemically andphysically stable

Note: Heritage miningobjects, etc will not bedisturbed as requiredby legislation.

An audit prior tocompletion indicatesthat:

n all mine wastematerials allowed tobe removed by StateHeritage has beenremoved

n rehabilitation inaccordance with theapproved closurestrategy

n a site contaminationreport shows that thelease area isconsistent withNEPM Recreationalland use criteria

Air quality Dust emission fromdisturbed and poorlyrehabilitated areas.



Heritage Damage to listedherirage sites.

Moderate Low No disturbance toEuropean heritage site(from mining andrehabilitation activitiesundertaken) on the ML.

An audit undertakenprior to minecompletion by asuitably qualified andexperiencedprofessionaldemonstrate nodisturbance toEuropean Heritage sitewithin the ML otherthan as per HeritageManagement Planapproved by DEWNR.



8.7.1 Proposed ML

The potential environmental, economic and social impacts and risks that may exist after mine closure arelisted in Table 8.6. These impacts and risks will be avoided, mitigated or managed throughout the operationof the mine, and are expected to pose very small risks post closure. A summary of the potential impacts arelisted for each closure domain, as well as for the general project closure.

Table 8.6 Summary of potential impacts after mine closure

Aspect Potential impact


Flora and fauna Poor vegetation cover and reduced species abundance and diversity resulting in reducedecological function.

Increased density and distribution of weed species and pathogens.

Increased abundance of introduced pest animal species.

Visual amenity Negative impact due to WRF and spent heap leach stockpile not integrating with the easternportion of the Tarcoola ridgeline.

Air quality Dust emission from disturbed and poorly rehabilitated areas.

Mine pit

Surface water Altered flow regimes due to changes in landform.

Increased sediment load resulting from ineffective rehabilitation.

Groundwater Availability of groundwater to existing users due to contamination from seepage from pit lake (ifit forms).

Socio-economic Public safety and human health due to open pit instability following access and falls into openpit.

Fauna Safety and health of fauna due to access to the open pit.

Infrastructure (including process plant, access roads, process plant, ROM, water pipeline)


Surface water Increased sediment load resulting from ineffective rehabilitation. Contamination byhydrocarbons, ARD, salinisation, seepage from spent heap leach stockpile, waste material lefton site.

Groundwater Availability of groundwater due to contamination by hydrocarbons, process chemicals, wastematerial.

Land use Land use impact due to ineffective compaction and reinstatement of soil during rehabilitation.

Socio-economic Public safety and human health risks

Flora and fauna Poor vegetation cover and reduced species abundance and diversity resulting in reducedecological function.

Increased density and distribution of weed species.

Increased abundance of introduced pest animal species.

Spent heap leach stockpile


Groundwater Contamination by ARD and seepage from spent heap leach stockpile.

Socio-economic Public safety and human health risks due to public access.



Aspect Potential impact

Erosion and exposure of spent heap leach material resulting in contamination from heavymetals, residual cyanide, salinity and high pH.

Surface water Erosion of landform resulting in sediment loading

Erosion and exposure of spent heap leach material resulting in contamination from heavymetals, residual cyanide, salinity and high pH.

Slope failure and exposure of spent heap leach material resulting in contamination from heavymetals, residual cyanide, salinity and high pH.

Soil Erosion and exposure of spent heap leach material resulting in contamination of soil fromheavy metals, residual cyanide, salinity and high pH.


Flora and fauna Erosion and exposure of spent heap leach material resulting in impact due to uptake by plantsof heavy metals, residual cyanide, salinity and high pH.


WRF

Air quality Dust emission from poor rehabilitation.

Groundwater Erosion and exposure of spent heap leach material resulting in contamination from heavymetals, salinity and high pH.


Socio-economic Public safety and human health risks due to public access.

Public safety and human health risks due to instability.

Surface water Erosion of landform resulting in sediment loading

Erosion and exposure of PAF material resulting in ARD and contamination from heavy metals,salinity and high pH.

Slope failure and exposure of PAF material resulting in ARD and contamination from heavymetals, residual cyanide, salinity and high pH.

Flora and fauna Erosion and exposure of PAF material resulting ARD and in impact due to uptake by plants ofheavy metals, salinity and high pH.

Slope failure and exposure of PAF material resulting in ARD and impact due to uptake byplants of heavy metals, salinity and high pH.

Soil Erosion and exposure of PAF material resulting in ARD and contamination of soil from heavymetals, salinity and high pH.

Slope failure and exposure of PAF material resulting in ARD and contamination from heavymetals, salinity and high pH.

A detailed risk assessment is provided in Table 8.7 and Appendix J.

8.8 Post completion outcomes and completion criteriaDraft post completion outcomes and completion criteria have been developed for the Tarcoola Gold Projectand these are summarised in Table 8.8.



Table 8.7 Risk assessment – Post completion





Visual Amenity

T72

Final landforms (WRFand heap leachstockpile) impact visualamenity to rail and roadusers.

Possible Minor Moderate Closure and Rehabilitation Plan.

Design of closure landforms as far as practicablewill be integrated with surrounding environmentthrough height, batter design and final landformshape.

The Tarcoola area is a historical mining area withexisting mining infrastructure and is visible fromadjacent roads and railway line.

The post completion landforms will form a partialvisual extension to the existing Tarcoola Ridge.

Unlikely Minor Low

T73

Final landforms (WRFand heap leachstockpile) impact visualamenity of residents inTarcoola.


Design of closure landforms integrated withsurrounding environment through height, batterdesign and final landform shape.

The Tarcoola area is a historical mining area withexisting mining infrastructure and is visible fromadjacent roads and railway line.

The post completion landforms will form a partialvisual extension to the existing Tarcoola Ridge.

Unlikely Minor Low







T74

Final landforms (WRFand heap leachstockpile) impact visualamenity of pastoralresidences.

Unlikely Minor Low Closure and Rehabilitation Plan.

Design of closure landforms integrated withsurrounding environment through height, batterdesign and final landform shape.

The Tarcoola area is a historical mining area withexisting mining infrastructure which has beenevident for a significant period.

The post completion landforms will form a partialextension to the existing Tarcoola Ridge.

The nearest pastoral residences are a significantdistance from the site.

Unlikely Minor Low

Groundwater

T75

Contamination byseepage (heavymetals, low pH andsalts) from open pitimpacting water qualityfor existing users andGDE.

Possible Minor Moderate Groundwater modelling indicates open pit is agroundwater sink with no outflow, hence noimpact on existing users (Appendix C).

High groundwater salinity precludes beneficialuses apart from industrial use, and presence ofGDE (Appendix C).

Unlikely Minor Low







T76

Reduction ingroundwater levels(quantity) bydewatering and watersupply bores impactingexisting users and GDE

Unlikely Minor Low Groundwater modelling indicates no reduction inwater levels at existing pastoral bores (AppendixC).

High groundwater salinity precludes beneficialuse apart from industrial purposes and presenceof GDE (Appendix C).

Audit by independent experts to confirm modellingresults.

Implementation of groundwater monitoringprogram of water levels in monitoring bores andpastoral bores for a period of three years toconfirm modelling results.

Implementation of remedial action if there is areduction in water supply due to fall in waterlevels in pastoral bores (e.g. deepen existingpastoral wells or provide alternative water supply).

Unlikely Minor Low







T77

Contamination due toseepage (heavymetals, low pH andsalts) from WRFimpacting existingusers and GDE

Possible Minor Moderate Design of WRF includes:

n PAF material encapsulated in rock storagefacility with appropriate separation from base,top and sides of external surface (Section 8 ofMLA).

n Store release cover design

n Armouring with inert waste rock

Groundwater modelling indicates open pit is agroundwater sink which would capture seepage,hence no impact on existing users (Appendix C).


Audit by independent expert to be undertakenprior to closure to confirm acceptable design ofclosure cover consistent with risks.

Audit by independent expert confirms closurecover constructed in accordance with approveddesign.

Implementation of groundwater monitoringprogram of water levels in monitoring bores andpastoral bores for a period of 3 years postclosure.

Implementation of remedial action if there is areduction in water quality in pastoral bores.

Unlikely Minor Low







T78

Contamination fromheavy metals, low pH,salts due to erosion ofcover on WRF andexposure of PAFmaterial and impactingexisting users and GDE

Possible Minor Moderate Design of WRF:


n Store release cover design.

n Armouring with inert waste rock.

Groundwater modelling indicates open pit is agroundwater sink which wold capture seepage,hence no impact on existing users (Appendix C).


Audit by independent expert confirms acceptabledesign of closure cover consistent with risks.


Implementation of groundwater monitoringprogram of water levels in monitoring bores andpastoral bores for a period of 3 years postclosure.


Unlikely Minor Low







T79

Contamination fromWRF (heavy metals,low pH and salts) dueslope failure impactingexisting users and GDE

Unlikely Minor Low Design of WRF:




n External slopes of about 20 degrees

Groundwater modelling indicates open pit is agroundwater sink with no impact on existing users(Appendix C).


Audit by independent geotechnical expertconfirms acceptable stability.

Implementation of groundwater monitoringprogram of water levels in monitoring bores andpastoral bores.


Unlikely Minor Low







T80

Contamination due toseepage from heapleach stockpile (heavymetals, cyanide, highpH) impacting existingusers and GDE

Possible Minor Moderate Design of heap leach stockpile closure:




Heap leach stockpile contains HDPE liner andcompacted clay liner.

Residual cyanide concentrations reduced throughflushing.







Unlikely Minor Low







T81

Contamination fromheap leach stockpile(heavy metals, cyanide,high pH) due to erosionof cover and exposureimpacting existingusers and GDE













Unlikely Minor Low







T82

Contamination fromheap leach stockpile(heavy metals, cyanide,high pH) due to slopefailure and impact onexisting users and GDE













Unlikely Minor Low







T83

Contamination fromprocess solution pondassociated with flushingpost processing (heavymetals, cyanide, highpH) impacting existingusers and GDE.

Possible Minor Moderate Closure and cover design (Section 8.6.5).

Process ponds include double HDPE liner withleak detection.

Flushing to be undertaken until concentrations are<0.5 mg/L total cyanide.

Evaporation of final rinse solution.





Unlikely Minor Low

T84

Contamination fromfuels impacting existingusers and GDE


All spills during life of mine dealt with inaccordance with Spill Management Plan withrecords of spills and clean-up kept.

Audit by independent consultant confirmsimplementation of clean-up procedures consistentwith EPA and DSD requirements.

Implement a program to monitor groundwaterquality including nearby pastoral bores.

Unlikely Minor Low







Surface water

T85

Altered flow regimesdue to diversion of localdrainage linesimpacting on WDE andsurface water quality

Unlikely Minor Low Avoid unnecessary disturbance to existingdrainage areas.

Restore as far as practicable pre-mining naturalflow regimes.

Audit indicates closure landforms do not result inadditional surface flows to pre-mining flows.

Unlikely Minor Low

T86

Additional surfacewater flows to pre-mining flows impactingthird party property andinfrastructure (includingrailway and publicroads)


Restore as far as practicable pre-mining naturalflow regimes.

Audit indicates closure landforms do not result inadditional surface flows to pre-mining flows.

Unlikely Minor Low

T87

Contamination due toseepage (heavymetals, low pH andsalts) from WRFimpacting surface waterquality and WDE





No permanent surface water.



Unlikely Minor Low







T88

Contamination fromheavy metals, low pH,salts due to erosion ofcover on WRF andexposure of PAFmaterial and impactingsurface water qualityand WDE









Unlikely Minor Low

T89

Contamination fromWRF (heavy metals,low pH and salts) dueslope failure impactingsurface water qualityand WDE

Unlikely Minor Low Design of WRF:







Unlikely Minor Low







T90

Contamination due toseepage from heapleach stockpile (heavymetals, cyanide, highpH) impacting surfacewater quality and WDE










Unlikely Minor Low

T91

Contamination fromheap leach stockpile(heavy metals, cyanide,high pH) due to erosionof cover and exposureimpacting surface waterquality and WDE










Unlikely Minor Low







T92

Contamination fromheap leach stockpile(heavy metals, cyanide,high pH) due to erosionof cover and exposureimpacting surface waterquality and WDE










Unlikely Minor Low

T93

Contamination fromprocess solution pondassociated with flushingpost processing (heavymetals, cyanide, highpH) impacting surfacewater quality WDE.

Possible Minor Moderate No permanent surface water.

Closure and cover design.






Unlikely Minor Low







T94

Contamination fromfuels impacting surfacewater quality and WDE



Unlikely Minor Low

Commercial and industrial waste

T95

Contamination ofgroundwater due toseepage from landfilland impact on GDE

Possible Minor Moderate Management and closure of waste storage facilityin accordance with EPA licence and LEMP.

Impact would only occur if landfill fills up withwater and overtops. The store release cover willminimise risk of infiltration of significant water.

Audit by independent consultant confirms coverhas been constructed in accordance with EPAlicence.

Unlikely Minor Low

T96

Contamination ofsurface water due toseepage from landfilland impact surfacewater quality and WDE

Unlikely Minor Low Management and closure of waste storage facilityin accordance with EPA licence and LEMP.

Impact would only occur if landfill fills up withwater and overtops. The store release cover willminimise risk of infiltration of significant water.

Audit by independent consultant confirms coverhas been constructed in accordance with EPAlicence.

Unlikely Minor Low







Safety to public and fauna

T97

Final open pit isunstable and createspreviously non-existent(i.e. pre-mining) risks tothe health and safety ofthe public and fauna.

Possible Moderate High Implementation of the Closure and RehabilitationPlan during operations.

Establishment of safety bund around open pit tominimise the risk to humans and fauna accessand entrapment (including the presence of waterin base of pit).

Audit by independent geotechnical expertconfirms safety bund has been installedconsistent with approved design and stabilityassessment.

Unlikely Minor Low

T98

Final WRF is unstableand creates previouslynon-existent (i.e. pre-mining) risks to thehealth and safety of thepublic and fauna.

Possible Minor Moderate Implementation of Closure and RehabilitationPlan.

Final slopes reduced to around 20 degrees andrehabilitated though installation of store releasecover and rock armouring to prevent long termerosion.

Audit by independent geotechnical expertconfirms stability of the WRF and safety bund hasbeen installed consistent with approved designand stability assessment.

Unlikely Minor Low

T99

Final heap leachstockpile is unstableand creates previouslynon-existent (i.e. pre-mining) risks to thehealth and safety of thepublic and fauna.

Possible Minor Moderate Implementation of Closure and RehabilitationPlan.

Final slopes reduced to around 20 degrees andrehabilitated though installation of store releasecover and rock armouring to prevent long termerosion.

Audit by independent geotechnical expertconfirms approved design and stabilityassessment.

Unlikely Minor Low







Infrastructure removal

T100

Infrastructure materialsare left onsite postclosure.

Possible Minor Moderate As detailed in Chapter 8 of MLA document.Audit by independent expert confirms allinfrastructure and items (other than heritageitems) are removed from the ML, unless requiredfor other WPG projects or as agreed with thirdparties.

Unlikely Minor Low

Vegetation

T101

Inadequate coverdesign resulting in poorvegetationestablishment.

Possible Minor Moderate Progressively rehabilitate the site conducting trialsto investigate alternative covers with mix ofmaterials.

Cover design to allow for erosion on the basis ofmodelling.

Conduct ecosystem function analysis (EFA), orsimilar to determine success of rehabilitated sitesand adjust rehabilitation activities as appropriatebased on the results.

Unlikely Minor Low

T102

Erosion of covermaterial resulting inpoor vegetationestablishment.

Possible Minor Moderate Progressively rehabilitate the site conducting trialsto investigate alternative covers with mix ofmaterials.

Armouring slopes to minimise erosion.

Slope angles of WRF and heap leach stockpilesabout 20 degrees to minimise erosion.


Unlikely Minor Low







T103

Poor selection ofvegetation resulting ininadequaterehabilitation.

Possible Minor Moderate Progressively rehabilitate the site conducting trialsto investigate best species application.


Unlikely Minor Low

Fauna

T104

Reduced fauna speciesabundance anddiversity due to loss ofhabitat as a result ofpoor re-vegetation.

Unlikely Minor Low Progressively rehabilitate the site conducting trialsto investigate best species application.


Unlikely Minor Low

Heritage

T105

Rehabilitation activitiesdisturb Europeanheritage sites.

Possible Minor Moderate Rehabilitation in accordance with HeritageManagement Plan provided in the PEPR

Unlikely Minor Low







Soil

T106

Contamination of soildue to seepage (heavymetals, low pH andsalts) from PAFmaterial in WRF.







Unlikely Minor Low

T107

Contamination of soilfrom heavy metals, lowpH, salts due to erosionof cover on WRFexposing PAF material.








Unlikely Minor Low







T108

Contamination of soilby heavy metals, lowpH and salts) due slopefailure exposing PAFmaterial.








Unlikely Minor Low

T109

Contamination of soildue to seepage fromheap leach stockpile(heavy metals, cyanide,high pH).









Unlikely Minor Low







T110

Contamination of soilfrom heap leachstockpile (heavymetals, cyanide, highpH) due to erosion ofcover.









Unlikely Minor Low

T111

Contamination of soilfrom heap leachstockpile (heavymetals, cyanide, highpH) due to erosion ofcover.









Unlikely Minor Low







T112

Contamination of soilfrom process solutionpond associated withflushing postprocessing (heavymetals, cyanide, highpH).

Possible Minor Moderate Closure and cover design.






Unlikely Minor Low

T113

Contamination of fromfuel and chemical spills.



Unlikely Minor Low


T114

Surface water runofffrom site in excess ofpre-mining resulting inflooding of adjacentland and third partyproperty.

Possible Minor Moderate Restoration of pre-mining drainage as far aspracticable.

Unlikely Minor Low

T115

Post closure land usenot consistent withadjacent land use.

Unlikely Minor Low Current land use is characterised by historicalmining with significant examples of miningactivity.

Land not suitable for agricultural use due to poorquality soil conditions and groundwater quality notsuitable for agricultural uses.

Unlikely Minor Low







Weeds, pest animals and pathogens

T116

Reduced vegetationspecies abundance dueto increased density ofweeds and newintroduced weedspecies and pathogens.


Weed Management Plan.


Eradication of weed species.

Unlikely Minor Low

T117

Introduced pest animalspecies resulting incompetition andpredation with nativefauna.

Unlikely Minor Low Closure and Rehabilitation Plan.Pest Management Plan.

Eradication of pest animal species.

Unlikely Minor Low

Air quality

T118

Dust emission fromdisturbed and poorlyrehabilitated areascreates a nuisancewhich impacts amenityin Tarcoola.

Unlikely Minor Low Progressive rehabilitation and revegetation ofexposed surfaces.

Unlikely Minor Low



Table 8.8 Draft outcomes and measurement criteria

Post completion

ID Draft Outcome Draft Measurement criteria Criteria



Frequency Control data

Visual amenity

T72, T73 Integrate andharmonise finalrehabilitatedlandforms with thesurroundinglandscape.

Audit undertaken by an independentsuitably qualified professional prior tomine completion demonstrates that thesite has been rehabilitated as per themine completion plan developed inconsultation with the relevantstakeholders.

Audit undertaken byan independentsuitably qualifiedprofessionaldemonstrates that thesite has beenrehabilitated as perthe mine completionplan

ML area Rehabilitation inaccordance with MineCompletion Plan

Prior to minecompletion

MineCompletionPlan



Post completion





Groundwater

T77, T78,T80, T81,T82

No compromise tothe groundwaterquantity and qualityto other users andwater dependentecosystems postmine completion.

A report of groundwaterlevels/drawdown and water quality, byan independent qualified andexperienced professional, submittedprior to mine completion (and X yearsafter completion of rehabilitation)demonstrates that SWL are within 10%of predicted modelled drawdown levelsand that baseline water quality (CNwad, pH, Ec, TDS, anions, cations,nitrate and heavy metals) is within 10%of baseline levels (background dataprovided in Section 3). Groundwaterlevels and quality will be measured inthird party boreholes biannually(Figure 7.4), and monitoring resultsrecorded.

A report by an independent qualifiedand experienced professional, providedprior to mine completion (and X yearsafter completion of rehabilitation)demonstrate that net hydraulic gradientis maintained towards the pit as per thegroundwater model

A report ofgroundwater levelsand quality byindependent qualifiedand experiencedprofessional.

A report ofgroundwaterhydraulic gradient inthe open pit byindependent qualifiedand experiencedprofessional.

Third partybores

Open pit

Modelled drawdownlevels and baselinewater quality (CNwad,pH, Ec, TDS, anions,cations, nitrate andheavy metals) arewithin 10% ofpredicted drawdownlevels and baselinewater quality

Bi-annual Baseline waterlevels andquality



Post completion





Surface water

T86, T87,T88, T91,T92

No surface watercontaminated priorto miningcompletion remainswithin the land aftermine completion,and

No contamination ofsurface wateroccurs after minecompletion as aresult of miningoperations withinthe ML

Annual audit of rehabilitation for aperiod of 3 years after mine completion(or as agreed with the Director ofMines) indicates run off quality (whenrunoff occurs is within 10% ofbackground quality

Quality of surfacewater

Dischargeareas fromlease

No contamination Annual for aperiod of 3years afterminecompletion (oras agreed withthe Director ofMines)

Baselineconditions



Post completion





Waste

T77, T78,T80, T81,T82, T87,T88, T91,T92, T95,T106,T107,T108,T109,T110,T111

All mine waste leftonsite arechemically andphysically stable

An audit by a suitably qualified andexperienced independent expert, priorto completion indicates that:

n all mine waste, infrastructure andlandforms have been established inaccordance with the approveddesign criteria and aregeotechnically stable.

n prior to surrender of lease alldomains have been rehabilitated inaccordance with the design andclosure strategies

n a site contamination report showsthat the lease area is chemicallystable

n a report certifies that no hazardous,domestic or industrial waste, otherthan approved, are left on site inaccordance with EPA requirements

Chemical andphysical stability ofmine waste.

Mine lease. All mine wastechemically andphysically stable.

Prior tocompletion.

Mine ClosureandRehabilitationPlan



Post completion





Physical stability

T97, T98,T99

Post mininglandforms arephysically stableand risks to thehealth and safety ofthe public and faunaare as low asreasonablepracticable.

Post closure audit by a suitablyqualified and experienced independentexpert indicates:

n open pit, heap leach stockpile andWRF are geotechnically stable

n the pit abandonment bund has beenconstructed in accordance with theapproved design

n warning signage installed

Risk to health andsafety of public andfauna.

Open pit,heap leachstockpile,WRF

Stability of open pit,heap leach stockpileand WRF post-mininglandform.

Post closure. Mine ClosureandRehabilitationPlan

Infrastructure removal

T100 All infrastructure(unless otherwiseagreed with thepastoralist or otherthird parties)removed from thesite prior to minecompletion.

An audit undertaken prior to minecompletion by an independent suitablyqualified professional, demonstrate thatall infrastructure has been removedfrom the site prior to mine completion

Removal ofinfrastructure fromsite confirmed byaudit by independentsuitably qualifiedprofessional

ML All infrastructureremoved (unlessotherwise agreed bypastoralist or otherthird party)


CompletionManagementPlan

Vegetation

T101,T102,T103,T116

Re-establishment ofpre-miningecosystem andlandscape function,where practicalwithin the site.

An independent suitably qualified andexperienced professional certifies thatrepresentative sites on rehabilitatedareas have achieved or by trends maybe confidently predicted to achieve andpass sustainability thresholds asdefined by Ecosystem FunctionAnalysis (EFA).

Re-establishment ofpre-mining ecosystemand landscapefunction certified byan independentsuitably qualified andexperiencedprofessional

Represent-ative sites onrehabilitatedareas

Re-establishment ofpre-mining ecosystemand landscapefunction, wherepractical

Post closure CompletionManagementPlan



Post completion





Heritage

T105 No disturbance toEuropean heritagesite (from miningand rehabilitationactivitiesundertaken) on theML.

An audit undertaken prior to minecompletion by a suitably qualified andexperienced professional demonstrateno disturbance to European Heritagesite within the ML other than as perHeritage Management Plan approvedby DEWNR.

Non disturbance ofEuropean heritagesites demonstrated byaudit undertaken bysuitably qualified andexperiencedprofessional

ML No disturbance toEuropean heritagesite (from mining andrehabilitation activitiesundertaken)


HeritageManagementPlan

Public and fauna safety

T97, T98,T99

Post mininglandforms arephysically andchemically stableand risk the healthand safety of thepublic and faunaare as low asreasonablypractical.

Post closure audit by a suitablyqualified and experienced independentexpert indicates:

n open pit, HL stockpile and WRF aregeotechnically stable long term

n the pit abandonment bund has beenconstructed in accordance with theapproved design

n warning signage installed

Risk to health andsafety of public andfauna.

Open pit,heap leachstockpile,WRF

Stability of open pit,heap leach stockpileand WRF post-mininglandform.

Post minecompletion.

MineCompletionPlan


T114 No post minecompletion adverseimpacts to adjacentland use and thirdparty infrastructureas a result of miningoperations.

Post closure audit by suitablyexperience professional confirms thatthere is no adverse impact to adjacentland use and third party property.

Impact of site atcompletion on landuse and third partyproperty through auditby suitableexperiencedprofessional

ML No adverse impact onland use and thirdparty property

Post minecompletion

MineCompletionPlan



8.9 Post-completion landformThe post completion landform design for the open pit, WRF and heap leach stockpile delivers a stable, safeand visually acceptable amenity beyond closure. Revegetation will be undertaken in accordance with speciesfound in the flora surveys of the mining areas.

The post completion landform contours are indicated in Figure 8.8 and cross sections are indicated inFigures 8.9 to 8.13. Final landforms and cross sections will be provided in the PEPR on the basis of furtherassessment following analysis of alternative covers and modelling of the long term erosion of the landformusing appropriate models and climatic conditions.

8.10 Post completion monitoringMonitoring of rehabilitation and mine closure management activities will continue after completion and untilDSD agrees to relinquishment of the ML (refer to Table 8.9). The same management options are applicableto the existing MLs.

Table 8.9 Monitoring activities – rehabilitation and post completion

Revegetation and rehabilitation success

Monitoring of effectiveness of the establishment of vegetation will be undertaken at selected locations to confirmecological functionMonitoring of erosion of WRF and spent heap leach stockpile to confirm expected stability is being maintained.

Weed management

Post rehabilitation establishment of weeds will be monitored and any identified increase in weeds will be treated toensure no adverse impacts.

8.11 Mine completion scheduleTable 8.10 outlines the rehabilitation measures and schedule proposed to be undertaken for the proposedML.

Table 8.10 Rehabilitation strategy and schedule

Area Detail Timing (years aftercommencement ofoperations)

Historical miningareas

Install safety signage Year 1

Re-use and rehabilitate previous leach pads Year 1

Remove extraneous material (PVC piping and hoses, loosecorrugated iron, etc) and other objects from the most recentmining activities (circa 1990).

Years 2–4

Consolidate some heritage items within for example themachinery dump area

Years 2–4

Backfill costean, excavations and adits from historical mining Years 2–4

WRF Commence progressive rehabilitation of external surface Year 2

Continue progressive rehabilitation of external surface Years 2–4



Area Detail Timing (years aftercommencement ofoperations)

Open pit Placement of bund around open pit Years 2–4

Grade top of open pit with fall away from slope Completion of mining

Exploration boreholes Progressive rehabilitation Years 2–4

Process plant Remove plant, pipelines, equipment, buildings and services Year 5, followingcompletion of processing

Remove contaminated soil Year 5

Scarify, spread subsoil, topsoil and vegetate Year 5


Remove buildings and services Year 5

Remove contaminated soil Year 5

Scarify, spread subsoil, topsoil and vegetate Year 5

Borefield, pipelineand access track

Remove equipment, pipeline and seal bores Year 5

Spread topsoil and revegetate Year 5

Lease area Groundwater monitoring Ongoing to 3 years afterclosure

Lease area Monitoring of vegetation rehabilitation Ongoing to 3 years afterclosure

The above schedule will be expanded through the PEPR process.



9. Management systems andcapability

Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of WPG Resources Ltd, a mineral explorer and miningcompany listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX code: WPG). Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd has a rightto conduct all activities required for the purposes of undertaking exploration for Minerals situated within theMineral Claim area of EL5355. Tarcoola Gold Pty Ltd (wholly owned subsidiary of WPG Resources) has aright to conduct all activities required for the purposes of undertaking exploration for Minerals situated withinthe area of the Tenement. WPG Resources have a successful track record of exploring and developingprojects in South Australia.

9.1 Commitment and leadership

9.1.1 Company information

Details outlining the skills of the Board and management are set out on the Company’s website andsummarised below.

Tarcoola Gold is directed by an experienced management team with a strong track record in the mineralsindustry. WPG’s Board and management have developed a unique understanding of the projectassessment, permitting and development process in South Australia, supported by:

n a strong network of contacts within Government and stakeholder groups; andn a broad group of industry experts who have been ‘tested’ on the Peculiar Knob project and now have a

previous working relationship with WPG.

WPG acquired the Peculiar Knob and Hawks News iron ore projects, located in South Australia, in mid-2006.These projects, particularly the Peculiar Knob project, were the focus of WPG’s activities from 2006 tolate 2011, when the projects were sold to Arrium Limited (formerly OneSteel). During this period, WPGcompleted all activities underpinning a bankable feasibility study into the development of Peculiar Knob.

Arrium Limited took Peculiar Knob through development and into production, utilising all WPG’s contractedservice providers and development parameters, on budget and largely on time to produce high grade DSOhematite.

The acquisition of the gold projects in May 2014 marked the completion of WPG’s metamorphosis from aniron ore company including its advanced gold projects WPG has a portfolio of exploration projects in SouthAustralia, covering a combined area of 4,928 square kilometres. These are considered to have excellentpotential for the discovery of several types of mineral occurrences including gold, nickel, base metals, ironore and coal.



9.1.2 Company senior management

The following people comprise the Board and senior management of WPG Resources:

Robert H Duffin – Executive ChairmanBSc (Hons), MSc (Hons), Grad Dip Mgt, FAusIMM

Bob Duffin is a company director with over 40 years’ experience in resource exploration and projectassessment, including over 20 years’ experience in mining investment analysis, project valuations andassessments of fair value of securities.

Bob has held senior positions in the exploration divisions of Peko Wallsend Ltd and MIM Holdings Ltd, thentwo of Australia’s largest mining companies, and is a former managing director of Austirex International Ltd,an international resource exploration consulting and contracting firm. He has lived and worked in miningcommunities, including periods in Kalgoorlie in Western Australia and Mount Isa in Queensland, where heworked on exploration programs for a number of commodities, including gold, copper, uranium, base metalsand iron ore. He has also worked with three stockbroking firms and was head of research at one ofAustralia’s leading resource sector brokers in the 1980s.

Bob was a director of Ferrowest Ltd from 27 July 2006 until 8 September 2011. He was a non-executivedirector of Centennial Coal Company Limited from 1992 until 2007. He is a former director of the UKresources investment company Europa Minerals Group PLC and a former director of a number of othermining and resources companies including Austmin Gold NL, Burmine Limited and Midwest CorporationLimited.

Martin Jacobsen – Managing Director & Chief Executive OfficerMSCC, MDP (UniSA)

Martin Jacobsen joined WPG from his previous position as Vice President, Operations, with Golden ChinaResources Limited, a gold mining and exploration company with project assets in China. Prior to that he wasTechnical Director with Emperor Mines Limited and had earlier held senior management positions in gold,chrome and platinum mining operations in South Africa. He has been project manager for a number ofprojects in a wide range of commodities and mine types. Martin’s principal function with WPG is to manageall phases of WPG's mining and exploration projects. He was appointed Managing Director in October 2013.

Gary J Jones – Technical DirectorBSc, FAusIMM, MSEG

Gary Jones is a geologist with over 45 years professional experience in mineral exploration and resourceand reserve estimation for various type of mineral deposits including porphyry copper-gold and epithermalgold. He is Managing Director of Geonz Associates Ltd, a leading New Zealand firm of consulting geologists,and has been an independent consultant to the mining industry for the past 30 years during which timeassignments have been completed in many parts of the world including Australia, Indonesia, North andSouth America, Canada and New Zealand.

Prior to setting up his own consultancy Gary worked as an exploration geologist for Geopeko for 15 years invarious parts of Australia including 12 years in central New South Wales where he established and manageda new exploration operation for Geopeko. During this time he supervised numerous base and precious metalprojects throughout the Lachlan Fold Belt and parts of the New England region and is credited with thediscovery of the Northparkes porphyry copper-gold deposits.

Following the initial discoveries at Goonumbla, Gary also had a major input into the pegging of a large blockof exploration licences in the Lake Cowal region. He planned and supervised the initial regional explorationprograms that ultimately led to the discovery of the 4.4 million ounce Cowal porphyry gold deposit. Early inhis career Gary worked on iron ore exploration and mining activities in the Northern Territory.



Len Dean – Non-executive DirectorBSc (Met)

Len Dean has had a 40 year career in the resources sector, with particular emphasis in the global iron oreindustry. He spent 36 years with BHP, finishing in 2000 as Vice President, Coal and Iron Ore Marketing.During his period with BHP he was General Manager, Marketing for BHP Iron Ore in Perth for 8 years, hemanaged iron ore mining operations at BHP’s Yampi Sound mine, and he lived and worked at BHP’s (nowOneSteel’s) Whyalla works for 4 years. He was Managing Director of Sesa Goa Limited, India’s largestprivate sector exporter of iron ore, from 2003 to 2006. More recently, he has been an iron ore consultant witha wide client base including Orinoco Iron (Venezuela), Mitsui Iron Ore Development, CVRD (Brazil) andMineral Enterprises Limited (India).

Dennis R Mutton – Non-executive DirectorBSc (Hons), Grad Dip Mgt, JP, FAIM, FAICD

Dennis Mutton is a management consultant specialising in natural resource management, primary industriesand resources, regional growth initiatives and business-government relations. From 1997 to 2002 he wasChief Executive of the South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Resources. He has a portfolioof directorships including Bio Innovation SA, and is Chair of the Council of Rural Research and DevelopmentCorporations. He is a former member of the Senior Management Council of the South AustralianGovernment, a former Director of Mines, and a former Director of the Australian Rural LeadershipFoundation. Dennis lives in Adelaide.

Lim See Yong – Non-executive Director BBA (Singapore)

Lim See Yong is General Manager and Director of Xin Sheng International Private Limited, a tradingcompany related to Tangshan Xingye Industrial and Trade Group Corporation, an investor in raw materialsfor the steel industry. He spent 11 years with NatSteel Trade International, a Singapore mill that producesbars and wire rods from scrap. He was NatSteel’s chief representative in China for 7 years from 1995. From2002 to 2006 he was in charge of selling iron ore and steel products to China, and exporting semi andfinished steel products to South East Asian markets. See Yong lives in Singapore.

Larissa Brown – Group Company SecretaryBA, Dip Ed, Grad Dip ACG, AGIA

Larissa Brown is a chartered secretary with significant experience in the administration of resource andresource technology companies. Larissa manages corporate and regulatory compliance, share registry andshareholder liaison & communications and annual reporting, as well as work health safety, safetygovernance and policy development. Larissa was appointed Group Company Secretary on 6 August 2009.

Wayne Rossiter – Chief Financial OfficerBE (Mining), CA, MAppFin, MAusIMM, GMAICD

Wayne Rossiter is both a mining engineer and a chartered accountant. Wayne has held senior finance andmanagement roles in resource and energy companies including Clean Global Energy Limited, Core MiningLimited, Sino Gold Mining Limited, Cockatoo Coal Limited, Roc Oil Limited and Novus Petroleum Limited.Wayne has knowledge and experience in transitioning companies from the exploration stage through todevelopment and into production. His range of experience includes underground coal gasification, coal seamgas, coal, conventional oil and gas, precious metals, gold and iron ore with global experience coveringAustralia, Africa, China, Indonesia, the USA, the UK, the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and the MiddleEast.



Kurt CrameriSenior Project Geologist/ Mining Engineer

Kurt Crameri is WPG Resources’ Senior Project Geologist and has been with the company during the pastthree years.

Kurt has over 12 years’ experience in both geology and mining engineering roles in open pit andunderground operations in SA and WA. His experience includes working as an underground mine geologistat the Kanowna Belle and Bullant Gold mines and the Beta Hunt Nickel mine in WA. On moving to SA, Kurtjoined Arrium Mining SMR operations as Senior Mine Geologist before completing further study to convert toMining Engineering. As a Mining Engineer, Kurt was involved with mine planning and logistics scheduling forArrium, before his involvement in the construction and commencement of mining at Peculiar Knob.

With WPG, he has worked as both mining engineer and geologist, including pre-feasibility studies andregional greenfield exploration activities and is intimately involved in both the Tarcoola and Tunkillia projects.

9.1.3 Policies and objectives

Tarcoola Gold is committed to the objective of ‘zero harm’. To achieve this, Tarcoola Gold will establish athorough, project specific health, safety and environment (HSE) plan and management framework. The HSEplan will ensure all activities are undertaken in a manner that aims to achieve the objective of ‘zero harm’ andcomplies with all legislative requirements.

Furthermore, Tarcoola Gold is committed to achieving best practice outcomes through:

n high operating standards in all aspects of its activities to minimise environmental and social impactn regular communication and consultation with stakeholdersn contractor and employee awareness of sound environmental and safety practice as part of day-to-day

activitiesn regular audits and review of policies, systems and operating procedures.

In accordance with the requirements of Guidelines for the Preparation of a Mining Lease Proposal or Miningand Rehabilitation Program (PIRSA, 2010), additional information on policies and objectives will be providedin the project PEPR.

9.1.3.1 Work health and safety

The WPG Group committed to a healthy and safe working environment and the welfare of all workers andany person entering any of its workplaces. The WPG Group has a formal Work Health and Safety policy andcomprehensive procedural manual, which is provided and agreed to in writing by all Directors, officers,employees and key contractors/consultants (WPG representatives) and is subject to regular reviews.

9.1.3.2 Code of ethics

The WPG Group has a formal Code of Conduct & Ethics. WPG Representatives are required conductthemselves with the highest ethical standards. All WPG Representatives will be expected to act with integrityand objectivity, striving at all times to enhance the reputation and performance of the WPG Group. The Codeis distributed to all WPG Representatives and compliance reviewed regularly.

9.1.3.3 Environmental policy

All WPG Representatives proactively manage activities and adopt techniques which minimise the WPGGroup’s environmental impacts at every stage and location of its operations. The WPG Group recognises its



responsibility to manage with high professional standards the environmental impacts associated with itsoperations as it pursues its objective of generating value for shareholders, employees and localcommunities.

The Board of Directors conducts regular reviews of all policies and procedures.

9.2 Organisation, resources and documentationTarcoola Gold is directed by an experienced management team with a strong track record in the mineralsindustry (refer to Section 9.1.2). Appropriately skilled personnel will be appointed during the construction,operation and closure of the mine and infrastructure to ensure compliance with any approvals andimplementation of an approved PEPR.

In accordance with the requirements of guidelines for the Preparation of a Mining Lease Proposal or Miningand Rehabilitation Program in South Australia (DSD, 2011), additional information on organisation, resourcesand documentation will be provided in the project PEPR.



10. ReferencesANZMEC, 2000, Strategic Framework for Mine Closure.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012, Glendambo (SSC40236) 198534.7 sq kms, 2011 Census ofPopulation and Housing Basic Community Profile, Australian Government.

Baohong Hou, 2004, Palaeochannel Studies Related to the Harris Greenstone Belt, Gawler Craton, SouthAustralia, MESA Journal, Volumes 44-47.

Bonaparte R. and Gross B.A. 1990, Field Behaviour of double liner systems, in Waste ContainmentSystems: Construction, Regulation and Performance.

Bud A. 2004, The Tarcoola Goldfield – Gawler State of Play, Geoscience Australia,

Bureau of Meteorology, 2010,Tarcoola (016044) Weather Station Data.

CSIRO, 2007, Climate change in Australia – Technical Report http://www.asris.csiro.au/

Department for Environment Water and Natural Resources, Drillhole Enquiry System. Government of SouthAustralia.

Department of the Environment, 2014a, Emission factors derived from the National Greenhouse AccountFactors.

Department of the Environment, 2014b, National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System Measurement:Technical Guidelines for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions by facilities in Australia.

Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, February 2007, Leading Practice Sustainable DevelopmentProgram for the Mining Industry: Managing Acid and Metalliferrous Drainage, Australian Government.

Department of Health and Ageing, NICNAS, February 2010, Priority Existing Chemical Assessment ReportN0. 31, Sodium Cyanide, Australian Government.

Department of Industry Resources, 1997, Safety Bund Walls Around Abandoned Open Pit Mines,Guidelines, Government of Western Australia. Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010, FarNorth Region Plan- A Volume of the South Australian Strategic Plan.

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, March 2007, Road Traffic Noise Guidelines.Government of South Australia.

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Development Plan - Land not within a council area(Eyre, Far North, Riverland and Whyalla) – Consolidated 18 October 2012, Government of South Australia

Department of State Development SA, Ministerial Determination, 12 July 2012, Minimum information to beprovided in a mining proposal or management plan for a mineral lease (ML) and any associatedmiscellaneous purposes licence (MPL) applications for metallic and industrial minerals (excluding extractiveminerals, coal and uranium), Government of South Australia.

Department of State Developments SA, Guidelines for Miners: Preparation of a Mining Lease Proposal orMining and Rehabilitation Program (MARP) Version 4.11, January 2011.

Department of State Development SA, 2001, Development of Geoscientific Models for Exploration in TertiaryPalaeochannels Draining the Northwest Gawler Craton, SA, Report 2001/00021, Government of SouthAustralia.

http://www.asris.csiro.au/



Department of State Development SA, 2006, Information Sheet M21: Mineral Exploration Drillholes –General Specifications for Construction and Backfilling, Government of South Australia.

Department of Resources, Energy and Trade, 2009, Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program forthe Mining Industry – Mine Closure and Completion.

Ferris G. 2003 in MESA Journal 30, Proterozoic gold province of the central Gawler Craton. Government ofSouth Australia.

Geoscience Australia, 2012, Earthquake Hazard Map of Australia, Australian Government.

Giroud J. P and Bonaparte R. 1989, Leakage Through Liners Constructed with Geomembranes, Geotextilesand Geomembranes, Vol 8, pp27-67, 71-111

Giroud J. P, 1997, Equations for Calculating the Rate of Liquid Migration Through Composite Liners Due toGeomembrane Defects, Geosynthetics International Vol 4(3-4) pp 335-348

Giroud J. P., Gross B. A., Bonaparte R., and McKelvey J. A., 1997, Leachate Flow in Leakage CollectionLayers Due to Defects in Geomembrane Liners, Geosynthetic International Vol 4(3-4) pp 215-292.

Hein, K. A. A., Both, R. A. and Bone, Y., 1994 The geology and genesis of the Tarcoola Gold Deposits,South Australia: Mineral Deposits, Vol 29, pp 224-236.

National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), 2010, Priority ExistingChemical Assessment Report No.31 Sodium Cyanide, Department of Health and Aging, AustralianGovernment.

O’Kane M. And Ayres B., 2012 Cover Systems that Utilise the Moisture Sore and Release Concept – DoThey Work and How Can we Improve Their Design and Performance. Proceedings of Mine Closure 2012.

National Environment Protection Council (1998), National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality)Measure.

National Environment Protection Council (1999), National Environment Protection (Site Contamination)Measure.

South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board, January 2006, State of the CatchmentReport – SAAL Region Volume 2, Government of South Australia.

South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy 2012, Industry Code of Practice for CommunityEngagement.

South Australian Resource Information Geoserver (SARIG), Groundwater information.

Standards Australia, AS 1170.4–2007, Structural design actions Part 4: Earthquake actions in Australia.

Standards Australia, AS 2187.2-2006, Explosive – Storage and Use Part 2: Use of Explosive. SouthAustralia Strategic Plan, 2011, Government of South Australia.

US EPA, 1992, Action Leakage Rates for Leak Detection Systems )Supplemental Background Document forthe Final Double Liners and Leak Detection Systems Rule for Hazardous Waste Landfills, Waste Piles andSurface Impoundments, pp 1-23.

World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004, Greenhouse GasProtocol.

Tarcoola Gold Project Mining Proposal for Mineral Lease ...

Documents

Transcript of Tarcoola Gold Project Mining Proposal for Mineral Lease ...