2015

Robert Mitchell

EVST20002 – Land Management and

Rehabilitation

9/10/2015

Part 2: Restoration Proposal

1

09 October 2015

Site Contracts and Environmental Managers,

Sibelco Australia Pty Ltd

246 Boundary Road,

Parkhurst QLD, 4720

ATTENTION: MR STEVE WILCOCK (Sibelco Kunwarara and Parkhurst Environmental

Manager).

Dear Mr Wilcock,

Oh behalf RM Environmental Management, we would like to thank Sibelco for giving us this

opportunity to put forward recommendations, following baseline review of onsite remediation practice,

to manage restoration over the next three (3) years at the Kunwarara Mine site.

All costs as part of the following restoration proposal submissions as deemed ‘order of costs’ and

specific to baseline study (Part 1). Please note that costs are guaranteed for the first 12 months and are

subject to change following annual review OR if remediation goals are changed as a result of legislative,

social or economic constrains experienced under the existing Environmental Authority (issued 2nd May

2013).

We appreciate the opportunity, and your favourable consideration, as you move through the following

proposal. We look forward to working alongside Sibelco to achieve best practice restoration goals onsite

now and in years to come.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Mitchell

General Manager

RM Environmental Management.

2

Contents

1. Executive Summary: ...................................................................................................................... 3

1. Baseline Technical Summary: ........................................................................................................ 4

2. Uniform rehabilitation framework: ................................................................................................ 5

2.1. Landscape Function Analysis (Qualitative): ........................................................................... 5

2.2. Soil Physical and Chemical Analysis (Quantitative): ............................................................. 5

3. Training Program: .......................................................................................................................... 6

4. Remediation Plan: .......................................................................................................................... 6

5. Order of Cost and Financial Considerations: ................................................................................. 6

6. KPI’s and Targets: .......................................................................................................................... 7

6.1. Training KPI’s: ....................................................................................................................... 7

6.2. Testing and Monitoring KPI’s ................................................................................................ 7

6.2.1. Pre – Excavation: ............................................................................................................ 7

6.2.2. Topsoil Storage: .............................................................................................................. 7

6.2.3. Post – Mining / Restoration: ........................................................................................... 7

6.3. Audit KPI’s ............................................................................................................................. 8

Appendix A: ............................................................................................................................................ 9

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Appendix D ........................................................................................................................................... 14

7. References: ................................................................................................................................... 15

3

1. Executive Summary: The response, following the Sibelco Pty Ltd Kunwarara Magnesia mine site baseline review, is the

provision of actions aimed to provide best possible approach to achieving environmental management

goals as outlined by section H of current Environmental Authority (Appendix B), including:

Provision of comprehensive technical report current mining and remediation practice success

in achieving landscape functionality best practice.

Delivery of uniform rehabilitation framework, Landscape Function Analysis (LFA), to identify

problems, implement technologies and monitor landscape functionality trends onsite (Tongway

and Ludwig, 2011).

Implement of uniform quantitative (LFA) and qualitative testing procedures (physical and

chemical), including Soil Surface Assessment (SSA), Landscape Organisation Assessment

(LOA) and Ephemeral Drainage-Line Assessments (EDA).

Delivery of technical training and familiarisation courses, to ensure Sibelco RP’s are capable

first time responders in reacting to immediate remediation threats.

Provide recommendations and solution following baseline analysis (Part 1).

Establish order of cost structures relative to both RM Environmental Management and Sibelco

staff for the purpose of budgeting upon reflection of baseline analysis (Subject to variation).

Provision of site and EA specific KPI’s onsite to provide decision making stability against

trended data.

Complete quarterly audits (3 monthly) and submitting findings in written form addressed to the

environmental manager(s) to ensure KPI’s are achieved and managed.

The following proposal is for a contract term of 36 months subject to performance review, with potential

extension to 72 months. Sibelco may terminate the agreement at any time, without penalty and at its

discretion subject to performance failure, within 30 days’ notice following written request to the RM

Environmental Management General Manager.

4

1. Baseline Technical Summary: The purpose is to evaluate variable landscape functionality to promote best practice landscape

remediation practice in accordance with economic, environmental, legislative and social constraints and

establish compliance in accordance with condition A11 of the current EA outlining (Department of

Environment and Heritage, 2014) (Appendix B).

Analysis portrayed current remediation onsite as relatively mature, where the rehabilitation processes

had been successful for a number of years on multiple revegetated site. Despite remediation success,

this summary identify those areas outside of best practice, potentially reducing remediation efficiency

via pathways as outlined below:

Topsoil Bulk Density:

Quantitative significant difference in bulk density sample mean between bare (newly topsoiled)

(µ= 1.422) and revegetated site µ=0.749).

Indicative increased root impedance and subsequent decrease in overall revegetation progress

during primary succession of target site (McKenzie et al., 2004).

Qualitative (SSA) results showing significant variation in sample mean infiltration, stability

and nutrient cycling ability when comparing bare and revegetated sites.

Storage Procedures Post – Disturbance:

Significant mean pH reduction between bare (newly topsoiled) and revegetated sites (bare;

µ=6.064. Revegetated; µ=7.626. t (4) = -12.95, P < 0.001).

Attribute to trace ore oxidisation following initial topsoil disturbance and subsequent storage

as a result of water and oxygen ingress (Mulligan, 1996).

Influenced by time where topsoil samples were stored for extended periods without regular

chemical checks or core checks.

Topsoil redistribution:

Occurring upon completion of counter flow slurry fill (section 2.2 figure 3) with no seasonal

variation in temperature and rainfall taken into account.

Pulse events unlikely during dry season due to lack of trigger events (figure 6, figure 7)

(Tongway and Ludwig, 2011).

In summary, the common trend when comparing non-functional (bare) and functional (rehabilitated)

sites was the variation in bulk density and subsequent infiltration, nutrient cycling capability, stability

and pH drop (Part 1). Results leading to subsequent proposal scope, addressing the management of

topsoil reuse in rehabilitation, from initial excavation through to storage and eventual re-application.

5

2. Uniform rehabilitation framework:

2.1. Landscape Function Analysis (Qualitative): This proposal aims to implement landscape - function based approach by application of LFA procedures

to achieve remediation goals onsite.

The purpose of LFA is to determine changes in the biophysical functionality of a target landscape over

time, in a complex subtropical environment (Part 1, figures 6 and figure 7). (Tongway and Ludwig,

2011).

LFA utilises four time effective methods that are designed to provide uniform information across a

number of sites, allowing remediation targets to be trended and managed accordingly (table 1).

Table 1: Summarises LFA subject, purpose and management benefit (Tongway, 2010).

Method Purpose: Management Benefit

Landscape

Organisation

Assessment

(LOA).

Assessment of Landscape attributes.

Consider biophysical processes

involved in resource retention.

Map landscape organisation,

Plot vegetation density in conjunction

with VSA assessments.

Address self-sustaining vegetation requirements

of the EA (Appendix B).

Progress mapping and trending when comparing

other sites and technologies.

Forecasting and remediation projection when

correlating with climate data.

Soil Surface

Assessment

(SSA).

Aid in generation LOA data relative to

patch vs inter patch variation between

sites.

Assesses stability, infiltration and

nutrient cycling indices of target site.

Qualitative testing style allowing

accurate analysis that is easily

documented.

Used in conjunction with quantitative

soil test results (physical/ chemical

properties).

Provide indicative results to allow baseline

understanding of target site.

Allows remediation techniques to be selected to

promote landscape function (i.e. increase

infiltration, storage capacity and nutrient cycling).

Addresses EA requirement; stable landform

formation similar to surrounding landscape

(Appendix B).

Functional vs. non-functional comparisons.

Ephemeral

Drainage-

Line

Assessments

(EDA).

Drainage stability class of soils onsite.

Assess slope characteristics and

likelihood of active erosion.

Assess drainage line condition and

vegetation function within the drainage

line.

Provide management guidance on target site

erosion probabilities and topsoil loss.

Conjunctional use alongside SSA to determine

soil stability management practice.

Provide grounds to establish water management

KPI’s onsite.

Vegetation

Structure

Assessment

(VSA).

Analyse vegetation structural and

functional role in landscape

remediation.

Assess vegetation density alongside

LOA.

Evaluate patch vs inter patch data and

spatial organisation across sites.

Consider vegetation composition (i.e.

target species).

Address self-sustaining vegetation and

organisation requirements of the EA (Appendix

B).

Trend, map and forecast landscape vegetation

composition and distribution against surrounding

landscapes. I.e. progress indicators.

Provide indicative flora/ fauna distribution

correlations and assumptions when comparing

disturbed and target structure.

2.2. Soil Physical and Chemical Analysis (Quantitative): Bulk density testing using conventional core methods, where the saturated weight and dry weight and

volume are to be used to determine bulk density (g/ cm³) (Carter and Gregorich, 2008) (Appendix C).

pH and conductivity testing will be conducted using conventional 1:5 soil to deionised water

methodologies.

6

3. Training Program: Both RM Environmental Management and Sibelco Pty Ltd are accountable in achieving training KPI’s

as outlined in section 6. Therefore training courses will be delivered by RM Environmental to ensure

restoration practitioners have above average understanding of restoration goals, analysis methodologies

and data interpretation.

Training documents will be supplied in the form of modular units addressing each aspect of LFA

application and analysis, soil property sample collecting, testing and recording as outlined in section 2.

This proposal recognises that training is continual and therefore will be conducted bi-annually and

documented in accordance with Appendix D.

4. Remediation Plan: The following remediation plan addresses specific baseline analysis summaries (section 1). The

overlying purpose is to achieve landscape functionality in an optimal time frame, through revised

topsoil management alongside overall site management. From initial excavation through to storage and

eventual re-application (appendix A).

Best practice methodologies to promote mutualistic mining and remediation goals are defined with the

overall objective to improve both remediation efficiencies, but also optimise mining practice and

Sibelco profitability.

5. Order of Cost and Financial Considerations: The following addresses RM Environmental Management specific costs associated with overview

analysis, consulting, auditing, training and project management (Table 2).

Table 2: Show annual cost based on estimated time in preparation and onsite – subject to variation.

Item Function Quantity Cost Per

Unit

Annual

Spend Results and

Analysis

Weekly Data Review 4 $110 $22,880

Training and

Upskilling

Annual Training and Preperation (16 hours prep, 10 hours

onsite)/ two per year.

56

$110 $6,160

Two days accomodation, flights, transport and meals – two

people two nights.

2 $3,800 $6,760

Auditing and

Reporting

Three monhtly auditing (best practice compliance) 24 hours/ audit.

96 $110 $10,560

Two days accomodation, flights, transport and meals – two

people two nights – Exectuive meetings and presentations.

2 $3,800 $6,760

Project

Management

Project management as required by Sibelco (hourly rate) - $110 -

Project management accomodation, flights, transport and meals per day.

- $3,800 -

Total Spend $53,120

7

6. KPI’s and Targets: KPI’s are in accordance with EA requirements outlined in Appendix B of the following proposal and

are subject to bi-annual review (6 monthly) and annual review (12 monthly) by Sibelco Management

and RM Environmental Management.

6.1. Training KPI’s:

Training will be conducted by RM Environmental Management in bi-annual intervals following

annual reviews to refresh and implement any strategic changes.

Training will be formal, in setting and presented in modular format where a review of operation

manual will be supplied to all involved.

Sibelco will commit to having 4 designated RP’s involved in training to ensure implementation

is achieved and goals are met. Sibelco may include up to 6 additional staff if deemed necessary.

Training logs (Appendix D) will be completed post training where compliance will be assessed

at time of bi-annual review. Non-compliance and additional trading requirements will be at

Sibelco Pty Ltd expense.

6.2. Testing and Monitoring KPI’s

6.2.1. Pre – Excavation:

Soil, organisation and vegetation structure qualitative and quantitative properties will be

measured and recorded ten days prior to initial site excavation to determine baseline/ target

restoration goals in accordance with EA.

Topsoil depth profiles ten days prior to excavation will be recorded to achieve topsoil storage

excavation depths (Appendix A).

6.2.2. Topsoil Storage:

(Where it is not able to be reused immediately):

Soil chemical (including mineral analysis via external source) and physical analysis to be

completed, on each topsoil stock pile, fortnightly. Results trended and collected for fortnightly

RM Environmental Management Review.

Topsoil storage will not exceed 3 months to ensure baseline findings are addressed as outlined

in section 1 of this proposal.

6.2.3. Post – Mining / Restoration:

3 monthly LFA testing to be completed on all restored sites < 3 years old to determine progress

in compared to reference site (non-disturbed site). Results to be trended and sites to be

photographed for RM Environmental Management review.

3 monthly soil chemical and physical analysis to be completed alongside LFA analysis to

determine trend correlations for RM Environmental Management Review.

8

Sites > 3 years will be assumed functional. LFA, physical and chemical monitoring to occur

annually prior RM Environmental annual review.

All post mining analysis will be subject to review and action at both bi annual and annual

meetings.

6.3. Audit KPI’s

Audits will be completed twice a year by RM Environmental Staff over a period of two days

where training and testing complicate will be analysed and addressed as competence and

information are paramount to decision making.

Audit results will be reviewed 6 monthly and decisions will be made surrounding training,

testing and technologies implemented to ensure EA targets are met.

The audit process will be structured around “continual improvement”, where environmental

management and remediation with work institute with mining practice onsite.

Technologies implemented subject to cost benefit review to determine onsite effectiveness

following a period of one year.

9

Appendix A: Kunwarara mine site continual rehabilitation beat practice – Following baseline assessment (Section 1).

Current Site Practice Baseline Interpretation Best Practice / Recommendation Strengths and Weaknesses Topsoil excavation and

storage practice for

period of up to 5 years.

Increase in bulk density between revegetated site and bare site.

Significant reduction topsoil pH – Likely a result ore oxidation following disturbance and exposure to air /

water (Anawar, 2015).

SSA indication of low nutrient cycling ability, infiltration and soil stability as a result of increased

bulk density (Annan-Afful, 2004).

Several changes in physical, chemical and microbial properties as a result of extended storage (Ghose,

2001).

Topsoil excavation following vegetation clearing and mining disturbance (Ghose, 2001).

Excavation to be completed when soil is dry (i.e. during dry season (Baseline report – Figures 6 and 7).

Topsoil horizon depth testing and excavation planning to

determine appropriate scraper depth (i.e. mineral deposit: topsoil contamination kept to a minimum) (Ghose, 2001).

Where possible prevent topsoil storage (i.e. manage mine site

remediation alongside mining practice).

Storage should be on stable ground where erosion control (wind/ water) and unnecessary compaction are taken into

account (Ghose, 2001).

Protect primary root medium from contamination and subsequent productivity, i.e. leaching OR reduction in soil pH as a result of increased

aeration and moisture exposure (Ghose, 2001).

Reduced compaction to topsoil, and therefore bulk density, as a function of reduced smearing remoulding (Ghose, 2001).

Retained topsoil quality (i.e. chemical, physical and microbial) as a result of minimal disturbance as a result of sequential rehabilitation and mining

operations.

Potential reduction in fertilizer program costs to supplement vegetation growth post disturbance.

Potentially negative influence on mining operations and therefore annual ore output, due to climatic variations.

Topsoil re – application

varied across site (i.e. soils

sorted for long periods

used to revegetate).

Significant water: soil ratios as a result of variable storage durations.

Rehabilitation using potentially infertile soils (physical, chemical and microbial) following SSA

analysis.

Topsoil removal and storage practice resulting impeded root growth, nutrient and water availability.

Topsoil re-application and seasonality not taken into account (all year round re application).

Topsoil application to depth recorded during excavation, in compliance with EA goals.

Re – seeding prior to rainfall and seasonal suitability (i.e. beginning of wet season) OR promote irrigation usage onsite

through booms or flood irrigation.

Completed soil chemical analysis to determine soil fertility and vegetation selection, in accordance with EA requirements and

vegetation tolerance to immediate conditions.

Improved topsoil fertility (nutrient, water availability and microbial activity).

Increased response following pulse event (Tongway and Ludwig, 2011)

Improved likelihood of germination success as a result of sequential chemical and physical soil analysis in conjunction with vegetation species

selection.

Reduced likelihood of soil infertility as a result of lengthy storage (McKenzie

et al., 2004).

Increased likelihood of achieving revegetation goals, in optimal time, onsite.

Seed (result of topsoil

storage for period of up to

5 years).

SSA vegetation structure assessment not applicable following topsoil application onto bare site.

High soil bulk density as a result of compaction (µ = 1.442), indicative of root growth restrictions

(McKenzie et al., 2004).

Management of sequential topsoil removal and topsoil filling.

Establish seed bands/ outsource supply of seed bank storage to local contractors.

Implement re – seeding techniques and community

involvement and volunteering (i.e. school groups, university groups or community groups).

Mitigate likely formation of biologically sterile topsoil and seed bank (Ghose, 2001)

Increased likelihood of achieving pasture richness goals as outlined by the EA.

Improved community engagement and environmental perception through planting and education on mining activities.

Topsoil contouring and

ripping. – Slope gradient

< 2.

SSA collection showing minimal signs of erosion given “moderate drainage” across site following high

rain fall evets.

No change to practice required.

Deep ripping and contouring stored soil to remain constant.

Improved topsoil quality at time of re-application, resulting in improved infiltration and storage capacity (Kolka and Smidt,

2004).

Reduction topsoil loss due to mechanical restriction and reduced overland flow carrying capacity (Wu et al., 2010).

Improved infiltration rate as a result of reduced flow rate (Wu et al., 2010).

Significant reduction surface run off volume, sediment production and bulk

density (Kolka and Smidt, 2004).

Engineering and equipment costs can be costly and significantly influence required payback periods.

Monitoring remediation

based on visual analysis

and comparisons with

mature sites in

accordance with EA.

Remediated landscapes often successful with

desirable soil pH and bulk density, VSA, LOA and

SSA.

Ongoing quantitative and qualitative results non-

existent, remediation efficiencies not established

timeframe optimisation

Implement routine remediation analysis, qualitative and

quantitative (Section 2).

Implement RP training program to promote Sibelco staff swift first time response to changes in goals or practice AND

promote remediation across site.

Introduce remediation monitoring and trending as per adaptive learning loop outlined by Tongway and Ludwig 2011.

Promote data and record collection for period of 5 years to allow review and auditing (both independent and as per EA

requirements).

Likely meet EA goals faster by collecting data trends and optimising

remediation efficiencies (time and best practice) (Tongway and Ludwig,

2011).

Long-term cost effective option (i.e. implementation costs < penalty costs).

Adapt to trends and make changes to meet EA requirements (Appendix A).

Review management of restoration onsite to allow budget formation and

determine applicable financial, social or stakeholder value.

10

Appendix B – Sibelco Land Remediation – Obtained from current Environmental Authority (EA) (Department of Environment and Heritage, 2014).

11

12

13

Appendix C - Method obtained section 57.2.1 CORE Methods – Materials and supplies, procedures and Calculations (Carter and Gregorich, 2008).

14

Appendix D – Training Schedule and Recording:

Training Date Module Attendees Signature

Robert Mitchell

General Manager

RM Environmental Management.

15

7. References: ANAWAR, H. M. 2015. Sustainable rehabilitation of mining waste and acid mine drainage using

geochemistry, mine type, mineralogy, texture, ore extraction and climate knowledge. Journal

of Environmental Management, 158, 111-121.

ANNAN-AFFUL, E. 2004. Nutrient and bulk density characteristics of soil profiles in six land use

systems along topo-sequences in inland valley watersheds of Ashanti region, Ghana. Soil

Science & Plant Nutrition, 50, 649.

CARTER, M. R. & GREGORICH, E. G. 2008. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. [electronic

resource], [Pinawa, Manitoba] : Canadian Society of Soil Science ; Boca Raton, FL : CRC

Press, c2008.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT HERITAGE AND PROTECTION. 2014. Permit

Environmental Protection Act: Environmental Authority EPML00651713. In:

DEPARTMENT OF HERITAGE AND PROTECTION. (ed.).

2nd ed.

GHOSE, M. 2001. Management of topsoil for geo-environmental reclamation of coal mining areas.

Environmental Geology, 40, 1405-1410.

KOLKA, R. K. & SMIDT, M. F. 2004. Effects of forest road amelioration techniques on soil bulk

density, surface runoff, sediment transport, soil moisture and seedling growth. Forest Ecology

& Management, 202, 313-323.

MCKENZIE, N., JACQUIER, D., ISBELL, R. F. & BROWN, K. 2004. Australian Soils and

Landscapes. [electronic resource] : An Illustrated Compendium, Melbourne : CSIRO

Publishing, 2004.

MULLIGAN, D. R. 1996. Environmental management in the Australian minerals and energy industries

: principles and practices. [electronic resource], Sydney : UNSW Press, 1996.

TONGWAY, D. J. 2010. The LFA monitoring procedure [Online]. [Accessed 5 October 2015].

TONGWAY, D. J. & LUDWIG, J. A. 2011. Restoring Disturbed Landscapes : Putting Principles Into

Practice, Washington, D.C., Island Press.

WU, J. Y., HUANG, D., TENG, W. J. & SARDO, V. I. 2010. Grass hedges to reduce overland flow

and soil erosion. Agronomy for Sustainable Development (EDP Sciences), 30, 481-485.