Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd€¦ · Status Final Version Number v1 Last saved on 7 February 2019 This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2019. Dargues Gold Mine Aquatic

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 1

Dargues Gold Mine Aquatic Ecology Monitoring - 2018

Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd

Dargues Gold Mine Aquatic Ecology Monitoring - 2018 | Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD i

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Project Name Dargues Gold Mine Aquatic Ecology Monitoring - 2018

Project Number 18ARM - 9625

Project Manager Peter Hancock

Prepared by Emily Messer and Peter Hancock

Reviewed by Peter Hancock, Daniel Magdi

Approved by Daniel Magdi

Status Final

Version Number v1

Last saved on 7 February 2019

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2019. Dargues Gold Mine Aquatic Ecology Monitoring - 2018. Prepared

for Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd.’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Len Sharp

Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 2.8.1


© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ii

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methods .................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Licences and permits ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.2 Survey conditions ................................................................................................................................. 1

2.3 Sampling protocol ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.3.1 Habitat features, aquatic vegetation, and incidental observations ................................................................... 2

2.3.2 Physico-chemistry ............................................................................................................................................. 2

2.3.3 Macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis ......................................................................................................... 3

2.3.4 Fish sampling ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.5 Stygofauna sampling ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.6 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 6

3. Results ........................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Site descriptions ................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Physico-chemistry ................................................................................................................................. 9

3.3 River channel environment ................................................................................................................... 9

3.4 Macroinvertebrate communities ........................................................................................................ 13

3.4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.4.2 Edge ................................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.4.3 Riffle ................................................................................................................................................................ 15

3.5 Stygofauna communities .................................................................................................................... 15

3.6 Fish communities ................................................................................................................................ 15

4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 18

5. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 20

6. References ................................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix A – Site Photos ............................................................................................................... 22

Appendix B - Macroinvertebrate data ............................................................................................... 28

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of sites and bores sampled in 2018 .............................................................................. 4

Figure 2. nMDS plot of invertebrate communities in autumn (blue) and spring (green). For each symbol

label, lower case letter represents season, number represents site number, and final upper case letter

represents habitat. ................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 3. nMDS plot of invertebrate communities upstream (blue) and downstream (green) of the mine.

Symbols have only been displayed for edge habitat, as there were no riffles present at upstream sites.

Labels are the same as Figure 2. .............................................................................................................. 14

Figure 4: Size class distribution for the three fish species collected in 2018 ........................................... 17


© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Temperature and rainfall data during survey dates. Data from Majors Creek weather station

(EW0901) .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2: Backpack electrofisher settings for autumn and spring 2018 ...................................................... 5

Table 3: Physico-chemistry at DGM monitoring sites. ............................................................................. 11

Table 4: RCE scores for the eight sites on Majors Creek and Spring Creek – autumn and spring 2018 .. 12

Table 5: Macroinvertebrate indices for 2018........................................................................................... 15

Table 6: Catch per hour of fish collected during the 2018 aquatic survey .............................................. 16

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

ANOSIM Analysis of Similarities

ANOVA Analysis of variance

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council

BMP Biodiversity Management Plan

DGM Dargues Gold Mine

DO dissolved oxygen

EC electrical conductivity

ELA Eco Logical Australia

nMDS Non-metric multidimensional scaling

RCE Riparian, Channel and Environmental

SIGNAL Stream Invertebrate Grade Number-Average Level


© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD iv

Executive Summary

This report outlines the findings of an aquatic ecology monitoring program for the Dargues Gold Mine

(DGM) Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP). Habitat features, water quality, and macroinvertebrate

and fish communities were sampled at eight sites surrounding the DGM in autumn and spring 2018.

Four groundwater monitoring bores were also sampled for stygofauna during both seasons, but none

were found.

The riparian condition of the sites was classed as either ‘good’, ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’. There were

no changes to these classifications between 2017 and 2018 monitoring periods. Sites upstream of DGM

were in agricultural land and had the poorest riparian condition, while downstream sites were in

partially forested land and had riparian zones in better condition.

Water quality was variable across all sites and across seasons. AE7 was the only site that had all variables

within Australian and New Zealand Environmental Conservation Council (ANZECC) guidelines in both

autumn and spring. Site AE4 had all variables within the guidelines in spring. Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

concentrations were very low at AE2, which had a small amount of water. All sites, except AE2, had pH

values within the ANZECC guidelines. Turbidity was within the ANZECC guidelines for all sites, except

AE5.

Fish communities in autumn had a higher catch per effort compared to spring 2018, despite relatively

low flow at all sites. There was an increase in the number of Galaxias olidus (Mountain Galaxias) caught

at four sites, and an increase in Gobiomorphus coxii (Cox’s Gudgeon) numbers at sites AE1. In spring

2018, there was a decrease in fish at three sites (AE1, AE3 and AE5). The remaining four sites had an

increase from autumn to spring. Anguilla australis (Short-finned Eels) were the only species present at

all sites where fish were captured.

Macroinvertebrate communities had a relatively high taxa richness, with 73 taxa in the 1387

macroinvertebrates collected during 2018. There were 48 taxa collected across all sites in autumn and

65 taxa across all sites in spring. SIGNAL scores in autumn were between 3.5 and 4.5 for edges (severe

disturbance at AE1, AE3, AE5, AE8; and moderate disturbance at AE4, AE6, AE7), and 5.2 (mild

disturbance) for the riffles at AE3 and AE4. In spring, SIGNAL scores were higher, ranging from 3.9 to

4.6 in edge habitats (severe disturbance at AE1; moderate disturbance at all other sites), and 5.2 to 5.6

in riffle habitats (mild disturbance at AE1, AE4, AE3).

As in 2017, sites AE6 and AE8 were in the poorest ecological condition, with the lowest RCE scores. Both

sites had poor riparian vegetation and heavily eroded channels. AE8 also had the lowest SIGNAL score

in autumn, and second-lowest in spring. These sites are upstream of the DGM project area, in a historical

agricultural landscape, and were disturbed by a causeway or concrete-lined channel. Site AE1,

downstream of DGM, had the highest RCE score (excellent) with good instream habitat, and supporting

a diverse macroinvertebrate community.

Ecological conditions have remained similar between 2017 and 2018, despite the current drought, which

resulted in low flows at most of the sites. Prior to the spring 2018 sampling period, there was an increase

in rainfall, but this did not appear to affect the ecological condition. Macroinvertebrate communities

were similar between sites upstream and downstream of DGM, suggesting that DGM is not having a


© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v

significant impact on the aquatic ecology of Majors Creek or Spring Creek. Changes that have occurred

may be related to environmental variables e.g. flood events and drought combined with surrounding

current and historical land-use including agriculture and historical mining.



1. Introduction

Dargues Gold Mine (DGM) is operated by Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd and is located north of the village

of Majors Creek and 13 km south of Braidwood in the south-eastern highlands of New South Wales.

DGM was granted project approval in February 2012, and a Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) was

prepared in May 2012 (R.W. Corkery & Co 2012). In accordance with the conditions of the project

approval, the BMP outlines the requirements for monitoring of vegetation (flora), fauna, aquatic ecology

and stygofauna at DGM.

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) was engaged by Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd in 2016 to undertake autumn

and spring aquatic ecology monitoring for DGM to satisfy the mine’s BMP. Aquatic ecology monitoring

has been occurring since 2011, with the following objectives:

• Monitor abiotic (physico-chemistry of water, habitat features) and biological

(macroinvertebrate and fish communities) indicators of aquatic ecosystem health in Majors

Creek and Spring Creek.

• Assess if there are changes between sites upstream and downstream of the mine, or over time.

• Recommend mitigation and management options to reduce impact to aquatic ecosystems.

ELA has conducted the surveys in autumn and spring in 2016, 2017 and 2018 as a continuation of the

monitoring program. This report provides a summary of the 2018 monitoring results and compares this

survey event with previous results.

2. Methods

2.1 Licences and permits

The autumn and spring fish surveys were conducted under ELA’s Scientific Collection Permit Number

P09/0038-2.1, issued by the NSW Department of Primary Industries under Section 37 of the Fisheries

Management Act 1994. The NSW Fisheries office in Narooma was notified prior to the survey of our

intention to sample.

2.2 Survey conditions

Ian Dixon and Emily Messer collected autumn samples between 30 April and 3 May 2018, and spring

samples between 22 and 25 October 2018.

During the autumn survey period, daytime temperatures ranged from 3.3°C to 22.0°C (Table 1). The

month prior to the autumn survey was relatively dry, with a total rainfall of 20.8 mm, of which 11.0 mm

fell on 29 April. In contrast, 78.8 mm of rain fell during the month leading up to the spring survey, with

11.4 mm falling on 20 October, and 14.6 mm falling on 17 October. Temperatures during the spring

survey were between 6.7°C and 25.6°C.



Table 1: Temperature and rainfall data during survey dates. Data from Majors Creek weather station (EW0901)

Date Season Rainfall (mm) Maximum Temp Minimum Temp

30/04/2018 Autumn 0.2 16.4 5.9

1/05/2018 Autumn 0 18.9 3.3

2/05/2018 Autumn 0 22.0 3.9

3/05/2018 Autumn 0 18.6 5.2

22/10/2018 Spring 0.2 18.5 9.1

23/10/2018 Spring 0 24.3 9.1

24/10/2018 Spring 0.2 25.6 6.7

25/10/2018 Spring 0 14.6 7.1

2.3 Sampling protocol

2.3.1 Habitat features, aquatic vegetation, and incidental observations

The density of aquatic vegetation was assessed visually at each site by estimating the percentage cover

of each species.

Riparian condition assessment was undertaken using a version of the Riparian, Channel and

Environmental (RCE) inventory (Peterson 1992) that was modified for Australian conditions (Chessman

et al. 1997). The modified RCE has 13 descriptors, each with a score from 1 to 4. Descriptors include

width and condition of the riparian zone, surrounding land use, the extent of bank erosion, stream

width, water depth, the occurrence of pools, riffles and runs, sub-stratum type, the presence of snags

and woody debris, in-stream and emergent macrophytes, algae, and barriers to fish passage. The total

score for each site was then derived by summing the score for each descriptor and calculating the result

as a percentage of the highest possible score.

Sites with a high RCE score (up to 52, or 100%) indicate that the riparian zone is unmodified by human

activity, while those with a low score have been substantially modified. Based on the original

classification established by Peterson (1992), site condition was rated as:

• Poor for RCE scores of 0-24%

• Fair for RCE scores of 25-43%

• Good for RCE scores of 44-62%

• Very good for RCE scores of 63-81%

• Excellent for RCE scores of 82-100%.

Other habitat features were assessed in accordance with the Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat

Conservation and Management (NSW DPI 2013). Each site was photographed, and the GPS location

recorded (Appendix A).

2.3.2 Physico-chemistry

To complement biological data, physico-chemical parameters were measured at each site.

Temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, electrical conductivity (EC), turbidity and pH

measurements were taken with a Horiba U-52/10m multi-parameter water quality meter. EC and pH



were calibrated in the laboratory prior to the field survey and DO was calibrated at the start of each field

day. Alkalinity was measured with a Hanna HI755 Freshwater Alkalinity Checker. Duplicate

measurements were made for each variable.

Physico-chemical measurements were compared to the Australian and New Zealand Environmental

Conservation Council (ANZECC) trigger value range for aquatic ecosystems in south-eastern Australia

(ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000).

2.3.3 Macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis

Macroinvertebrate samples were collected with a standard 250 µm sweep net. The net was moved in

one metre sweeps with the lower edge of the mouth bounced across the stream bed, then twice through

the water column above the disturbed area of the bed. This process was repeated until a cumulative

length of sample was 10 m. The focus was to collect representative samples from each edge habitat

feature present (i.e. woody debris, macrophytes) in the 100 m length of river, therefore, there was no

need for each sweep to be adjacent to the next. An additional 10 m was sampled when riffles were

present.

Net contents were emptied into a white sorting tray and scanned for 40 minutes so that each

invertebrate taxon could be removed and preserved in a jar of 70% ethanol. If additional taxa were still

being collected after 40 minutes, the sample was scanned for an additional 20 minutes. The methods

follow the NSW AUSRIVAS protocol (Turak and Waddell 2002). Edge and riffle samples were sorted and

preserved separately.

Invertebrates were identified to family in the laboratory using a Leica M80 dissecting microscope. Each

family was assigned a Stream Invertebrate Grade Number-Average Level (SIGNAL) score based on

Chessman (2003). The SIGNAL score indicates how sensitive an invertebrate family is to disturbance and

is used as an indication of habitat health. Families that are sensitive to pollution have scores between

six and ten and are likely to only occur in healthy habitats, while those with scores below six can tolerate

pollution and will occur in impacted stream habitats (Gooderham and Tsyrlin 2002).



Figure 1: Location of sites and bores sampled in 2018



2.3.4 Fish sampling

Fish samples were collected using bait traps and electrofishing. Four unbaited bait traps were deployed

for two hours at each site when there was adequate water. The traps were placed in different habitats

(i.e. deep pools, overhung edges or logs) at each site so that fish using the different habitats could be

caught.

Fish were also sampled with a backpack electrofishing unit (Smith-Root LR-20B) for between 119 and

610 seconds of shocking time (Table 2). Most sites were electrofished with shock time varying

depending on habitat present and wading difficulty. Shocking times of 10 minutes were achieved for

AE3 to AE5 on both surveys, but at AE1 only for spring. Site AE2 was dry, so fish samples were not

collected.

Table 2: Backpack electrofisher settings for autumn and spring 2018

Site DC Frequency (Hz) Volts Time on (sec) Time on (min:sec)

Autumn 2018

AE1 10 120 200 312 5:12

AE2 - - - - -

AE3 10 120 200 608 10:08

AE4 10 120 200 610 10:10

AE5 10 120 200 603 10.03

AE6 10 120 200 119 1:59

AE7 10 120 200 402 6:42

AE8 10 120 200 127 2:07

Spring 2018

AE1 10 120 200 624 10:24

AE2 - - - - -

AE3 10 120 200 608 10:08

AE4 10 120 200 601 10:01

AE5 10 120 200 601 10:01

AE6 10 120 200 220 3:40

AE7 10 120 200 528 8:48

AE8 10 120 200 220 3:40

2.3.5 Stygofauna sampling

Stygofauna samples were collected from four bores using a stygofauna sampling net. The 63 µm-mesh

net was lowered to the bottom of each bore, then drawn up slowly through the water column and

emptied into a 63 µm-mesh sieve. Once the contents of six hauls were in the sieve, they were washed

with 70 % ethanol into a pre-labelled sample jar.



2.3.6 Statistical analysis

Macroinvertebrate community data was analysed using the Primer v6 software package (PRIMER-E Ltd

2006). Prior to analysis, data were grouped in factors based on season (autumn, spring), habitat (riffle,

edge), and location relative to mine (upstream, downstream). Data were transformed for

presence/absence, and a Bray-Curtis similarity matrix developed. Non-metric multidimensional scaling

(nMDS) plots were generated to visually display data for each site. Sites with similar communities

overlap or appear close together in nMDS plots, while those with communities that have differing

community compositions are further apart (Clarke and Gorley 2006).

Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) was used to test for similarities between the pre-selected factors of

season, habitat, and location relative to the mine. ANOSIM tests are multivariate approximations of the

standard univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and use the same similarity matrix generated for

nMDS (Clarke and Gorley 2006). ANOSIM was used to test for differences in invertebrate communities

between seasons, habitats, and location relative to the mine.



3. Results

3.1 Site descriptions

3.1.1.1 Site AE1 - Downstream of Mountain Road

This is a narrow reach of Majors Creek near Araluen (Figure 1, Appendix A), 5 km downstream of the

DGM. The channel bed consists of pebbles and cobbles embedded in a matrix of sand and gravel. Banks

are undercut and there was slight slumping around some of the exposed cobbles. There were no aquatic

macrophytes present in the pools.

There was very little water in autumn, with a few small shallow (10 m x 1 m, 0.1 – 1 m deep) pools

throughout the reach, and no riffles were present. Water level was higher in spring, and a small riffle

was present and was sampled for macroinvertebrates. The water in these pools was clear.

The riparian vegetation consisted of native trees and shrubs, including mature Casuarina sp.,

Pittosporum undulatum (Native Daphne) and Bursaria spinosa (Native Blackthorn). There was evidence

of some dieback in the canopy. Patches of Rubus fruticosus (Blackberry) lined both banks. The

groundcover surrounding the creek was dominated by exotic species. Adjacent to the riparian zone was

cleared land, with many collapsed wombat burrows. This broader riparian zone was dominated by

dense Bidens pilosa (Cobblers Peg).

3.1.1.2 Site AE2 - Upstream of Mountain Road

AE2 is 400 m upstream of AE1 (Figure 1) and downstream of DGM. The channel was dry during autumn

but had a small pool of clear water when sampled in spring. The bed consisted of cobbles and boulders

in a sand-dominated matrix. Between autumn and spring, the amount of sand deposited in the channel

had increased. Weeds, including Cobblers Peg, have encroached on the dry channel, and there were a

few juvenile Casuarinas growing in the main channel. The riparian zone here was similar to AE1, with

mature Casuarinas showing evidence of dieback, a weedy groundcover overrun with Cobblers Peg and

many collapsed wombat burrows.

3.1.1.3 Site AE3 - above escarpment downstream

AE3 is on Majors Creek, approximately 900 m downstream of DGM and 300 m from the top of Majors

Creek Falls (Figure 1). The channel consisted of bedrock with cobble and gravel bars. Fine sediment

deposits filled the gaps between cobbles. The banks were steep, and erosion was common on the outer

bends. Salix sp. (Willow) was present in the stream, with dense root mats slowing flow upstream. The

water was clear and flowing with riffles throughout the reach. Pools and runs were mostly 0.5 – 1 m

deep. The creek was shaded by steep banks which are lined with vegetation. Periphyton grew on the

upper faces of submerged rocks, and there was moderate amount of woody debris in the pools. High

flows between autumn and spring had deposited sand in the channel and scoured some of the banks.

The riparian zone included Blackberry and other exotic vegetation. Native species such as Blechnum sp.

were present instream and along the banks.

3.1.1.4 Site AE4 - Above escarpment upstream

AE4 is 400 m downstream of Majors Creek Road (Figure 1). Upstream, the bed was predominately

cobbles in a sand bed, and there were pools and runs approximately 1 m deep and 7 m wide in the first



two-thirds of the reach. Downstream, in the last third, the creek became narrow and shallow with the

bed comprising of cobbles and boulders. Riffles occurred in the downstream section. Between autumn

and spring, there were high flows that deposited sand and woody debris in the channel throughout the

reach. The water was clear at the time of the survey.

Juvenile Willows grew in the runs, and the roots of mature Willows are creating constrictions in the

channel that may block the passage of fish during periods of low flow. Ferns and Blackberries were

present on both banks. Typha orientalis (Cumbungi) was present in the pools throughout the reach.

3.1.1.5 Site AE5 - Spring Creek lower

AE5 is on Spring Creek, downstream of the DGM project area (Figure 1). The creek has an incised channel

and a bed consisting of boulders embedded in sand/gravel, with accumulated sand deposits on the outer

bends. Banks have been severely eroded on the outer bends and are between 1 and 2 m above the

water. Riffles were absent from the site, with water flowing slowly along narrow runs and occasional

pools. Woody debris was common in the pools.

Riparian vegetation was dominated by exotic shrub species, including Blackberry on the left bank and

Cytisus scoparius (English Broom) on the right bank. Grasses and herbs dominated the groundcover

layer, and ground disturbance by wombats was again a prominent feature. Native ferns and scattered

trees including Eucalyptus sp. were also present throughout the riparian zone. Instream macrophytes

included filamentous algae, Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum (Watercress), Persicaria sp., and Juncus sp.

High flows between autumn and spring surveys caused bank erosion and slumping, and deposited debris

and sand. English Broom appears to have spread slightly since autumn, possibly because of flooding.

3.1.1.6 Site AE6 - Spring Creek upper

AE6 is also on Spring Creek and is approximately 700 m upstream of AE4 (Figure 1). The site is also

upstream of DGM. Upstream of this reach there was a dense Cumbungi community choking the stream.

Downstream of this there was a concrete-lined channel that has been eroded, creating a 2 m drop. The

channel bed downstream of this drop was narrow, consisting of cobbles and boulders covered in silt.

The pools in this downstream section were clear and connected by very little flowing water. There were

no riffles in this reach.

The banks were heavily eroded and slumping, with a mix of native and exotic shrubs including dense

Blackberry lining the banks. Eucalypts, grasses, and ferns were also present. English Broom is becoming

established near the Cumbungi upstream. The adjacent hillsides were also heavily eroded.

3.1.1.7 Site AE7 - Upstream control

AE7 is on Majors Creek, 1 km upstream of the confluence with Spring Creek (Figure 1). This site acts as

a reference site, and is upstream of any potential influence from DGM. The channel was characterised

by shallow bedrock and had exposed boulders. A small weir with a V-notch obstructs the creek in the

middle of the reach. Upstream of this weir was a patch of dense Cumbungi. The water was clear and

flowing with alternating runs and pools, but no riffles. Woody debris was common in most pools, and

small schools of Galaxias olidus (Mountain Galaxias) were observed throughout the survey. Filamentous

algae was present in each pool and boulders and logs were covered in Periphyton.



The riparian zone has no mature trees and is dominated by shrubs and grasses including Blackberry,

English Broom and Juncus sp. Vegetation overhangs the water from both banks. Wombat burrows are

common throughout the surrounding area.

3.1.1.8 Site AE8 - Bendoura Road

AE8 is on Majors Creek, just north of the village of Majors Creek, and is bisected by a causeway (Figure

1). This site acts as a reference site and is upstream of any potential influence from DGM. The channel

bed consists of soft sediment and has moderate instream woody debris. Upstream of the causeway was

a large, deep pool choked with dense Cumbungi. Fringing vegetation upstream included Juncus sp. and

grasses. Blackberries were common downstream. Below the causeway, the creek became shallow with

Willows of varying age classes both in and surrounding the channel. Willow roots covered the creek

bed, creating a wide, shallow area of flow. There was evidence of sediment washing into the creek from

the unsealed road that joins the causeway. A wire fence crossed the creek approximately 10 m

downstream of the causeway, and this trapped debris to cause a partial dam. The water was shallow,

clear, and flowing slowly with dense iron flocs and an oil sheen on the surface. There were no riffles at

this site.

3.2 Physico-chemistry

Average water temperature during autumn was between 8.5 oC and 13.1 oC in Majors Creek, and

between 10.4 oC and 12.2 oC in Spring Creek (sites AE5 & AE6) (Table 3). During spring, the temperatures

had increased to between 9.0 oC and 15.1 oC for Majors Creek, and 11.5 ºC and 19.0 oC for Spring Creek

(Table 3).

EC was highest at AE5 (785 µS/cm and 683 µS/cm) and lowest was at AE7 (307 µS/cm and 189 µS/cm)

in both autumn and spring respectively. AE7 and AE8 were the only sites within the ANZECC guideline

range (Table 3).

DO concentration was highest during autumn at AE4 (105.4 % saturation) and lowest at AE8 (26.5 %

saturation). During spring, DO concentration was the highest at AE 7 (101.6 % saturation) and lowest at

AE2 (9.85 % saturation). Sites AE1, AE2, AE3 and AE8 had DO concentrations outside the ANZECC

guideline range in both autumn and spring (Table 3).

The pH was within the ANZECC guideline range for all sites during autumn. The lowest pH was at AE8

(6.99) and highest at AE7 (7.97). During spring, site AE2 had the lowest pH (6.06). This was the only

measurement outside the ANZECC guidelines. The highest pH was at AE5 (7.79) (Table 3).

Alkalinity ranged between 51 and 134 ppm across the sites, during autumn and between 51 and 122

ppm during spring (Table 3).

All sites had turbidity readings within the ANZECC guidelines, except for AE5 which had a reading of 29.8

NTU and 75.5 NTU in autumn and spring, respectively.

3.3 River channel environment

RCE scores did not change for most sites between autumn and spring of 2018. RCE scores were between

54% and 90% (Table 4). Three sites had RCE scores of ‘excellent’, three sites had RCE scores of ‘very

good’ and two sites had an RCE score of ‘good’.



AE6 (Spring Creek) had the lowest score of 54% placing it in the ‘good’ range. This site showed poor

habitat characteristics during both seasons, including a narrow riparian zone, loose mobile sediment

with few instream logs and rocks.

RCE at AE1 increased from 87% in autumn, to 90% in spring, with greater instream retention devices and

an increasingly stable benthic habitat. Sites AE1, AE2 and AE3 all had scores in the ‘excellent’ range.

The riparian zones surrounding these sites are all well connected with native forest. Although there was

little flow at the time of the survey, in times of flow the sites would have frequently alternating pool-

riffle sequences and stabile beds. Retention devices in the channel included large boulders and a

primarily cobble bed.



Table 3: Physico-chemistry at DGM monitoring sites.

2018 ANZECC

Range

AE1 AE2 AE3 AE4 AE5 AE6 AE7 AE8

Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr

Temperature 13.1 11.8 - 12.0 8.6 10.5 11.2 14.5 10.4 19.0 12.2 11.5 11.1 15.1 10.3 9.0

EC (µS/cm) 30-350 494 573 - 445 479 335 536 333 785 683 476 397 308 189 347 202

DO (% saturation) 90-110 39.05 61.35 - 9.85 80.70 77.15 80.75 105.35 83.65 90.55 92.65 50.65 101.60 101.05 26.50 43.7

DO (mg/L) 3.97 6.47 - 1.025 9.12 8.25 8.56 10.57 9.04 8.515 9.61 5.295 10.82 9.825 2.88 5.035

pH 6.5-8.0 7.12 7.05 - 6.06 7.74 7.48 7.72 7.56 7.67 7.79 7.75 7.17 7.97 7.48 6.99 6.91

Alkalinity (ppm) 121 101 61 110 78 117 99 134 114 100 122 73 51 51 79

Turbidity 2-25 15.9 3.1 - 4.2 16.9 7.5 14.6 3.7 29.8 75.5 12.3 8.9 12.9 3.6 14.5 9.5

Pink shading denotes variables outside of the recommended ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) range, while green indicates those inside recommended range.



Table 4: RCE scores for the eight sites on Majors Creek and Spring Creek – autumn and spring 2018

Inventory item AE1 AE2 AE3 AE4 AE5 AE6 AE7 AE8


Land-use pattern beyond immediate riparian zone 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

Width of riparian strip of woody vegetation 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2

Completeness of riparian woody strip of vegetation 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Vegetation of riparian zone within 10 m of channel 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2

Stream bank 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

Bank undercutting 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4

Channel form 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3

Riffle/pool sequence 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2

Retention devices in stream 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3

Channel sediment accumulations 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4

Stream bottom 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 2

Stream detritus 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2

Aquatic vegetation 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 2

RCE Score 45 47 45 44 45 45 41 41 36 36 28 28 36 36 33 33

RCE Score % 87 90 87 85 87 87 79 79 69 69 54 54 69 69 63 63



3.4 Macroinvertebrate communities

3.4.1 Overview

A total of 1387 invertebrates were collected during 2018, representing 73 taxa. There were 58 taxa

present in autumn, and 65 taxa present in spring (Appendix B). In autumn, Caenidae, Chironomidae,

Dytisidae, Notonextidae, Physidae and Valiidae were present at all sites. Leptophelebidae and

Protoneuridae were present at all sites except AE8. During spring, Chironomidae was present at all sites.

Leptophlebidae was found at all sites, except AE8, and Gripopterygidae was present at all sites except

AE1. There were six taxa collected over both survey events (Gripopterygidae, Helicopsychidae,

Hybrobiosidae, Limnephilidae, Philopotamidae, Tasimiidae), which had SIGNAL scores of 8.

SIGNAL scores and taxonomic richness were higher in spring than in autumn (Table 5). Taxonomic

richness ranged from 19 to 35 in spring, and 17 to 27 in autumn. SIGNAL scores were 3.9 to 5.6 in spring

compared to 3.5 to 5.17 in autumn, with riffle habitats having higher SIGNAL scores than edges.

Invertebrate communities in spring differed to those in autumn (ANOSIM Global R= 0.49, P<0.01, Figure

2), with Oligochaeta, Dixidae, and Gripopterygidae occurring at more sites in spring than autumn, and

Protoneuridae and Gerridae occurring at more sites in autumn than spring.

Figure 2: nMDS plot of invertebrate communities in autumn (blue) and spring (green). For each symbol label, lower case

letter represents season, number represents site number, and final upper case letter represents habitat.



There were no riffles present at sites upstream of DGM, so only edge communities were assessed for

differences in upstream and downstream invertebrate communities. For both seasons considered

together, aquatic invertebrate communities were similar in edge habitats upstream and downstream of

DGM (ANOSIM Global R= 0.035, P=0.34, Figure 3). Likewise, there were no differences within season

between the upstream and downstream sites in autumn (ANOSIM Global R= 0.42, P= 0.06) or spring

(ANOSIM Global R= 0.11, P= 0.31).

Figure 3: nMDS plot of invertebrate communities upstream (blue) and downstream (green) of the mine. Symbols have only

been displayed for edge habitat, as there were no riffles present at upstream sites. Labels are the same as Figure 2.

3.4.2 Edge

Edge habitats were sampled at seven sites during 2018. In autumn, the number of taxa at each site

ranging from 17 (AE3 and AE6) to 27 (AE7) (Table 5). The families Caenidae, Chironomidae, Dytisidae,

Notonectidae, Physidae, and Valiidae were present at all sampled sites. Compared to riffle habitats,

edges had more Notonectidae, shrimp, and Megapodagrionidae.

SIGNAL scores ranged from 3.7 at AE1 to 4.5 at AE7. Sites AE1, AE3, AE5, and AE8 were considered

severely polluted (SIGNAL scores less than four). Sites AE4, AE6, and AE7 were considered moderately

polluted (SIGNAL scores between four and five) (Table 5).

During spring, the number of taxa ranged from 22 (AE1 and AE8) to 35 (AE6). Chironomidae, Dixidae,

Leptoceridae, Lymnadaie and Veliidae were present across all sites. The SIGNAL scores ranged from 3.9

(AE1) to 4.6 (AE7). Sites AE1 was considered severely polluted with a score less than four. The remaining

sites were considered moderately polluted.



3.4.3 Riffle

Riffle communities were characterised by the families Simuliidae, Philopotamidae, and Baetidae. During

autumn, riffle habitats were only present at sites AE3 and AE4, while in spring they occurred at these

two sites and also at AE1. Taxonomic richness at riffle sites ranged from 20 to 30 taxa, and was higher

than in edge habitats during autumn, but not in spring (Table 5). Where riffles were present, their

invertebrate community had SIGNAL scores above 5, and were always higher than their respective edge

habitat (Table 5).

Table 5: Macroinvertebrate indices for 2018

Site AE1 AE3 AE4 AE5 AE6 AE7 AE8

Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Riffle Edge Edge Edge Edge

Autumn

Total taxa 20 - 17 22 18 20 20 17 27 20

SIGNAL 3.68 - 4.00 5.15 4.33 5.17 3.71 4.23 4.48 3.50

Spring

Total taxa 22 19 30 30 26 30 24 35 27 22

SIGNAL 3.94 5.25 4.23 5.60 4.32 5.22 4.15 4.31 4.63 4.13

3.5 Stygofauna communities

Bores 1, 4, 6, and 8 were sampled for stygofauna during autumn and spring. No stygofauna were

collected from any of these bores.

3.6 Fish communities

Three species of fish were collected during the 2018 surveys (Table 6), with Galaxias olidus (Mountain

Galaxias) being the most abundant. Anguilla australis (Short-finned Eel) was the most widespread fish,

occurring at all sites where fish were collected (Table 6), though not in spring at AE3 or autumn at AE6.

Gobiomorphus coxii (Cox’s Gudgeon) was only collected at AE1 during autumn (Table 6).

Catch rates were highest for Mountain Galaxias, with rates of up to 566 fish caught per hour at AE7.

Cox’s Gudgeon had the next highest catch rates of 127 fish per hour at AE1, but was restricted only to a

single pool. Short-finned Eel catch rates were much more consistent, with ranges of 12 to 58 fish per

hour on the occasions when this species was captured.

Fish were collected at all sites in autumn except AE2 (dry) and AE6. AE6 had very little water, and the

pool at the furthest point upstream could not be accessed due to dense Cumbungi. Site AE2 was the

only site with no fish in spring. Site AE7 had the highest catch per hour during both seasons, with 501

and 620 fish respectively.

More Mountain Galaxias were caught in each size class during spring than in autumn, with 30 to 40 mm

fish being the most common (Figure 4). The dominant size for Short-finned Eels was 200-300 mm in

spring, but 400-500 in autumn (Figure 4).



Table 6: Catch per hour of fish collected during the 2018 aquatic survey

Common name Scientific name

AE1 AE2 AE3 AE4 AE5 AE6 AE7 AE8


Short-finned eel Anguilla australis 58 17 - - 12 0 24 24 12 42 0 33 54 55 28 33

Cox's Gudgeon Gobiomorphus coxii 127 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mountain Galaxias Galaxias olidus 0 0 - - 142 107 106 216 36 0 0 0 448 566 0 0

Total (catch per hour) 185 17 - - 154 107 130 240 48 42 0 33 501 620 28 33

Number of species 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 1



Figure 4: Size class distribution for the three fish species collected in 2018

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60

Mountain Galaxias

Autumn Spring

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-600

Short-finned Eel

Autumn Spring

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70

Cox's Gudgeon

Autumn Spring



4. Discussion

The overall condition of sites in 2018 resembles that of the previous year. Water level was very low in

autumn 2018 but increased before the spring survey with 79 mm of rain falling in the previous month.

All sites, except site AE2, had sufficient water to sample for fish, macroinvertebrates and physico-

chemistry.

There were expected changes in vegetation growth and small channel variations. Sites continued to be

in relatively good condition, considering the current drought. There is no consistent trend of

degradation from upstream sites to downstream sites. Site AE7, upstream of DGM, had all water quality

parameters in the ANZECC guidelines and the largest amount of fish caught, however the riparian zone

at this site is degraded with limited connectivity between mature trees, and a mid-storey dominated by

weeds. Site AE8, also upstream of DGM, had relatively good water quality, with DO saturation the only

parameter outside the ANZECC guidelines. However, few fish were caught here and the RCE score is

low compared to sites downstream. The sites downstream of DGM, AE1 and AE2, had EC and DO

concentrations outside of the ANZECC guidelines, and AE1 had relatively few fish (AE2 was not

electrofished). Both these sites had RCE scores in the ‘excellent’ category, with well-connected riparian

vegetation.

Physico-chemistry was relatively similar between 2017 and 2018. Sites AE7 and AE8 had EC levels in the

ANZECC range over both years. Sites AE3 and AE4 EC levels decreased to within the range during spring

2018. DO concentrations at all sites were below ANZECC guidelines, except for sites AE6 and AE7 in

autumn and AE4, AE5 and AE6 in spring. These DO concentrations were within the ANZECC guidelines.

All other parameters were within the ANZECC guidelines, except pH at AE2 (spring) and turbidity at AE5

(autumn/spring).

RCE was similar to 2017, with sites remaining in good to excellent condition. There were minor

differences in the riparian zone and channel for each site due to increased weed growth (including

Blackberries and Willows) and sediment accumulation. These changes were not significant enough to

alter the RCE classification for any site.

Sites AE3 and AE4 were the only sites with riffles during both seasons. More fish were caught at both

of these sites in 2018 than in 2017. At AE3, the catch rate per hour in 2018 was 154 in autumn, and 107

in spring, compared to 81 and 68 respectively in 2017 (ELA 2018). Likewise, AE4 had a catch rate of 130

and 240 for the two seasons sampled in 2018; more than twice the catch rates of 44 and 112 in 2017

(ELA 2018). This was due to an increase in Mountain Galaxias populations in 2018, which may have been

a result of fewer predatory eels occurring at these sites.

As with previous years, Cox’s Gudgeon occurred only at AE1. This species is widespread in coastal

catchments up to an altitude of 700 m and can climb waterfalls and steep dam walls (McDowall 1996).

However, Majors Creek Falls and frequent periods of disconnected flow downstream constitute

considerable barriers.

Macroinvertebrate diversity was similar between autumn survey events in 2017 and 2018, except for

sites AE7, which had more taxa in 2018, and AE8, which had fewer. For the spring surveys,

macroinvertebrate diversity was consistently higher across all sites in 2018 than it was in 2017, (except



AE1 riffle, which was the same) by up to 16 taxa (ELA 2018). This increase in diversity in spring may be

due to the small flush that occurred in the month prior to the spring 2018 sampling, which washed

macroinvertebrates from upstream sites.

Seasonal SIGNAL scores were higher in 2017 than 2018 for most sites in autumn, and the opposite for

spring. All sites had macroinvertebrate communities indicating mild pollution in the riffles (where riffles

occurred) and moderate or severe disturbance in the edge habitat. Over the past two years, SIGNAL

scores indicate ecological conditions are improving slightly at AE6, AE7 and AE8.

There was a general increase in the total number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected, but the

proportion of sensitive taxa was similar. During 2018, there was a greater proportion of sensitive taxa

in spring (except at site AE1 edge) compared to autumn. However, eight taxa with a SIGNAL score of 8

were collected. Two of these taxa (Gripopterygidae and Leptophlebidae) were found at all sites (except

AE1 and AE8, respectively).



5. Conclusion

Results from spring and autumn 2018 showed no significant changes from the previous monitoring

seasons. There were some minor changes in vegetation growth, and some small variations in channel

structure due to sediment accumulation. Sites continued to be in relatively similar condition to 2017,

and in reasonably good condition considering the severity of the current drought.

There was no significant difference between invertebrate communities upstream and downstream of

DGM. The low SIGNAL scores and poor riparian condition outside of forested areas are likely to be a

result of past clearing and agricultural land management. Current mining operations do not appear to

have had a significant impact on the aquatic environment in 2018.



6. References

ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality,

national water quality management strategy number 4. Australian and New Zealand Environment and

Conservation Council and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New

Zealand, October 2000.

Chessman, B.C., Growns, J.E. and Kotlash, A.R. 1997. Objective derivation of macroinvertebrate family

sensitivity grade numbers for the SIGNAL biotic index: Application to the Hunter River system, New

South Wales. Marine and Freshwater Research 48, 159-172.

Chessman, B.C. 2003. SIGNAL 2.iv- A scoring system of macroinvertebrates in Australian rivers- user

manual, Monitoring River Health Initiative, Technical Report No. 31. Department of Environment and

Heritage

Clarke, K.R, and Gorley, R.N. 2006. PRIMER v6 User Manual/ Tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd. 2018. Dargues Gold Mine Aquatic Ecology Monitoring 2017. Report for

Dargues Gold Mine.

Gooderham, J. and Tsyrlin, E. 2002. The waterbug book: a guide to the freshwater macroinvertebrates

of temperate Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

McDowall, R. 1996. Freshwater fishes of south-eastern Australia. Reed Publishers, Sydney.

NSW DPI. 2013. Fisheries NSW Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management

(2013 update), NSW Government.

Peterson, R.C. 1992. The RCE: A Riparian, Channel, and Environmental Inventory for small streams in the

agricultural landscape. Freshwater Biology, 27, 295-306.

R. W. Corkery & Co. Pty. Limited. 2012. Biodiversity Management Plan for the Dargues Reef Gold Project.

Prepared for Big Island Mining Pty. Ltd. May 2012.

Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) was prepared in May 2012 (R.W. Corkery & Co 2012

Turak, E., Waddell, N. and Johnstone, G. 2002. New South Wales (NSW) Australian River Assessment

System (AUSRIVAS). Sampling and Processing Manual. Environmental Protection Authority.



Appendix A – Site Photos

Autumn 2018

AE1 upstream AE1 downstream

AE2 upstream AE2 upstream AE2 downstream






AE 6 upstream AE6 downstream



Spring 2018
















AE 8 upstream AE8 downstream



Appendix B - Macroinvertebrate data

Order Family SIGNAL Score

Spring 2018 Autumn 2018

AE1

Ed

ge

AE1

Rif

fle

AE3

Ed

ge

AE3

Rif

fle

AE4

Ed

ge

AE4

Rif

fle

AE5

Ed

ge

AE6

Ed

ge

AE7

Ed

ge

AE8

Ed

ge

AE1

Ed

ge

AE3

Ed

ge

AE3

Rif

fle

AE4

Ed

ge

AE4

Rif

fle

AE5

Ed

ge

AE6

Ed

ge

AE7

Ed

ge

AE8

Ed

ge

Acarina 21 9 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 3

Bivalva Corbiculidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Bivalva Sphaeriidae 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Dytiscidae 2 5 0 5 0 11 1 10 28 18 14 18 6 2 4 2 13 7 12 17

Coleoptera Elmidae 7 1 8 1 4 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2

Coleoptera Gyrinidae 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Haliplidae 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Hydraenidae 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Hydrochidae 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Hydrophilidae 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Psephenidae 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coleoptera Scirtidae 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Crustacea Crustacea 1 2 4 2 44 14 10 166 25 26 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 3

Decapoda Decapoda 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 3 0 4 1 3 0 7 3 3 0

Diptera Ceratopogonidae 4 4 9 0 1 0 3 4 5 6 25 2 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 5

Diptera Chironomidae 3 3 14 21 104 36 26 52 132 39 118 9 12 22 14 13 14 26 7 14

Diptera Culicidae 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 8 0 3 12

Diptera Dixidae 7 1 2 13 2 2 0 1 5 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diptera Psychodidae 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diptera Empididae 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diptera Simuliidae 5 0 0 0 9 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 21 0 0 0 0

Diptera Stratiomyidae 2 2 47 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 3

Diptera Tabanidae 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diptera Tipulidae 5 5 10 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4





AE1

Ed

ge

AE1

Rif

fle

AE3

Ed

ge

AE3

Rif

fle

AE4

Ed

ge

AE4

Rif

fle

AE5

Ed

ge

AE6

Ed

ge

AE7

Ed

ge

AE8

Ed

ge

AE1

Ed

ge

AE3

Ed

ge

AE3

Rif

fle

AE4

Ed

ge

AE4

Rif

fle

AE5

Ed

ge

AE6

Ed

ge

AE7

Ed

ge

AE8

Ed

ge

Ephemeroptera Baetidae 5 1 0 5 13 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 20 0 15 0 0 0 0

Ephemeroptera Caenidae 4 0 0 20 1 24 9 130 52 38 3 1 1 0 13 2 48 7 15 1

Ephemeroptera Leptophlebidae 8 0 1 9 50 8 37 25 21 11 1 45 8 8 28 5 26 6 3 0

Ephemeroptera Siphlonuridae 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Gastropoda Hydrobiidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0

Gastropoda Lymnaeidae 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gastropoda Physidae 1 0 1 0 3 15 17 4 3 2 1 6 5 5 6 14 5 4 9 1

Gastropoda Planorbidae 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gastropoda Tateidae 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hemitptera Corixidae 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 18 0 4 0 0 0 10 1

Hemitptera Gelastocoridae 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Hemitptera Gerridae 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 0

Hemitptera Micronectidae 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hemitptera Notonectidae 1 0 0 1 0 9 0 6 3 1 3 10 10 0 7 0 7 7 4 3

Hemitptera Veliidae 3 4 6 2 1 7 6 2 2 0 2 5 9 1 2 2 1 2 7 12

Hirudinea Hirudinea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Megaloptera Corydalidae 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Megaloptera Sialidae 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nematoda Nematoda 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odonata Aeshnidae 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 2

Odonata Coenagrionidae 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odonata Gomphidae 5 1 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 9 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0

Odonata Libellulidae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Odonata Lindeniidae 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odonata Megapodagrionidae 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 1 3

Odonata Odonata Sp. 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odonata Protoneuridae 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 5 7 1 0





AE1

Ed

ge

AE1

Rif

fle

AE3

Ed

ge

AE3

Rif

fle

AE4

Ed

ge

AE4

Rif

fle

AE5

Ed

ge

AE6

Ed

ge

AE7

Ed

ge

AE8

Ed

ge

AE1

Ed

ge

AE3

Ed

ge

AE3

Rif

fle

AE4

Ed

ge

AE4

Rif

fle

AE5

Ed

ge

AE6

Ed

ge

AE7

Ed

ge

AE8

Ed

ge

Odonata Synlestidae 7 0 0 5 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odonata Synthemistidae 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Odonata Telephlebiidae 9 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oligochaete Oligochaete 18 9 3 15 8 1 20 117 11 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

Plecoptera Gripopterygidae 8 0 1 1 11 2 11 4 4 2 1 0 0 18 0 4 0 1 0 0

Plecoptera Notonemouridae 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Calamoceratidae 7 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Conoesucidae 7 0 0 0 4 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Ecnomidae 4 0 0 2 0 0 9 15 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 0

Trichoptera Helicopsychidae 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 2 3 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Hydrobiosidae 8 0 0 0 15 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0

Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 6 0 0 6 25 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Hydroptilidae 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 0

Trichoptera Leptoceridae 6 2 0 46 1 60 4 12 11 17 2 0 31 2 13 0 10 0 7 0

Trichoptera Limnephilidae 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 3

Trichoptera Odontoceridae 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Philopotamidae 8 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 42 0 29 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Philorheithridae 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Polycentropodidae 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Tasimiidae 8 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera Tricoptera Sp. 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tricladida Tricladida 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0

Total Abundance 86 133 166 284 248 216 315 596 206 241 120 121 158 113 120 160 98 112 95

Number of Taxa 22 19 30 30 26 30 24 35 27 22 20 17 22 18 20 20 17 27 20

Average Signal Score 3.94 5.25 4.23 5.60 4.32 5.22 4.15 4.31 4.63 4.13 3.68 4.00 5.15 4.33 5.17 3.71 4.23 4.48 3.50



Documents

Diversified Minerals Pty Ltd€¦ · Status Final Version Number v1 Last saved on 7 February 2019 This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2019. Dargues Gold Mine Aquatic