RESEARCH

REPORT

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

Adequacy of rehabilitation monitoring practices in

the Western Australian mining industry
By Scott A. Thompson and Graham G. Thompson

Scott Thompson is a PhD student and Graham
Thompson a senior lecturer in the Centre for
Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University
(Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia.
Email: ecosystems@iinet.net.au; g.thompson@ecu.
edu.au. Tel: (+61) 407 385239). This project is part
of PhD research that has developed a rehabilita-
tion index and monitoring protocol to assess the
success of developing ecosystems in disturbed lands
and mine sites.
Summary Currently in Western Australia ( WA) there are no mandated standards for
assessing rehabilitation success for the mining industry. We argue a case for focusing on the
creation of near-natural, self-sustaining, functional ecosystems as the primary objective for
rehabilitation programs and where this is not achievable, mines should plan to be ‘environ-
mentally neutral’ by undertaking some improvements to degraded landscapes. We suggest
that flora and fauna monitoring are appropriate tools for managers and regulators to obtain
information on the extent to which a rehabilitated area has achieved a near natural, self-
sustaining, functional ecosystem similar to that in the adjacent undisturbed area. This monito-
ring can also be used for completion criteria and closure plans. We report results from a
short questionnaire sent to mine site environmental managers to assess the extent of flora
and fauna monitoring in rehabilitation areas. Survey results highlighted the need for a more
systematic and consistent approach to the monitoring of flora and fauna in rehabilitated mining
areas in WA. Of 36 respondents, 23 mines monitored flora, three monitored fauna and two
monitored both.
Key words fauna, flora, mining, monitoring, rehabilitation.

Introduction
he mining industry, government auth-
T orities and the community acknowledge
the need for criteria to determine when
active involvement in rehabilitation of mined
lands is complete (Elliott et al. 1996; Tacey
et al. 1993; Department of Minerals and
Energy 1996; Muir 1996; Nichols 1997;
Bellairs 1998; Osbourne & Brearley 1998;
Minerals Council of Australia 2000; Chamber
of Minerals and Energy 2000; Grant et al.
2001). A decade ago, the focus of most mine
site rehabilitation programs was to establish
good density and cover of vegetation across
the disturbed area. While this resulted in
rehabilitated sites that were essentially stable
and may have looked aesthetically pleasing,
it did not necessarily mean that the rehabi-
litated sites were moving towards the esta-
blishment of functional ecosystems (Bellairs
1998). Because of this focus on vegetation,
a narrow set of vegetation indices were
established to measure early develop-
mental stages of revegetation (Department
of Minerals and Energy 1996).
Currently the Department of Industry
and Resources (DoIR; formerly Department
of Minerals and Energy – DME) in WA requires
rehabilitated areas to be safe, stable and non-
polluting landscapes (Anderson 2001), but
says little about the re-establishment of
sustainable, functional ecosystems. For exam-
ple, the DME ( WA) Department of Minerals
and Energy (1996 p. 37) states that ‘. . . the
re-establishment of self-perpetuating vegeta-
tion, which is integrated with the surrounding
ecosystem, is the most common land use
objective . . .’ for mine site rehabilitated areas.
Such criteria could be met by a vegetation
community of non-local species, which pro-
bably would not provide the range of niches
necessary for the fauna in the adjacent un-
disturbed area to colonize the rehabilitated
area and eventually create a self-sustaining,
functional ecosystem. The use of non-local
species also creates potentially serious weed
problems. Specific monitoring protocols
and rehabilitation standards are currently
ill defined (Australian and New Zealand
Minerals and Energy Council and Minerals
Council of Australia 2000) and mining com-
panies in WA are being released from their
environmental obligations before they can
demonstrate the creation of, or significant
progress towards, a near natural, self-
sustaining, functional ecosystem (Anderson
et al. 2002). A number of researchers have
argued that there is a compelling case for
industry and regulators to adopt an approach
that focuses on creating functional ecosys-
tems rather than just revegetation (Andersen
1994; Bisevac & Majer 1999). Bisevac and
Majer (1999) suggested that the goal for
rehabilitated mined land should be to
restore the structure, diversity, function
and dynamics of the undisturbed ecosys-
tem. In many circumstances this will mean
the creation of a self-sustaining, functional
ecosystem similar to that in the adjacent
undisturbed area from which the rehabil-
itated area will recruit most of its fauna.The
need for ‘high-quality’ rehabilitation has
become necessary with the phasing in of
performance standards for assessing the
development of rehabilitated areas (Bisevac
& Majer 1999). Mine site rehabilitation
should be viewed as managing succession
processes towards the creation of ecosys-
tems that are functionally compatible with
that which existed before the disturbance
or in the adjacent undisturbed areas.
Thirty of the respondents (83%) to a
questionnaire sent to all mine site environ-
mental managers in WA indicated that some
rehabilitation had been completed on their
mine since operations began, with 8 years
being the average age of the oldest rehabil-
itated area.There was considerable variability
in the method, scope and rehabilitation

30 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 5 NO 1 APRIL 2004


techniques being used.Twenty-three mines
(64%) indicated they systematically moni-
tored flora, but only three mines (8%) sys-
tematically monitored fauna. Two mines
monitored both flora and fauna. Each mine
had used different monitoring strategies
and there was no generally accepted pro-
tocol for monitoring flora, and there were
insufficient responses to comment on fauna
monitoring practices. It was noted that most
mines were outsourcing their monitoring.
Results from this questionnaire confirmed
and raised a number of issues including: (i)
the lack of systematic monitoring of flora in
rehabilitated areas; (ii) few mines monitor
fauna; (iii) the creation of functional eco-
systems is not a primary objective for rehab-
ilitation programs; (iv) the lack of clear
guidelines for monitoring protocols; (v) no
clear end point evident for most rehabilita-
tion programs; and (vi) closure criteria are
at best vague and ill defined.These data sug-
gest that there is a need for clear rehabilita-
tion objectives and a consistent protocol
for monitoring rehabilitated areas.
Waggitt and McQuade (1994) reported
that generic environmental criteria, or stand-
ards regarding closure and rehabilitation
monitoring, are not supported across
the industry and in most cases only broad
guidelines exist. This apparent lack of
industry-wide support is perhaps due to
the range of final land uses and variations in
soil and environmental conditions encoun-
tered across Australia. Australian and New
Zealand Minerals and Energy Council and
Minerals Council of Australia (2000) Stra-
tegic Framework for Mine Closure advocate
that closure planning should be an integral
part of mining operations, but there is little
evidence of this occurring in the planning
stages of a mine.We concur with Australian
and New Zealand Minerals and Energy
Council and Minerals Council of Australia
(2000, p. 14) view that ‘insufficient atten-
tion is being directed to the establishment
of sustainable ecosystems as a long-term
goal. The issue of developing guidelines
or standards for closure purposes needs to
be addressed. Where possible appropriate
standards should be developed that pro-
vide benchmarks against which to measure
performance’.
The higher incidence of flora monitor-
ing compared with fauna monitoring in WA
mines probably reflects the DoIR focus on
soils and vegetation in rehabilitation rather
than the development of functional ecosys-
tems (Department of Minerals and Energy
1996).This was most evident in the Depart-
ment of Minerals and Energy Guidelines
for Mining in Arid Environments that
provide only a passing reference to fauna,
where the rehabilitation chapter focuses
on the soils, erosion control and vegeta-
tion. No mention was made of restoring
habitats that were destroyed by mining; the
closest this document gets to the notion
of creating a functional ecosystem is to ‘use
a variety of local seeds in the revegetation
process’. Mining companies, as land man-
agers, should aim to leave the site in a con-
dition where their past existence could go
unnoticed.We acknowledge that this is not
always possible for mining companies as
the scale and impact of the disturbance
(i.e. pits and waste dumps) fundamentally
alter the landscape. For example, creating
a waste rock dump in an area that was a
mulga flat and rehabilitating it with mulga
flat vegetation is unlikely to result in the
development of a mulga flat functional eco-
system, as some of the fauna species will
not colonize or survive on hilly areas. Some
mining companies would argue that the
creation of functional ecosystems similar to
those that existed prior to the disturbance
would make the mine economically non-
viable, particularly as overseas competitors
are not required to meet similar standards.
In circumstances where it is neither reason-
able nor feasible to achieve this standard,
then being ‘environmentally neutral’
may be the next best option ( Thompson &
Thompson 2002). Environmentally neutral
in this context means that if the mine can
not return the site to its predisturbance
functional ecosystem, then a contribution
elsewhere to restoring a degraded environ-
ment can be used to offset the environmen-
tal damage done by the mine.
Can a self-sustaining
functional ecosystem similar
to that in the adjacent
undisturbed area be created
on a waste dump?
Currently mining companies are able to
reseed with species that are cheap and easy
ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 5 NO 1 APRIL 2004
RESEARCH REPORT
to grow, but may not be similar to the species
that existed prior to the disturbance or
similar to that in the adjacent areas. For
example, it is common in the Goldfields in
WA for disturbed sites in eucalypt or acacia
shrubland to be rehabilitated with chenopods
(e.g. Bottle Creek; Anderson et al. 2002).
Chenopods are often used in reseeding
because they are cheap, highly fecund,
germinate quickly and are generally more
accessible than eucalypt seed. Vegetation
communities created from a mix of non-
local seed are unlikely to develop into a
functional ecosystem that approximates
that which existed or similar to that in the
adjacent undisturbed areas, as it is unlikely
to create the appropriate range of habitat
niches.There are a number of reports in the
literature that have assessed the similarity
of the developing ecosystem on rehabilitated
lands with the adjacent undisturbed areas
( Majer 1983/84; Fox & Fox 1978; Kabay &
Nichols 1980; Fox & Fox 1984; Nichols &
Bamford 1985; Majer 1990; Twigg & Fox
1991; Majer & de Kock 1992; Halliger 1993;
Knight 1998; Armstrong & Nichols 2000;
Thompson 2001; Andersen et al. 2003) and
only one of these reported convergence in
faunal indicators in Australia (Andersen
et al. 2003). Andersen et al. (2003) are the
first to report a rehabilitated area having
similar functional groups and species richness
for ants compared to an unmined reference
site and even then it was achieved in only
one of eight sites examined.
Presuming it is the objective of the mine
to create a self-sustaining, functional eco-
system in the rehabilitated area that is sim-
ilar to that in the adjacent undisturbed area,
then both flora and fauna monitoring strat-
egies must be implemented. Monitoring with
a single bioindicator taxon or group (e.g.
invertebrates, mammals, reptiles or avifauna,
etc.) is probably insufficient to obtain a
complete picture of rehabilitation success.
Other aspects of the rehabilitation program
need to be monitored. Ecosystem Function
Analysis ( Tongway & Ludwig 1994; Tong-
way 2001a,b; Tongway & Hindley 2002)
has recently become a popular monitoring
strategy to assess some of these parameters.
This approach looks at the structural
stability of a created landform and the
vegetation and habitat complexity; however,
it reveals nothing about the development
31
RESEARCH REPORT
of faunal assemblages.Therefore, an integrated
monitoring program that assesses both physical
and bio-indicators is necessary to obtain a
complete picture of progress towards cre-
ating a functional ecosystem. It is obviously
incorrect to assume that by providing a suit-
able soil structure (i.e. non-eroding, nutrient-
rich, non-saline), and planting with species
that are exotic to the specific location, the
rehabilitated site will eventually evolve into
a functional ecosystem. It is, however, more
reasonable to assume that by providing a
relatively stable and suitable substrate and a
vegetation community similar to that in the
adjacent undisturbed area, fauna from the
adjacent area will colonize the rehabilitated
site eventually creating a functional ecosystem.
This is only likely to occur if there are suitable
interfaces between the undisturbed area
and the rehabilitated site as some species
may be barred from entering the area if they
have to travel across inhospitable terrain.
Recently in WA, the onus was put on
mining companies to provide regulators
with details of what they felt were suitable
rehabilitation outcomes (Biggs 2000). Once
these details have been approved and the
level of rehabilitation achieved, the per-
formance bonds for the land can be returned.
One must seriously question the wisdom
of this government approach when there
is little evidence to suggest mining com-
panies are committed to the development
of functional ecosystems in rehabilitated
areas. It must also be of concern that
government regulators are prepared to sign-
off on rehabilitated areas when there is no
evidence to indicate that a functional eco-
system will eventually evolve in the rehabil-
itated area (e.g. Anderson et al. 2002).
Some respondents to our survey com-
mented that monitoring was planned for
the future, but it was not considered a
major concern at present. Acceptance that
monitoring will be done in the future when
closure is a more pressing issue does not
reflect the policy of Australian and New
Zealand Minerals and Energy Council and
Minerals Council of Australia (2000) and
possibly reflects a level of apathy in the
WA mining industry towards this aspect of
mine operations. Rehabilitation monitoring
should be planned from the outset and not
as an after thought. Monitoring, however,
should have a clear purpose. There is no
32 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 5 NO 1 APRIL 2004
point in monitoring higher order bio-
indicators (e.g. reptiles or mammals, etc.)
until the vegetation in the rehabilitated
areas is well established.
Although there are a variety of strategies
and techniques being used in rehabilitation
monitoring, there was no evidence of a
consistent and systematic pattern or proto-
col being used in the WA mining industry.
Comments like ‘. . . visually inspect at times . . .’
and ‘. . . photographic records of oppor-
tunistic sitings . . .’ recorded on our ques-
tionnaire are not systematic methods of
monitoring. If the rehabilitation objective
is to create a near-natural, self-sustaining,
functional ecosystem, all components of
the system, including soil stability, floral
structure, habitat construction and faunal
diversity in the ecosystem must be able to
tolerate stochastic disturbance events (i.e.
fire, droughts, floods and human disturb-
ance) similar to that in an undisturbed
environment. Regular and systematic mon-
itoring of the flora and fauna on rehabil-
itated land and the adjacent undisturbed
areas must therefore become integral
components of a rehabilitation process.
Monitoring of adjacent undisturbed areas
enables environmental managers to under-
stand natural seasonal and year-to-year
variation in faunal diversity and abundance
that could otherwise be misinterpreted.
If the mining industry in WA wishes to
be environmentally responsible we argue
that it should focus its rehabilitation
objectives on the creation of self-sustaining,
functional ecosystems similar to those in
the adjacent undisturbed areas. This will
require that industry monitors the stability
of the earth works in rehabilitated areas,
and systematically monitors the flora and
fauna to determine progress towards creat-
ing the appropriate functional ecosystem.
Likewise, if the industry is to become more
environmentally responsible, then regulators
need to indicate that the primary objective
for most rehabilitation programs is to
create self-sustaining, functional ecosystems
similar to those that existed prior to the
disturbance.
Acknowledgements
OMG Cawse Nickel Pty Ltd, Placer Dome
Asia Pacific Kalgoorlie West Operations, the
School of Natural Sciences, the Centre for
Ecosystem Management at Edith Cowan
University and the Minerals and Energy
Research Institute of Western Australia
financially supported this research.
References
Andersen A. N. (1994) Ants as indicators of resto-
ration success following mining in northern
Australia. 1994 AusIMM Annual Conference.
Australian Mining Looks North – ‘the Chal-
lenges and Choices’. 5–9 August. Australian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Darwin.
Andersen A. N., Hoffmann B. D. and Somes J. (2003)
Ants as indicators of minesite restoration: com-
munity recovery at one of eight rehabilitation
sites in central Queensland. Ecological Man-
agement and Restoration 4, S12–S19.
Anderson K. (2001) Criteria for Closure – What Are
They? Draft Form of the New Criteria. Current
issues for mine closure. Centre for Land Reha-
bilitation, Perth.
Anderson K., Lacy H., Jeanes B. and Bouwhuis E.
(2002) Ecosystem function analysis monitoring
of the decommissioned Bottle Creek Minesite
(1998–2001). 2002 Workshop on Environmen-
tal Management in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas,
pp. 125–130. Goldfields Environmental Man-
agement Group, Kalgoorlie.
Armstrong K. and Nichols O. (2000) Long-term
trends in avifaunal recolonisation of rehabil-
itated bauxite mines in the jarrah forest of
south-western Australia. Forest Ecology and
Management 126, 213–225.
Australian and New Zealand Minerals and Energy
Council and Minerals Council of Australia.
(2000) Strategic Framework for Mine Closure.
Australian and New Zealand Minerals and
Energy Council and Minerals Council of Aus-
tralia, Canberra.
Bellairs S. M. (1998) Determining ecological indica-
tors for native vegetation and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation success at the blair athol and
tarong mines. In: Proceedings of the Workshop
on Indicators of Ecosystem Rehabilitation Suc-
cess 23–24 October (eds C. J. Asher and L. C.
Bell). Australian Centre for Mining Environmen-
tal Research, Melbourne.
Biggs B. (2000) Developing a national strategic
framework on mine closure. 2000 Workshop
on Environmental Management in Arid and
Semi-Arid Areas, pp. 3–10. Goldfields Land
Rehabilitation Group, Kalgoorlie.
Bisevac L. and Majer J. D. (1999) An evaluation of
invertebrates for use as success indicators for
minesite rehabilitation. In: The Other 99%. The
Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates
(eds W. Ponder and D. Lunney), pp. 46–49.
Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of
NSW, Sydney.
Chamber of Minerals and Energy. (2000) Mine Clos-
ure Guidelines for Minerals Operations in
Western Australia. Chamber of Minerals and
Energy, Perth.
Department of Minerals and Energy. Guidelines For
Mining in Arid Environments. (1996). Depart-
ment of Minerals and Energy, Perth.
Elliott P., Gardner J., Allen D, and Butcher G. (1996)
Completion Criteria for Alcoa of Australia

Ltd's Bauxite Mine Rehabilitation. In: 3rd
International and 21st Annual Mineral Council
of Australia Environmental Workshop — Building
international partnerships in environmental
management for the minerals industry 14–
18 October. Minerals Council of Australia,
Newcastle.
Fox B. J. and Fox M. D. (1978) Recolonisation of
coastal heath by Pseudomys novaehollandiae
(Muridae) following sand mining. Australian
Journal of Ecology 3, 447–465.
Fox B. J. and Fox M. D. (1984) Small-mammal recol-
onization of open-forest following sand mining.
Australian Journal of Ecology 9, 241–252.
Grant C. D., Duggin J., Meek I. and Lord M. (2001)
End point criteria and successional pathways
for manganese mining rehabilitation on Groote
Eylandt, Northern Territory. 26th Annual
Minerals Council of Australia Environmental
Workshop, p. 14. Minerals Council of Australia,
Adelaide.
Halliger M. (1993) Reptiles on regenerating mine
sites in western New South Wales. In: Herpeto-
logy in Australia: a Diverse Discipline (eds
D. Lunney and D. Ayers), pp. 327–332. Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales, New
South Wales.
Kabay E. D. and Nichols O. G. (1980) Use of reha-
bilitated bauxite mined areas in the Jarrah
Forest by vertebrate fauna. Alcoa of Australia
Limited, p. 9. Environmental Research Bulletin
Number 8.
Knight R. (1998) Recalcitrant recolonisers: assess-
ment of rehabilitation success through study
of small faunal assemblages. In: Proceedings
of the Workshop on Indicators of Ecosystem
Rehabilitation Success (eds C. J. Asher and
L. C. Bell), pp. 53–64. Australian Centre for
Mining Environmental Research, Melbourne.
Majer J. D. (1983/84) Recolonisation by ants in
rehabilitated open-cut mines in northern Aus-
tralia. Reclamation and Revegetation Research
2, 279–298.
Majer J. D. (1990) Rehabilitation of disturbed land:
long-term prospects for the recolonization of
fauna. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of
Australia 16, 509–519.
Majer J. D. and de Kock A. C. (1992) Ant recolon-
isation of sand mines near Richards Bay, South
Africa: an evaluation of progress with rehabili-
tation. South African Journal of Science 88,
31–36.
Minerals Council of Australia. (2000) Australian
Minerals Industry code for environmental man-
agement 2000. Minerals Council of Australia,
Canberra.
Muir B. G. (1996) Completion criteria derived from
in-field data. In: Goldfields Land Rehabilitation
Group 1996 Workshop on Rehabilitation of
Arid and Semi-Arid Areas. Goldfield Land
Rehabilitation Group, Boulder.
Nichols O. G. (1997) Fauna as indicators of ecosys-
tem success. In: Fauna Habitat Reconstruction
After Mining Workshop (eds C. J. Asher and
L. C. Bell), pp. 47–55. Australian Centre for
Mining Environmental Research, Adelaide.
Nichols O. G. and Bamford M. J. (1985) Reptile
and frog utilisation of rehabilitated bauxite
minesites and dieback-affected sites in
Western Australia’s jarrah (Eucalyptus
marginata) forest. Biological Conservation
34, 227–249.
Osbourne J. M. and Brearley D. R. (1998) Assess-
ment Procedures and Completion Criteria for
Arid Mine Waste Rock Dumps: A MERIWA-
Sponsored Program at five field sites. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Workshop on Indicators of
Ecosystem Rehabilitation Success (eds C. J.
Asher and L. C. Bell). Australian Centre for
Environmental Research, Melbourne.
Tacey W., Treloar J. and Gordine R. (1993) Com-
pletion criteria for minesite rehabilitation in the
ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 5 NO 1 APRIL 2004
RESEARCH REPORT
arid zone of Western Australia. In: Proceedings
of Green and Gold: Goldfields International
Conference on Arid Landcare. 29 October–1
November. Kalgoorlie.
Thompson S. A. (2001) Fauna communities as an
indicator of rehabilitation success — a prelim-
inary analysis. Goldfields Land Rehabilitation
Group Annual General Meeting, Kalgoorlie.
Thompson G. and Thompson S. (2002) Terrestrial
fauna surveys: why, when and how much?
2002 Workshop on Environmental Manage-
ment in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas. pp. 25–36.
Goldfields Environmental Management Group,
Kalgoorlie.
Tongway D. (2001a) Assessing Rehabilitation Suc-
cess. CSIRO, Kalgoorlie.
Tongway D. (2001b) The EFA Monitoring Proce-
dure — an Overview. Indicators of Ecosystem
Rehabilitation Success. Centre for Land Reha-
bilitation, Perth.
Tongway D. and Hindley N. (2002) Ecosystem
function analysis: some recent progress. 2002
Workshop on Environmental Management
in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas. pp. 139–144.
Goldfields Environmental Management Group,
Kalgoorlie.
Tongway D. and Ludwig J. (1994) Small-scale
resource heterogeneity in semi-arid land-
scapes. Pacific Conservation Biology 1, 201–
208.
Twigg L. E. and Fox B. J. (1991) Recolonisation of
regenerating open forest by terrestrial lizards
following sand mining. Australian Journal of
Ecology 16, 137–148.
Waggitt P. W. and McQuade C. V. (1994) Mine
close-out criteria. Present Guidelines and
Future Trends in Australia. 1994 Ausimm
Annual Conference. Australian Mining Looks
North — ‘the Challenges and Choices’. 5–9
August. The Australian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Darwin.
33