View
12
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
AUSTRALIANABORIGINALMINING
CORPORATIONLTD
EXTENSIONMININGPROJECTASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION
ADDENDUM
3FEBRUARY2015
Preparedfor:AAMCLtdByPrestonConsultingPtyLtd
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
PRESTONCONSULTINGEmail: pscott@prestonconsulting.com.auWebsite: www.prestonconsulting.com.auPhone: +61892210011Fax: +61892214783StreetAddress: Level3,201AdelaideTerrace,EASTPERTHWesternAustralia6004PostalAddress: POBox3093,EastPerth,WesternAustralia,6892DisclaimerThis Report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Australian Aboriginal MiningCorporationLtdandissubjecttoandissuedinaccordancewiththeagreementbetweenPrestonConsultingPtyLtdandAustralianAboriginalMiningCorporationLtd.PrestonConsultingPtyLtdacceptsnoliabilityorresponsibilitywhatsoeverfororinrespectofanyuseoforrelianceuponthisReportbyanythirdparty.CopyingofanypartofthisReportwithouttheexpresspermissionofPrestonConsultingPtyLtdandAustralianAboriginalMiningCorporationLtdisnotpermitted.
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | iii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4
The Proposal .............................................................................................................................4
Assessment Background Information ......................................................................................4
2 FLORA AND VEGETATION .................................................................................................. 5
Habitat of Sauropus sp. Koodaideri Detritals ...........................................................................5
Additional Surveys. ...................................................................................................................6
Mine Development Envelope Boundary ...................................................................................6
Location of Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 10
3 SUBTERRANEAN FAUNA ................................................................................................. 11
Proposed Disturbance per Geological Unit ........................................................................... 11
Geological Connectivity ......................................................................................................... 12
Depth of Potential Troglofauna Habitat ............................................................................... 16
Suitability of Geological Units for Troglofauna Habitat ........................................................ 16
4 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 18
5 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 20
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure 1: Original and Revised Mine Development Area ....................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Vegetation Map Showing Revised Unsurveyed Portion of Mine Development Area ............. 8
Figure 3: Revised Proposal Area to Reduce Unsurveyed Portion of Mine Development Area .............. 9
Figure 4: Geological Cross Sections ...................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Locations of Geological Cross Sections ................................................................................. 14
Figure 6: Spatial Extent of Geological Units ......................................................................................... 15
LISTOFTABLES
Table1:SummaryofExtensionMiningProposal .............................................................................. 4 Table2:KeyCharacteristicsoftheProposal. ................................................................................... 10 Table3:ProposedDisturbanceofNorthDepositperGeologicalUnitofSurfaceGeology ........... 11 Table4:ProposedDisturbanceofNorthDepositperGeologicalUnitofSurfaceGeology ........... 11
LISTOFAPPENDICES
Appendix1:ConfirmationPlantSpecimenisnotSauropusAppendix2:RevisedProposalAreaShapefiles
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 4
1 INTRODUCTION
THEPROPOSAL
AustralianAboriginalMiningCorporationLimited(AAMC)isproposingtodeveloptheExtensionMiningProject (theProposal)which seeks tomine ironore from the superficialChannel IronDeposits (CID) found above thewater table. The Proposal Area is located approximately 70kilometres (km)north‐westofNewman in thePilbararegionofWesternAustralia (WA). TheProposalwillresultintheproductionofapproximately2‐4Mtpaofironore.
AbriefdescriptionoftheProposalisprovidedinTable1below.
Table1:SummaryofExtensionMiningProposal
SummaryoftheProposal
ProposalTitle ExtensionMiningProposal
ProponentName AAMCLimited
ShortDescription TheProposalistomineironorefromthesuperficialChannelIronDepositsabovethewatertable at the Extension Deposit. Some or all of the ore may be upgraded through abeneficiationprocesswithsolarcellsusedtoconsolidatetailings. Wasterockandtailingsaretobeplacedinsidetheminepits.
The Proposal requires supporting infrastructure including an access road (two options),internal roads, accommodation camp, ore crushing and processing plant with associatedconveyors and stockyard, solar drying cells, ROM pad, water supply system and othersupportinginfrastructure.
ASSESSMENTBACKGROUNDINFORMATION
AAMCsubmittedtotheOfficeoftheEnvironmentalProtectionAuthority(OEPA)on5December2014 an Assessment on Proponent Information (API) document (AAMC 2014), outlining thepotential environmental impacts and proposed management measures associated with theProposal. An initial set of comments were received from the OEPA on 5 January 2015 andaddressedinarevisedAPIsubmittedon14January2015.
On 22 January 2015, a meeting was held with the OEPA to discuss additional queries onsubterraneanfauna,floraandvegetation.FollowingthismeetingaletterwasreceivedfromtheOEPAon22 January2015seekingadditional informationonhow impactsassociatedwith theProposal may be managed. Eight separate queries were outlined in this letter and it wasrequestedthattheinformationbeingsoughtshouldbeprovidedintheformofanaddendumtobeattachedtotheexistingAPI.ThisdocumentformstheaddendumtotheAPI.
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 5
2 FLORAANDVEGETATION
HABITATOFSAUROPUSSP.KOODAIDERIDETRITALSQuery 1: Identification of habitat in themine development envelope suitable for Sauropus sp.Koodaideridetritals.
Response
SingleSpecimen
ThefloraandvegetationsurveyundertakenbyPhoenixfortheExtensionProject(Phoenix2014a)identified a single sterile plant of what was thought to be Sauropus sp. Koodaideri detritals(Sauropus).TheplantwaslocatedinasmallgorgewithintheMineDevelopmentEnvelopebutoutsideoftheorebodyandplanneddisturbancearea.Theplantwassterile,makingidentificationdifficult.
FollowingfurtherconsultationwithRioTinto,thesinglespecimenwasprovidedtoMrAndrewPerkins (DPaW –WA Herbarium) viaMr Jeremy Naaykens (Rio Tinto) for confirmation. MrPerkinshasbeenunabletoidentifytheplantspecimen,buthasconfirmedthatitisNOTSauropussp.Koodaideridetritals(seeAppendix1).Hereafteritiscalled“UnidentifiedSpecimen”.
AAMCproposestoregularlyreturntotheareawheretheUnidentifiedSpecimenwasfoundtosearchforotherindividualsandtotryandlocateanymaterialthatwouldenableidentificationtobecompleted.
SauropusHabitat
Sauropushabitatislikelytobeconfinedtogullies,valleysandcliffsthatareoutsideoftheorebody.The only potential sources of impact being direct disturbance from roads or other linearinfrastructurethatmustcrossthesehabitatareas,orindirectdisturbancefromadjacentactivities.Thepotentialhabitatforthisspeciesisbrieflyreviewedbelow.
Phoenix(2014a)identifiedthatapreferredhabitatforSauropusisinrockyslopes,beneathclifflinesofdetrital iron formationsand inrockgullieswithin theKoodaideriMiningLease(KML)area. Vegetation and flora surveys were undertaken by Biota for the proposed Rio TintoKoodaideriprojectin2010and2011.Initially,Sauropuswasrecordedfromasinglelocationonasteeprockyhillslope,approximately18kmnorthoftheExtensionMineDevelopmentEnvelope(Biota2012a).Followingthe2010and2011surveys,adetailedstudyoftheareawhereSauropuswasfirstidentifiedwasconducted.PreferredhabitatsforSauropuswereidentifiedaspartofthisdetailedstudy.ThekeydriverforSauropusdistributionappearstobeshelterfromfire,withallknownlocationsbeingbetween500mand700mabovesealevelintheKoodaideriearea(EcoLogicalAustralia,2013).ItwasdeterminedthatSauropushasapreferencefor:
Habitatwithinthe500‐700mrangeofelevation(andmorecommonlyinthe550‐650mrange);
Smallgulliesandcliffsthatprovidesomepotentialshelterfromfire(oftenevidencedbyalackofspinifex);
Geological correlation with substrates broadly categorised as belonging to the JoffrememberoftheBrockmanIronFormation;and
VegetationtypicallydominatedbyEucalyptusleucophloia(andothers).
Theseformalogicalcriteriaforfurthertargetedsurveywork.
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 6
AsatearlyJune2013,596individualsofSauropushavebeenrecordedwithina30kmsectionofthenorthernboundaryof theHamersleyRangesasaresultofadditional surveys(EcoLogicalAustralia,2013).
TargetedSurveys
TominimisepotentialimpactsonSauropushabitat,AAMCproposestoundertakethefollowing:
Adesktophabitat assessment to identify suitablehabitat forSauropuswithin theMineDevelopment Envelope will be undertaken prior to the commencement of grounddisturbanceworks. Thehabitat assessmentwill bebasedon the four factors outlinedabove;
Where potential Sauropus habitat is identified in areas proposed to be disturbed, atargetedsurveywillbeundertakenintheseareas;
WherethetargetedsurveyhasdeterminednoSauropusplantsexist,workswillcontinueintheseareas;and
Where the targeted survey has identified the presence of Sauropus plants, AAMCwillprepare an infrastructure plan that shows the location of the Sauropus plants anddemonstrateshowimpactsareavoidedorminimisedwherepracticable.
ADDITIONALSURVEYS.Query2:Confirmationof(a)theproponent’scommitmenttoconductFloraandVegetationsurveysof any unsurveyed areas prior to disturbance, and (b) to conduct further targeted surveys forSauropussp.Koodaideridetritalsinanyareastobedisturbedfortheconstructionofinfrastructure.
Response
Item(a):AsdocumentedinAAMC(2014),AAMCproposetoconductFloraandVegetationsurveysofanyunsurveyedareaspriortodisturbance.
Item(b)hasbeenaddressedinSection2.1above.
MINEDEVELOPMENTENVELOPEBOUNDARYQuery3:Confirmationastowhethertheminedevelopmentenvelopecanbereducedtominimiseunsurveyed areas in the north east corner. If so, please provide a figure showing the reviseddevelopmentenvelopeandassociatedspatialdata.
Response
AAMCcommitstoreducingtheextentoftheMineDevelopmentEnvelopeintheunsurveyedarea.Figure1illustratestheoriginalandrevisedMineDevelopmentEnvelope.DuetochangesinthesizeoftheMineDevelopmentEnvelope(reducedby48haofunsurveyedarea(Figure2)‐from848 ha to 795 ha) and Northern Access Road Development Envelope a revised Table of KeyCharacteristicsisprovidedbelow(Table2).TheNorthernAccessRoadDevelopmentEnvelopehas alsobeenmodified toensure that it connects to the revisedMineDevelopmentEnvelope.ShapefilesfortherevisedMineDevelopmentEnvelopeandNorthernAccessRoadDevelopmentEnvelopeareprovidedinAppendix2,withtherevisedenvelopeboundariesillustratedinFigure3.
LegendRevised Mine Development Envelope
Original Mine Development EnvelopeMine Study AreaProposed PitsProposed Infrastructure
Priority flora survey records(Phoenix 2014)") Unidentified Specimen") Priority 3
0 500 1,000metres
ÜExtension Project
Mine Study Area andLocation of Priority Flora
(Phoenix 2014)
Date: 2/02/20151:30,000Scale: Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 4_Study_Area.mxd
")
")")
Sida sp. Barlee Range 1
Sida sp. Barlee Range 2
Unidentified Specimen
Original MineDevelopment Envelope
710,000
710,000
712,000
712,000
714,000
714,000
7,488
,000
7,488
,000
7,490
,000
7,490
,000
7,492
,000
7,492
,000
LegendMine Development Envelope
Vegetation typeVegetation 1Vegetation 2Vegetation 3Vegetation 4Vegetation 5
Vegetation 6Vegetation 7Vegetation 8Vegetation 9Vegetation 10Vegetation 11Vegetation 12Vegetation 13
0 500 1,000metres
Ü Extension ProjectVegetation Types within
Mine Proposal Area
Date: 29/01/20151:30,000Scale: Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 6_Vegetation_Types.mxd
Veg1
Veg10
Veg8
Veg8
Veg8
Veg1
Veg1
Veg8
Veg8
Veg8
Veg4
Veg7
Veg4
Veg11
Veg4
Veg9
Veg4
Veg4
Veg9
Veg9
Veg3
Veg8Veg4
Veg3
Veg3
Veg4
Veg4Veg4
Veg4Veg3
Veg8
Veg9Veg9
Veg8
Veg9
Veg3
Veg3
Veg11
Veg3
Veg8
Veg6
Veg6Veg9
710,000
710,000
712,000
712,000
714,000
714,000
7,488
,000
7,488
,000
7,490
,000
7,490
,000
7,492
,000
7,492
,000
710,000
710,000
720,000
720,000
7,490
,000
7,490
,000
7,500
,000
7,500
,000
7,510
,000
7,510
,000
LegendSealed RoadRailwayProposed pitsMine Development EnvelopeRoad Development EnvelopeIBRA Subregions 0 2,000 4,000
metres
Ü Extension ProjectProposal Area
Date: 29/01/20151:150,000Scale: Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 2_Project_Layout.mxd
HamersleyIBRA Subregion
FortescueIBRA Subregion
Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp, Earthstar Geographics LLC Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2015 Microsoft Corporation
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 10
Table2:KeyCharacteristicsoftheProposal.
SummaryoftheProposal
ProposalTitle ExtensionMiningProposal
ProponentName AAMCLimited
ShortDescription TheProposalistomineironorefromthesuperficialChannelIronDepositsabovethewatertableattheExtensionDeposit.Someoralloftheoremaybeupgradedthroughabeneficiationprocesswithsolarcellsusedtoconsolidatetailings.Wasterockandtailingsaretobeplacedinsidetheminepits.
TheProposalrequiressupportinginfrastructureincludinganaccessroad(twooptions),internalroads,accommodationcamp,orecrushingandprocessingplantwithassociatedconveyorsandstockyard,solardryingcells,ROMpad,watersupplysystem,contingencyforexplosivesstorageandothersupportinginfrastructure.
Projectlifespan Expectedtobeapproximately15years
PhysicalElements
Element Location ProposedExtentAuthorised
MineDevelopmentEnvelope
Figure1ofAddendumReport
Clearingnomorethan380hawithina795haminedevelopmentenvelope
AccessRoadDevelopmentEnvelope
Figure3ofAddendumReport
Clearingnomorethan150hawithina4,714haaccessroaddevelopmentenvelope.
OperationalElements
Element Location ProposedExtentAuthorised
WaterUse Throughoutminearea.Abstractionofupto0.5GL/yrofgroundwaterforwatersupply.
LOCATIONOFINFRASTRUCTUREQuery4:Confirmationastowhetherthelocationofinfrastructurewithinthemineareaisflexibleandcanbealteredbasedontheresultsofanyadditionalsurveys.
Response
AAMCconfirmsthatwiththeexceptionoftheminepits,thereissomeflexibilityinthelocationofotherinfrastructureintheminedevelopmentenvelope.Shouldconservationsignificantfeaturesbeidentifiedinadditionalsurveys,AAMCwillreviewalternativelocationstoavoidorminimiseanypotentialimpactonthesefeatures.
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 11
3 SUBTERRANEANFAUNA
PROPOSEDDISTURBANCEPERGEOLOGICALUNITQuery5:Atableshowingtheextentofproposeddisturbance(asapercentage)withineachoftherelevantgeologicalunitsthatmayprovidetroglofaunahabitat.
Response
Table3 (Northdeposit) andTable4 (Westdeposit) show theextentofproposeddisturbancewithineachoftherelevantgeologicalunitsthatmayprovidetroglofaunahabitat.Thecalculateddisturbancesarebasedonmappingof thesurfacegeology andbasedon thegeological crosssectionsthroughtheNorthdeposit(Figure4).Theseimpactcalculationsmayvastlyoverestimatethepercentageofeachgeologicalunitimpactedbytheproposedpitsastheydonotaccountforsub‐surfacegeology.Forexample,theore‐bearingHematite‐goethitedeposits(Czr)extendunderallcolluvialsediments(Czc) intheNorthdepositandthereforetheCzrsurfaceexpression(onwhichthecalculationsinTable3arebased)ismuchsmallerthanitsactualextent.TheCzrunitisdividedintoCzr1–theeasternsurfaceexpression,andCzr2,thewesternsurfaceexpression.Thecalculated17.1%impactonCzr(Northdeposit–Table3)mustbeconsideredgreatlyinflated,butit is not possible to more accurately estimate the impact on Czr due to the lack of regionalgeologicaldatabeyondsurfacegeology.
Theproportionsofthesurfacegeologyimpacted,combinedwiththesubsurfaceconnectivity(seeSection3.2below)demonstratethatthe likelihoodof theminingoperationspreventing futureconnectivitybetweenareasoftroglofaunahabitatisverylow.
Table3:ProposedDisturbanceofNorthDepositperGeologicalUnitofSurfaceGeology
AreaColluvium(Czc)
WeeliWolliFormationBandedIron
Formation–BIF(PLHj)
Haematite‐goethiteonBIF(Czr)
Total
Czr1 Czr2 Czrtotal1
Impactarea(ha) 77.1 0.7 6.7 151.2 157.9 235.7Totalcontinuousarea(incl.beyondimpact)(ha)
12,087.0 7,261.9 687.5 237.6 925.1
Impactareaaspercentage(%)oftotalcontinuousarea
0.64 0.01 0.98 63.62 17.1
1Czr1andCzr2consolidatedbasedonFigure3(seealsochapter3.2below)
Table4:ProposedDisturbanceofNorthDepositperGeologicalUnitofSurfaceGeology
Area RobePisolite(Czp)
WeeliWolliFormationBandedIronFormation–
BIF(PLHj)
Total
Impactarea(ha) 19.9 1.5 21.4Totalcontinuousarea(incl.beyond
impact)(ha)561.1 7,261.9
Impactareaaspercentage(%)oftotalcontinuousarea
3.5 0.02
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 12
GEOLOGICALCONNECTIVITYQuery6:AdditionalinformationthatdescribesthegeologicalconnectivitybetweenthegeologicalunitsCzr1andCzr2asshowninFigure3‐1oftheTroglofaunaSurveyreport.
Response
The occurrence of the same troglofauna species of presumably very different ecologicalrequirementsanddispersalcapabilities(i.e.theclitellatewormEnchytraeus‘marillana’andthespiderPrethopalpus‘marillana’)intheCzr1(boresRC121andRC193)andCzr2(multiplebores)units strongly suggest very good geological connectivity between these geological units. Thegeologicalcrosssections(Figure4,locationsshowninFigure5)confirmthisconnectivityasboththeore‐bearingHematite‐goethitedeposit(Czr),butalsotheunderlyingRobePisolite(PLHj)arecontinuous under the colluvial sediment (Czc). Figure 6 illustrates the spatial extent of thegeologicalunitsinquestion.
Geological Cross Section 7491450 North
Geological Cross Section 7490500 North
Bores with troglofauna
Bores without troglofauna
Other drill holes
Czc: Colluvium - partly consolidated quartzand rock fragments in silt and sand matrix;old valley-fill deposits
Czr: Hematite-goethite deposits on bandediron-formation and adjacent scree deposits
PLHj: Weeli Wolli Formation - banded iron-formation (commonly jaspilitic), pelite, andnumerous metadolerite sills
Pit Outline
A A’
B B’
GeologyLegend
Extension ProjectGeological Cross Sections
Date: 29/01/2015
1:8 Vert. Exag.Scale: Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: Sections.cdr
30m below average ground level
40m below average ground level
30m below average ground level
40m below average ground level
Conceptual groundwater level
LegendMine Development EnvelopeProposed Pits
! Bores with troglofauna!( Bores without troglofauna
Cross Section Lines
Surface GeologyCzc: Colluvium - partly consolidated quartzand rock fragments in silt and sand matrix;old valley-fill depositsCzp: Robe Pisolite - pisolitic limonitedeposits developed along river channelsCzr: Hematite-goethite deposits on bandediron-formation and adjacent scree depositsPLHj: Weeli Wolli Formation - banded iron-formation (commonly jaspilitic), pelite, andnumerous metadolerite sills 0 500 1,000
metres
Ü Extension ProjectTroglofauna survey bores
and bores yielding troglofauna
Date: 30/01/20151:30,000Scale: Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 7_Troglofauna_Bores.mxd
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!
! !
Pit 1
Pit 2
Pit 3
Cross Section 7491450 North
Cross Section 7490500 North
A A'
B B'
RC184RC193
RC121 DC042
RC014RC013
RC250
RC087
RC015
DC072
DC026DC030
DC067
DC045
RC016
RC011
710,000
710,000
712,000
712,000
714,000
714,000
7,488
,000
7,488
,000
7,490
,000
7,490
,000
7,492
,000
7,492
,000
0 1,500 3,000metres
Ü Extension ProjectRegional GSWA Geology
Date: 2/02/20151:100,000Scale: Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 10_Geology.mxd
PLHb
Czc
PLHj
PLHj
Qa PLHj
PLHj
Czr
Czc
Czp
Czc
Czc
Czp
Czp
PLHj
Qa
Czp
Czp
PLHt
Czr
Czk
Qa
Czp
Czc
Czp
Czp
Qw
Czr
Qc
PLHb
Czp
PLHj
PLHj
PLHt
Czc
PLHj
Czc
Qa
Czc
Czp
Czc
Czk
Czc
Czp
Czp
Czp
Czc
Czr
Czp
Qa
Qa
PLHj
Czp
Qa
Qa
Qa
PLHj
Czr
Qw
Czc
Czc
PLHj
Qw
705,000
705,000
710,000
710,000
715,000
715,000
7,480
,000
7,480
,000
7,490
,000
7,490
,000
7,500
,000
7,500
,000
LegendMine Development EnvelopeQa: Alluvium - unconsolidated silt, sand, andgravel; in drainage channels and on adjacentfloodplainsQc: Colluvium-unconsolidated quartz androck fragments in soil; locally derived soil,and scree, and talus depositsQw: Alluvium and colluvium-red-brown sandyand clayey soil; on low slopes andsheetwash areasCzc: Colluvium - partly consolidated quartzand rock fragments in silt and sand matrix;old valley-fill deposits
Czk: Calcrete-sheet carbonate; found alongmajor drainage linesCzp: Robe Pisolite - pisolitic limonitedeposits developed along river channelsCzr: Hematite-goethite deposits on bandediron-formation and adjacent scree depositsPLHb: Brockman Iron Formation - bandediron-formation, chert, and pelitePLHj: Weeli Wolli Formation - banded iron-formation (commonly jaspilitic), pelite, andnumerous metadolerite sillsPLHt: Medium- to coarse-grainedmetadolerite sills intruded into HamersleyGroup
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 16
DEPTHOFPOTENTIALTROGLOFAUNAHABITAT
Query7:Anestimationofthedepthofpotentialtroglofaunahabitat,withparticularreferencetotheproposedpitvoids.
Response
Thedepthofpotentialtroglofaunahabitatislikelytobelimitedby:
Groundwater;and/or Rocktypesthatdonotdisplayvuggycharacteristics(littleornovoidspace).
Drillingonsitehasbeenrelativelyshallowwithmostholesonlydrilled20‐30mdeep.Fewdrillholeshaveintersectedgroundwater.Whereithasbeenintersecteditappearstobearound30‐40mbeneathsurface.Iftherocktypeissuitable,thedepthoftroglofaunahabitatwouldbeoftheorderof30‐40m(seeFigure4).Thepitsareplannedtobeminedtoapproximately20mdeep,likelytobeleavingaround10‐20mofpotentialtroglofaunahabitatabovegroundwater.
Whilsttheiron‐orebearingCID(CzrandCzpgeologicalunits)ismostprospectivefortroglofauna,onlyafractionofitscontinuousextentisearmarkedformining.Inaddition,theunderlyingrockoftheWeeliWolli formationalsoappearssuitabletohosttroglofauna(seeSection3.4below).WhilstthedepthoftheCIDlayersarevariableandthelandscapeisamosaicofmesasanddrainagelines, thewholesite isunderlainby theWeeliWolli formation (seeFigure4). Therefore, tworefugia are likely to be available for troglofauna from the impact area, i.e. CIDs around theproposedpitsandWeeliWolliformationbelow.
SUITABILITY OF GEOLOGICAL UNITS FOR TROGLOFAUNAHABITAT
Query8:Ananalysisofthesuitabilityofthegeologicalunitsinthemineandsurroundingareasfortroglofaunahabitat, includingconfirmationastowhetherthestructureofthegeologicalunits islikelytosupporttroglofauna.
Response
Allgeologicalunitsinthevicinityoftheproposedpitshavepotentialtosupporttroglofauna.TwogeologiesofCIDarepresent,includingHematite‐goethitedeposits(Czr)andRobePisolite(Czp).CIDsbelongtotheearliestgeologies thatrevealedtroglofauna inthePilbara(Biota2004)andhavesincebeenrecognisedashighlyprospectivetroglofaunahabitat(Biota2006;Harveyetal.2008).
Hematite‐goethite(Czr)
DrillcoresfromtheNorthdepositindicatedthattheCIDisporousandcontainsmanyvugsandfissures that could provide habitat for subterranean fauna (Phoenix 2014b; figure 3‐3). ThepotentialofCzrtohosttroglofaunawassubsequentlyconfirmedwheneightoutof14boresinthisgeology in the North deposit recorded a total of seven troglofauna species (Phoenix 2014b).RecentsurveysinthePilbaraalsoprovidedhightroglofaunadiversityinCzrgeologyatHancockProspecting’sMulgaDowns(Phoenix2012)andAscot’sWonmunna(Phoenix2014e).
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 17
RobePisolite(Czp)
SimilartotheCzrdepositoftheNorthdeposit,drillcoresoftheCzpdepositoftheWestdepositshowed extensive vugginess and fissures to structurally support troglofauna (Phoenix 2014b;figure3‐2);fourspeciesweresubsequentlycollectedfromsixoutofnineboressampledinCzpintheWestdepositdemonstratingthesuitabilityofthisgeologyfortroglofauna(Phoenix2014b).
ThepisoliticmesasoftheRobeValleywerethefirsttorecordtroglofaunainthePilbararegion(Biota2004)andmanystudieshavesubsequentlyfoundrichsubterraneanfaunasinthisgeology,includingmost recently inAPIManagement’sWPIOP (Biota 2010), IronOreHoldings (IOH’s)BucklandProject(Bennelongia2013;Phoenix2014d),RedHillIron’sPannawonicaTenements(Phoenix2014c)andDragonIron’sRockleaProject(Phoenix2014f).
The high prospectivity of Robe Pisolite to host troglofauna has also been recognised by theregulatorswhodeclaredtwoPriorityEcologicalCommunitiesfrompredominantlythisgeology,‘SubterraneaninvertebratecommunitiesofmesasintheRobeValleyregion’and‘SubterraneaninvertebratecommunityofpisolitichillsinthePilbara’(DPaW2014).
Colluvium(Czc)
Nodrillcoreswereavailabletostructurallyassessthecolluvialdepositsoftheproject;however,twoboresinCzcweresampledandbothrevealedatotaloffourspeciesoftroglofauna(Phoenix2014b).
AlluvialandcolluvialdepositshavefrequentlyproducedtroglofaunainthePilbara,includingatRioTinto’sHopeDowns4(Biota2009),Brockman’sMarillanaIronOreproject(Ecologia2010),HancockProspecting’sMurrayHills(Ecologia2011)andMulgaDowns(Phoenix2012).
WeeliWolliformation–bandedironformation(PLHj)
NodrillcoredataisavailableforthePLHjgeologicalunitineithertheNorthorWestdeposits.Banded iron formations (BIF) have continuously produced troglofauna throughout WesternAustralia, includingthePilbara, i.e.at IOH’sBucklandsatellites(Phoenix2014d),RedHill IronPannawonicaTenement’s(Phoenix2014c)andRioTinto’sKoodaideri(Biota2012b).Whilstmosttroglofauna in BIF’s of the Pilbara have been found in Brockman Formation, Weeli WolliFormationhasrevealedtroglofaunaatIOH’sIronValleyProject(Bennelongia2012).
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 18
4 REFERENCES
AAMC.2014. ExtensionMiningProject. AssessmentonProponent Information. UnpublishedreportpreparedforAAMCPtyLtd.
Bennelongia. 2012. Iron Valley Project: Subterranean fauna assessment. BennelongiaEnvironmentalConsultantsPtyLtd,Jolimont,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforIronOreHoldingsLtd.
Bennelongia.2013.BungarooSouth:subterraneanfaunaassessment—Finalreport.BennelongiaEnvironmental Consultants, Jolimont, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Iron OreHoldingsLtd.
Biota.2004.MesaAandBungarooCreekexplorationareas,subterraneanfaunasurvey.Perth,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRobeRiverIronMiningPtyLtd.
Biota. 2006. Mesa A and Robe Valley mesas troglobitic fauna survey. Subterranean faunaassessment. BiotaEnvironmental SciencesPty Ltd,West Leederville,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRobeRiverIronAssociates.
Biota.2009.HopeDowns4troglofaunaassessment.BiotaEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,WestLeederville,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRioTintoonbehalfofHamersleyHMS.
Biota. 2010.West Pilbara IronOre Project troglobitic fauna assessment. Biota EnvironmentalSciences Pty Ltd, West Leederville, WA. Unpublished report prepared for APIManagement.
Biota.2012a.AVegeatationandFloraSurveyoftheKoodaideriStudyAreaBiotaEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,WestLeederville,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRioTintoIronOrePtyLtd.
Biota.2012b.KoodaideritroglobiticfaunaassessmentphasesI–IV.BiotaEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,WestLeederville,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRioTintoIronOrePtyLtd.
DPaW. 2014. Priority Ecological Communities forWestern Australia, Version 21. Species andCommunities Branch, Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth, WA. Available at:http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants‐animals/threatened‐species/tecs/Priority_ecological_community_list_20_May2014.pdf
Eco Logical Australia. 2013. Koodaideri Iron ore Mine and Infrastructure project ‐ PublicEnvironmentalReview.ReportpreparedforRioTintoIronOrePtyLtd.StateAssessmentNumber:AssessmentNo.1933.EPBCActReferenceNumber:EPBC2012/6422
Ecologia.2010.BrockmanResourcesLtdMarillanaIronOreProjecttroglofaunareport.EcologiaEnvironment Pty Ltd, West Perth, WA. Unpublished report prepared for BrockmanResourcesLtd.
Ecologia.2011.MurrayHillTroglofaunaSurvey.EcologiaEnvironmentPtyLtd,WestPerth,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforHancockProspecting.
Harvey, M. S., Berry, O., Edward, K. L. & Humphreys, G. 2008. Molecular and morphologicalsystematicsofhypogeanschizomids (Schizomida:Hubbardiidae) in semiaridAustralia.InvertebrateSystematics22:167–194.
Phoenix.2012.SubterraneanfaunasurveyoftheMulgaDownsProject.PhoenixEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforHancockProspectingPtyLtd.
Phoenix.2014a.FloraandvegetationsurveyfortheExtensionProject.PhoenixEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,W.A.Unpublishedreportprepared forAustralianAboriginalMiningCorporationPtyLtd.
Phoenix.2014b.TroglofaunasurveyfortheExtensionProject.PhoenixEnvironmentalSciencesPty Ltd, Balcatta, W.A. Unpublished report prepared for Australian Aboriginal MiningCorporationPtyLtd.
Phoenix. 2014c. Troglofauna survey for the Pannawonica Tenements. Phoenix EnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,W.A.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRedHillIronLtd.
Phoenix.2014d.TroglofaunasurveyoftheBucklandsatellites:Rabbit,RoosterandRoosterSouth.PhoenixEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,W.A.UnpublishedreportpreparedforIronOreHoldingsLtd.
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 19
Phoenix.2014e.TroglofaunasurveyoftheWonmunnaIronOreProject.PhoenixEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,WA.UnpublisheddraftreportpreparedforWonmunnaIronOreLtd.
Phoenix. 2014f. Subterranean fauna survey for the Rocklea Iron Ore Project. PhoenixEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforDragonEnergy.
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 20
5 APPENDICES
Appendix1
Plantidentificationemail–Sauropusmis‐identification
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 21
From: Perkins, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Perkins@DPaW.wa.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2015 11:56 AM To: Naaykens, Jeremy (RTIO) Cc: Grant Wells (gwells@ggenvironmental.com.au) Subject: RE: Sauropus Importance: High
Hi Jeremy,
I have been busy looking at the sample Grant dropped off & I am now sure it's not Sauropus
sp. Koodaideri detritals. The specimen submitted has tufts of septate on both side of the
stem bracts & occasionally in the stem axils ‐ whereas S. sp. Koodaideri detritals stems &
stem bracts are glabrous . The stem bracts seem simple in form (no lobes) ‐ whereas S. sp.
Koodaideri detritals stem bracts are often trilobed (formed from the reduced leaf plus
stipules). What this specimen is, I cannot determine with confidence due to a lack of fertile
material. The stem bracts with the septate hairs are most similar to some specimens of
Ptilotus schwartzii but the branching pattern of the stems is more indicative of some
cladodinous members of the Santalaceae & Fabaceae. In conclusion, I’m ruling out Sauropus
sp. Koodaideri detritals for this specimen but I cannot put any further determination due to
lack of fertile material. If in the future flowering material is available, I’m keen to check it
out.
Cheers, Andrew.
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUMAAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
P a g e | 22
Appendix2
RevisedProposalAreaShapefilesandCoordinates(seeenclosedCD)
Recommended