Yeelirrie Uranium Project Public Environmental Review Section Nine: Environmental Factors from one or more localities but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and appear to be under immediate threat from known threatening processes. Priority Two: Poorly-known taxa. Taxa that are known from one or a few collections or sight records, some of which are on lands not under imminent threat of habitat destruction or degradation (e.g. national parks, conservation parks, nature reserves, State forest, vacant Crown land, water reserves, etc.). Taxa may be included if they are comparatively well known from one or more localities but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and appear to be under threat from known threatening processes. Priority Three: Poorly-known taxa. Taxa that are known from collections or sight records from several localities not under imminent threat, or from few but widespread localities with either large population size or significant remaining areas of apparently suitable habitat, much of it not under imminent threat. Taxa may be included if they are comparatively well known from several localities but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and known threatening processes exist that could affect them. Priority Four: Rare, Near Threatened and other taxa in need of monitoring. (a) Rare: Taxa that are considered to have been adequately surveyed, or for which sufficient knowledge is available, and that are considered not currently threatened or in need of special protection, but could be if present circumstances change. These taxa are usually represented on conservation lands; (b) Near Threatened: Taxa that are considered to have been adequately surveyed and that do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but that are close to qualifying for Vulnerable; (c) Other: Taxa that have been removed from the list of threatened species during the past five years for reasons other than taxonomy. Priority Five: Conservation Dependent taxa. Taxa that are not threatened but are subject to a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the taxa becoming threatened within five years. Proponents that intend to disturb Priority flora should first consult with DPaW regarding the impact of the proposal on the species’ conservation status. There are a number of Priority flora species present within the Project Development Envelope that are discussed below. Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 The WA Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (hereafter referred to as Clearing Regulations) regulate the clearing of native vegetation in the State. Low impact mineral and petroleum activities as defined in the Clearing Regulations, and clearing of up to 10 ha per financial year per ‘authority area’ regulated under the Mining Act 1978 (Mining Act), may be exempt from obtaining a clearing permit. However, these exemptions do not apply to environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) or within non-permitted areas such as wetlands or riparian vegetation. There are no ESAs within or near the development envelope. A Clearing Permit is not required if the impacts of the proposed clearing have already been assessed by the EPA under Part IV of the EP Act. EPA Policies The EPA has produced Position Statement No. 2 (EPA 2000) for the environmental protection of native vegetation in WA specific to the clearing of native vegetation. This document outlines the EPA’s position on clearing in agricultural areas and clearing in other areas of WA. It also outlines the elements the EPA will take into consideration when assessing a proposal. Proponents are required to demonstrate in their proposals that all reasonable measures have been undertaken to avoid impacts on biodiversity. Where some impact on biodiversity cannot be avoided, it is for the proponent to demonstrate that the impact will not result in unacceptable loss. The EPA Position Statement No. 3 (EPA 2002b) outlines the use of terrestrial biological surveys as an element of biodiversity protection in Western Australia. Proponents are expected to undertake field 124 Cameco Australia Pty Ltd Yeelirrie Uranium Project Public Environmental Review Section Nine: Environmental Factors surveys that meet the standards, requirements and protocols as determined and published by the EPA. Further detail on the requirements for flora and vegetation surveys is provided in EPA Guidance Statement No. 51 (EPA 2004b). The vegetation in the study area was surveyed using the methods set out in accordance with this guidance statement and outlined below. The EPA also provides guidance on the rehabilitation of terrestrial ecosystems (EPA 2006). The Mine Closure Plan has been prepared in accordance with this guidance (Appendix O1). 9.1.3 Studies and Investigations The flora and vegetation of the development envelope and the regional surrounds have been extensively surveyed. A summary of botanical surveys that are relevant to the Project are presented in Table 9-1. In addition to those listed in the table, there are other surveys of nearby projects that contribute to the botanical knowledge of the area. Reports of other related work, including for example, site specific soil surveys are also listed. These are listed in Western Botanical (2015a, Appendix E2). Table 9-1: Summary of previous botanical and related work relevant to the Project Reference Scale Summary Description Historic Surveys Gardner (1942) Regional Broad scale regional flora surveys and general account of vegetation for the Murchison Mabutt et al. Regional Descriptions of land systems and vegetation of the Austin (1963) Botanical District (Wiluna and Glengarry) Specht (1970) Regional National scale structural vegetation classification and mapping Beard (1976) Regional Broad scale regional vegetation mapping (1:1,000,000) of the Murchison including vegetation unit descriptions. Western Mining Local Vegetation and flora survey of the Yeelirrie Project for draft EIS and Corporation Ltd ERMP (1978) Pringle et al. (1994) Regional (land Description of broad land systems and local vegetation units of the systems). Local North-eastern Goldfields. Mapping at 1: 250,000. (vegetation) Payne et al. (1998) Regional Floristic inventory, condition assessment, and mapping of the Sandstone, Yalgoo, Paynes Find Area. Mapping at 1:250,000. Recent Work Western Botanical Local Baseline flora and vegetation survey of the Yeelirrie Project. (2011) Mapping at 1:10,000. Significant flora and vegetation units of Yeelirrie (Appendix E1) D.C. Blandford & Local Soil landscapes assessments of the Yeelirrie Project including soils Associates (2011) profile descriptions and some soil chemistry (Appendix M1) Meissner (2011) Regional Flora and vegetation survey of calcrete palaeodrainage channels in (Draft) the north-eastern Goldfields. Clarke et al. (2012) Local Assessment of genetic variance within Atriplex sp. Yeelirrie Station (L. Trotter & A. Douglas LCH 25025) to help determine taxonomic and conservation status. Shepherd et al. Local Taxonomic resolution of Atriplex sp. Yeelirrie Station (L. Trotter (unpublished) & A. Douglas LCH 25025) utilising morphological and molecular methods (Appendix E4) Cameco Australia Pty Ltd 125 Yeelirrie Uranium Project Public Environmental Review Section Nine: Environmental Factors Reference Scale Summary Description Western Botanical Local Review of Atriplex sp. Yeelirrie Station population within (2014) rehabilitated former stockpile and initial demography assessment of the Western population (Appendix E8) Western Botanical Local Reviewing and updating results of Western Botanical (2011) (2015a) (Appendix E2) Western Botanical Local Demography assessment Phase 1, Atriplex sp. Yeelirrie Station (2015b) Eastern, Western and Rehabilitation populations. (Appendix E7) Western Botanical Local and Potential Translocation trial site assessment, Lake Mason (2015c) Regional (Appendix E9) Soilwater Local and Potential Translocation trial site assessment, Lake Mason Consultants Regional (Appendix E5) (2015b) 9.1.3.1 Recent Survey Work Western Botanical was commissioned in 2008 to undertake a flora and vegetation assessment of the proposed BHP Billiton Project. The outcome of the survey was the Yeelirrie Project Flora and Vegetation Survey Baseline Report, February 2011 (WB653) (Western Botanical, 2011; Appendix E1). The field survey included 16 study areas. Study Areas 1, 2, and 3 are collectively referred to as the Local Study Area and cover the Development Envelope, while areas 4 to 16 are collectively referred to as the Regional Study Area. These areas are shown on Figure 9-1. A level 2 survey of Study Area 1 was performed in accordance with EPA Position Statement No. 3 (EPA 2002b) and Guidance Statement No. 51 (EPA 2004b), including quadrat based assessment of flora and the mapping of vegetation at a scale of 1:10,000. Study Area 1 includes the pit extent, metallurgical plant, surface water diversion bund and the majority of vegetation within the potential groundwater drawdown zone. Areas of vegetation potentially indrectly affected by the Project are also included withi Study Area 1. Study Area 2, comprising five areas adjacent to and contiguous with Study Area 1 and including the majority of the proposed bore fields, quarry, and buffers around Study Area 1. A level 1 survey of Study Area 2 was performed and focussed on mapping of vegetation units and known Priority Flora populations. Areas proposed to be disturbed such as the quarry and infrastructure corridors