Referral of proposed action What is a referral? The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) provides for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance (NES). Under the EPBC Act, a person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on any of the matters of NES without approval from the Australian Government Environment Minister or the Minister’s delegate. (Further references to ‘the Minister’ in this form include references to the Minister’s delegate.) To obtain approval from the Environment Minister, a proposed action should be referred. The purpose of a referral is to obtain a decision on whether your proposed action will need formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. Your referral will be the principal basis for the Minister’s decision as to whether approval is necessary and, if so, the type of assessment that will be undertaken. These decisions are made within 20 business days, provided sufficient information is provided in the referral.

Who can make a referral? Referrals may be made by or on behalf of a person proposing to take an action, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency, a state or territory government, or agency, provided that the relevant government or agency has administrative responsibilities relating to the action.

When do I need to make a referral? A referral must be made for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the following matters protected by Part 3 of the EPBC Act:  World Heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A)  National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C)  Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)  Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)  Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)  Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A)  Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A)  Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C)  A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E)  The environment, if the action involves Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A), including: o actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment of Commonwealth land (even if taken outside Commonwealth land); o actions taken on Commonwealth land that may have a significant impact on the environment generally;  The environment, if the action is taken by the Commonwealth (section 28)  Commonwealth Heritage places outside the Australian jurisdiction (sections 27B and 27C) You may still make a referral if you believe your action is not going to have a significant impact, or if you are unsure. This will provide a greater level of certainty that Commonwealth assessment requirements have been met. To help you decide whether or not your proposed action requires approval (and therefore, if you should make a referral), the following guidance is available from the Department’s website:  the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance. Additional sectoral guidelines are also available.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 1 of 16  the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies.  the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments—Impacts on water resources.  the interactive map tool (enter a location to obtain a report on what matters of NES may occur in that location). Can I refer part of a larger action? In certain circumstances, the Minister may not accept a referral for an action that is a component of a larger action and may request the person proposing to take the action to refer the larger action for consideration under the EPBC Act (Section 74A, EPBC Act). If you wish to make a referral for a staged or component referral, read ‘Fact Sheet 6 Staged Developments/Split Referrals’ and contact the Referrals Gateway (1800 803 772). Do I need a permit? Some activities may also require a permit under other sections of the EPBC Act or another law of the Commonwealth. Information is available on the Department’s web site. Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? If your action is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park it may require permission under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If a permission is required, referral of the action under the EPBC Act is deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act (see section 37AB, GBRMP Act). This referral will be forwarded to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) for the Authority to commence its permit processes as required under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. If a permission is not required under the GBRMP Act, no approval under the EPBC Act is required (see section 43, EPBC Act). The Authority can provide advice on relevant permission requirements applying to activities in the Marine Park. The Authority is responsible for assessing applications for permissions under the GBRMP Act, GBRMP Regulations and Zoning Plan. Where assessment and approval is also required under the EPBC Act, a single integrated assessment for the purposes of both Acts will apply in most cases. Further information on environmental approval requirements applying to actions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is available from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ or by contacting GBRMPA's Environmental Assessment and Management Section on (07) 4750 0700. The Authority may require a permit application assessment fee to be paid in relation to the assessment of applications for permissions required under the GBRMP Act, even if the permission is made as a referral under the EPBC Act. Further information on this is available from the Authority: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2-68 Flinders Street PO Box 1379 Townsville QLD 4810 AUSTRALIA Phone: + 61 7 4750 0700 Fax: + 61 7 4772 6093 www.gbrmpa.gov.au

What information do I need to provide? Completing all parts of this form will ensure that you submit the required information and will also assist the Department to process your referral efficiently. If a section of the referral document is not applicable to your proposal enter N/A. You can complete your referral by entering your information into this Word file. Instructions Instructions are provided in blue text throughout the form. Attachments/supporting information The referral form should contain sufficient information to provide an adequate basis for a decision on the likely impacts of the proposed action. You should also provide supporting documentation, such as environmental reports or surveys, as attachments.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 2 of 16 Coloured maps, figures or photographs to help explain the project and its location should also be submitted with your referral. Aerial photographs, in particular, can provide a useful perspective and context. Figures should be good quality as they may be scanned and viewed electronically as black and white documents. Maps should be of a scale that clearly shows the location of the proposed action and any environmental aspects of interest. Please ensure any attachments are below three megabytes (3mb) as they will be published on the Department’s website for public comment. To minimise file size, enclose maps and figures as separate files if necessary. If unsure, contact the Referrals Gateway (email address below) for advice. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay processing of your referral. Note: the Minister may decide not to publish information that the Minister is satisfied is commercial-in-confidence. How do I pay for my referral? From 1 October 2014 the Australian Government commenced cost recovery arrangements for environmental assessments and some strategic assessments under the EPBC Act. If an action is referred on or after 1 October 2014, then cost recovery will apply to both the referral and any assessment activities undertaken. Further information regarding cost recovery can be found on the Department’s website.

Payment of the referral fee can be made using one of the following methods:  EFT Payments can be made to:

BSB: 092-009 Bank Account No. 115859 Amount: $7352 Account Name: Department of the Environment. Bank: Reserve Bank of Australia Bank Address: 20-22 London Circuit Canberra ACT 2601 Description: The reference number provided (see note below)

 Cheque - Payable to “Department of the Environment”. Include the reference number provided (see note below), and if posted, address:

The Referrals Gateway Environment Assessment Branch Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

 Credit Card

Please contact the Collector of Public Money (CPM) directly (call (02) 6274 2930 or 6274 20260 and provide the reference number (see note below).

Note: in order to receive a reference number, submit your referral and the Referrals Gateway will email you the reference number.

How do I submit a referral? Referrals may be submitted by mail or email. Mail to: Referrals Gateway Environment Assessment Branch Department of Environment GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601

 If submitting via mail, electronic copies of documentation (on CD/DVD or by email) are required.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 3 of 16 Email to: [email protected]  Clearly mark the email as a ‘Referral under the EPBC Act’.  Attach the referral as a Microsoft Word file and, if possible, a PDF file.  Follow up with a mailed hardcopy including copies of any attachments or supporting reports.

What happens next? Following receipt of a valid referral (containing all required information) you will be advised of the next steps in the process, and the referral and attachments will be published on the Department’s web site for public comment. The Department will write to you within 20 business days to advise you of the outcome of your referral and whether or not formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is required. There are a number of possible decisions regarding your referral: The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NOT NEED approval No further consideration is required under the environmental assessment provisions of the EPBC Act and the action can proceed (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements). The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact IF undertaken in a particular manner The action can proceed if undertaken in a particular manner (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements). The particular manner in which you must carry out the action will be identified as part of the final decision. You must report your compliance with the particular manner to the Department. The proposed action is LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NEED approval If the action is likely to have a significant impact a decision will be made that it is a controlled action. The particular matters upon which the action may have a significant impact (such as World Heritage values or threatened species) are known as the controlling provisions. The controlled action is subject to a public assessment process before a final decision can be made about whether to approve it. The assessment approach will usually be decided at the same time as the controlled action decision. (Further information about the levels of assessment and basis for deciding the approach are available on the Department’s web site.) The proposed action would have UNACCEPTABLE impacts and CANNOT proceed The Minister may decide, on the basis of the information in the referral, that a referred action would have clearly unacceptable impacts on a protected matter and cannot proceed. Compliance audits If a decision is made to approve a project, the Department may audit it at any time to ensure that it is completed in accordance with the approval decision or the information provided in the referral. If the project changes, such that the likelihood of significant impacts could vary, you should write to the Department to advise of the changes. If your project is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a decision is made to approve it, the Authority may also audit it. (See “Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,” p.2, for more details).

For more information  call the Department of the Environment Community Information Unit on 1800 803 772 or  visit the web site http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/about-us/legislation/environment-protection-and- biodiversity-conservation-act-1999 All the information you need to make a referral, including documents referenced in this form, can be accessed from the above web site.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 4 of 16 Referral of proposed action

Changes to Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations Project title:

1 Summary of proposed action

1.1 Short description FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd (FQM) proposes changes at the Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations (RNO) that include an expansion of mining operations at the Hale‐Bopp ore body, a revised alignment of the infrastructure corridor to the Shoemaker‐Levy ore body and adding neutralised tailings to the reject rocks used to backfill mine pits and re‐establish hill topographies (Attachment 1 ‐ Figures 1 and 2).

Mining operations in the proposed Hale‐Bopp pit will utilise the same processes as the existing operations including drill and blast for open pit mining. Ore from this pit will be transported via existing access roads to the same processing facility. The revised corridor will be used to transport ore from Shoemaker‐Levy deposit initially via road, then later by conveyor, to the existing processing facility.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 5 of 16 1.2 Latitude and longitude

Table 1: Development Envelope Project Area –Infrastructure Corridor Ref. No. Latitude Longitude 1 -33 34 15.75 120 20 24.38 2 -33 34 17.47 120 20 35.03 3 -33 34 21.64 120 20 55.04 4 -33 34 27.25 120 21 14.55 5 -33 34 34.26 120 21 33.4 6 -33 34 42.62 120 21 51.45 7 -33 34 52.27 120 22 8.56 8 -33 35 3.12 120 22 24.6 9 -33 35 15.11 120 22 39.45 10 -33 35 28.13 120 22 53 11 -33 35 42.09 120 23 5.14 12 -33 35 56.88 120 23 15.79 13 -33 36 12.39 120 23 24.85 14 -33 36 28.51 120 23 32.26 15 -33 36 45.1 120 23 37.97 16 -33 37 2.05 120 23 41.93 17 -33 37 19.22 120 23 44.11 18 -33 37 36.48 120 23 44.49 19 -33 38 29.14 120 23 42.9 20 -33 38 30.5 120 23 42.5 21 -33 38 31.76 120 23 41.17 22 -33 38 32.3 120 23 39.26 23 -33 38 31.96 120 23 37.3 24 -33 38 30.85 120 23 35.79

25 -33 38 29.26 120 23 35.15 26 -33 37 36.32 120 23 36.73 27 -33 37 19.62 120 23 36.37 28 -33 37 3.01 120 23 34.26 29 -33 36 46.62 120 23 30.43 30 -33 36 30.57 120 23 24.91 31 -33 36 14.99 120 23 17.74 32 -33 35 59.98 120 23 8.98 33 -33 35 45.67 120 22 58.68 34 -33 35 32.17 120 22 46.94 35 -33 35 19.58 120 22 33.83 36 -33 35 7.99 120 22 19.47 37 -33 34 57.49 120 22 3.95 38 -33 34 48.16 120 21 47.4 39 -33 34 40.07 120 21 29.94 40 -33 34 33.29 120 21 11.71 41 -33 34 27.86 120 20 52.84 42 -33 34 23.83 120 20 33.48 43 -33 34 18.04 120 19 57.68 44 -33 34 16.97 120 19 55.73 45 -33 34 15.98 120 19 55.08 46 -33 34 14.87 120 19 54.86 47 -33 34 13.5 120 19 55.25 48 -33 34 12.59 120 19 56.04 49 -33 34 11.85 120 19 57.47 50 -33 34 11.68 120 19 58.8

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 6 of 16 Table 2: RNO Development Envelope – Hale‐Bopp pit extension

Ref. No. Latitude Longitude 1 -33 39 30.61 120 23 22.82 2 -33 39 30.55 120 23 23.31 3 -33 39 32.77 120 23 25.98 4 -33 39 34.81 120 23 27.16 5 -33 39 36.2 120 23 26.95 6 -33 39 37.29 120 23 28.04 7 -33 39 37.94 120 23 28.03 8 -33 39 39.27 120 23 29.54 9 -33 39 39.91 120 23 29.51 10 -33 39 40.58 120 23 30.28 11 -33 39 41.91 120 23 30.23 12 -33 39 42.56 120 23 29.41 13 -33 39 42.53 120 23 28.63 14 -33 39 43.15 120 23 27.85 15 -33 39 43.77 120 23 27.84 16 -33 39 44.43 120 23 28.59 17 -33 39 44.44 120 23 29.29 18 -33 39 43.81 120 23 30.11 19 -33 39 43.82 120 23 30.93 20 -33 39 45.84 120 23 33.19 21 -33 39 48.47 120 23 33.1 22 -33 39 52.39 120 23 36.47 23 -33 39 58.56 120 23 24.08 24 -33 39 56.22 120 23 18.54 25 -33 39 55.6 120 23 17.75 26 -33 39 54.58 120 23 17.52 27 -33 39 54.05 120 23 16.88 28 -33 39 53.56 120 23 15.4 29 -33 39 53.53 120 23 13.45 30 -33 39 53.03 120 23 12.03 31 -33 39 51.82 120 23 11.68 32 -33 39 49.34 120 23 11.76 33 -33 39 47.23 120 23 14.44 34 -33 39 44.04 120 23 11.65 35 -33 39 42.27 120 23 13.4 36 -33 39 41.71 120 23 14.51 37 -33 39 39.52 120 23 14.61 38 -33 39 37.61 120 23 16.99 39 -33 39 37.63 120 23 18.07 40 -33 39 39.7 120 23 20.28 41 -33 39 40.39 120 23 20.39 42 -33 39 41.52 120 23 21.63 43 -33 39 41.66 120 23 23.94 44 -33 39 41.12 120 23 24.68 45 -33 39 39.79 120 23 23.19 46 -33 39 39.17 120 23 23.21 47 -33 39 37.84 120 23 21.7 48 -33 39 36.55 120 23 21.73 49 -33 39 35.2 120 23 20.24 50 -33 39 32.57 120 23 20.32

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 7 of 16 1.3 Locality and property description The location of the proposal is approximately 35 km east of the town of Ravensthorpe and 155 km west of Esperance along the South Coast Highway. The proposal is located within the Shire of Ravensthorpe in Mineral Field 74 and the Phillips River District, 571 km by road from Perth (Attachment 1 ‐ Figure 1). The current land use is FQM exploration and mining activities provided under Ministerial Statement 633 (Attachment 3b).

The proposal is located on mineral leases M74/108, M74/115, M74/144, M74/168, M74/171, M74/235, L74/21 and L74/32.

A plan showing the current mining activities and the proposed infrastructure corridor and pit expansion is referenced in Figure 2 (Attachment 1).

1.4 Size of the development footprint or work area (hectares) The proposal will involve the clearing of about 113 ha within a 252 ha Development Envelope, excluding the 48 ha that is currently cleared within the Development Envelope.

1.5 Street address of the site Lot 1269 South Coast Highway, Ravensthorpe WA 6346

1.6 Lot description The proposal is located on mineral leases M74/108, M74/115, M74/144, M74/168, M74/171, M74/235, L74/21 and L74/32.

1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known) Shire of Ravensthorpe – CEO Mr Ian Fitzgerald

1.8 Time frame FQM is seeking to commence construction of the corridor and orebody in January 2018.

1.9 Alternatives to proposed action No 

Yes, you must also complete section 2.2

1.10 Alternative time frames etc  No Does the proposed action include alternative time frames, locations or activities? Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each alternative, location, time frame, or activity identified,

you must also complete details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4- 2.7 and 3.3 (where relevant).

1.11 State assessment No Is the action subject to a state or territory environmental impact assessment? The Project is being concurrently referred to the WA EPA  under Section 38 of Environmental Protection Act 1986 WA (EP Act). 1.12 Component of larger action  No Is the proposed action a component of a larger action? Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7 1.13 Related actions/proposals No Is the proposed action related to other actions or proposals in the region (if Yes, the Project is related to two existing approvals: known)?   Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations approval under the EPBC Act (2001/172) (Attachment 2).

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 8 of 16  Ravensthorpe Nickel Project approval under the EP Act (Ministerial Statement 633) (Attachment 3). 1.14 Australian Government funding  No Has the person proposing to take the action received any Australian Government grant Yes, provide details: funding to undertake this project? 1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park  No Is the proposed action inside the Great Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e) Barrier Reef Marine Park?

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 9 of 16 2 Detailed description of proposed action 2.1 Description of proposed action FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd (FQM) proposes changes at the Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations (RNO) that includes an expansion of mining operations at the Hale‐Bopp ore body, a revised alignment of the infrastructure corridor to the Shoemaker‐Levy ore body and adding neutralised tailings to the reject rocks used to backfill mine pits and re‐establish hill topographies. The infrastructure corridor will include a saltwater pipeline, haul road, conveyor and powerline.

The Project is an expansion of the existing mining and processing operations at RNO. Ore reserves include three nickel laterite deposits, Halleys, Hale‐Bopp and Shoemaker‐Levy, with mining by conventional open cut methods. The nickel content in the ore is upgraded through a beneficiation process and followed by a series of treatments utilising pressure and atmospheric acid leach technology and solution purification techniques. RNO produces a mixed nickel‐cobalt hydroxide product. The mixed hydroxide product is packaged and transported by road to the Port of Esperance if being shipped for further processing. Project infrastructure such as the processing plant, tailings storage facilities and evaporation ponds are located on cleared farmland adjacent to the mine.

2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action The pit expansion is part of the medium to long term planning to maintain economic mine operations. The infrastructure corridor is required to access the approved Shoemaker Levy deposit. An approved infrastructure corridor exists that has not been developed. The geography of the approved corridor does not readily allow for its utilisation. The revised corridor will be used to transport ore from Shoemaker‐Levy initially via road, then later by conveyor, to the existing ore processing facility.

2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action N/A

2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements State and Local Government Requirements Consultation with the EPA has indicated that the proposed changes to RNO will likely require assessment at Public Environmental Review (PER) level and in accordance with an approved environmental scoping document. The Project will be regulated under a range of Commonwealth and State Government instruments as detailed in Table 3.

Table 3: List of Federal and State legislation, licences and approvals required for the project.

Agency/ Authority Legislation/Licencing Required Commonwealth Department of the Environment Approval under Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (this Referral) WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Approval under part IV of Environmental Protection Act 1986; advised as likely requiring a Public Environmental Review (PER) with a public comment period. WA Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) Mining proposal/s outlining mine development, operations, closure and rehabilitation planning, project management plans, tailings operating strategy (Mining Act 1978). Dangerous Goods Licencing under Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 WA Department of Environment Regulation (DER) Licence to operate a prescribed facility under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Attachment 4). WA Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW) Permits to take may be required under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. Licencing associated fauna and flora surveys and research.

2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation The Project is being referred concurrently to the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act).

Consultation with staff from the EPA has occurred and it has been advised that the Project will likely be subject to a Public Environmental Review which will include a public review period. The Case Officer at the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority is:

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 10 of 16 Richard Sutherland Principal Environmental Officer OEPA Phone: 08 6145 0800

The EPBC Act provides a legal framework to protect and manage matters of national environmental significance. This proposal triggers one of the eight matters of national environmental significance, being the recorded presence of listed threatened species and ecological communities: a Threatened plant, the Endangered Conostylis lepidospermoides; two threatened mammal species, the Vulnerable Chuditch and Vulnerable Heath Mouse; one Threatened bird, the Endangered Carnaby’s Cockatoo and a Threatened Ecological Community, the Endangered ‘Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of Western Australia’.

Assessment Bilateral Agreement between Western Australia and the Commonwealth A bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia relating to environmental assessment allows the Commonwealth Minister for Environment to rely on specified environmental impact assessment processes of the State of Western Australia in assessing actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The agreement aims to minimise duplication of environmental impact assessment processes, strengthen intergovernmental co‐operation and ensure an integrated and coordinated approach for actions requiring approval under both the Commonwealth EPBC and WA EP legislation.

2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) Stakeholder engagement, community consultation and participation in the planning, development, construction and operation phases of RNO have been extensive. The Government approvals process involved significant community engagement, and subsequent regulatory approvals require on‐going consultation.

RNO’s primary stakeholder engagement is through:  Quarterly meetings of the Jerdacuttup RNO Working Group (JRWG), a group of adjacent neighbours.  Ongoing dialogue with the Wagyl‐Kaip/Southern Noongar (WKSN) native title parties, including quarterly meetings of the RNO‐WKSN Relationship Committee.  Ongoing dialogue with the Shire of Ravensthorpe and the Shire of Esperance.  Inspections, audits and reports with the Department of Mines and Petroleum and the Department of Environment Regulation.  Direct consultation and engagement on specific issues with local stakeholders and experts (such as environment rehabilitation planning).  Direct communications and briefings on key issues, as they arise.

FQM has identified stakeholders with interest in the Proposal and has commenced consultation with regulators and government agencies; Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, EPA, and Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW). Further consultation with stakeholders will be conducted and will include but not be limited to Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP), Conservation Council, Wildflower Society, Ravensthorpe Wildflower Society, Shire of Ravensthorpe, Ravensthorpe Chamber of Commerce and Hopetoun Progress Association.

FQM is committed to community engagement as documented in the Company’s Social Policy which states ‐ First Quantum Minerals Ltd. (the “Company”) believes it makes sound, strategic business sense to involve local communities and other relevant stakeholders in our business. We engage with them to build and maintain effective, long‐term and mutually beneficial relationships, and conduct business in a way that provides long term economic opportunity and supports social well‐being.

As an active mine area, a number of heritage surveys have been conducted to date. Native Title Agreements exist with Southern Noongar / Wagyl Kaip people and the Esperance Nyungar people. A desktop Aboriginal heritage survey to review and collate previous heritage information and make assessments of previously recorded sites of significance as defined by section 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AHA) that impact upon the RNO tenements has been conducted. There are no known sites of significance in the proposal area (Goode 2012).

2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project The proposal is not part of a staged development or part of a larger project.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 11 of 16 3 Description of environment & likely impacts 3.1 Matters of national environmental significance 3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties Description The Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) (Attachment 5) indicates that there are no World Heritage Properties within a 30 km radius of the Project. Nature and extent of likely impact No World Heritage values of any World Heritage property as listed under the EPBC Act will be affected by the Project. 3.1 (b) National Heritage Places Description The Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) (Attachment 5) indicates that there are no National Heritage Places within a 30 km radius of the Project. Nature and extent of likely impact No National Heritage values of any National Heritage place as listed under the EPBC Act will be affected by the Project. 3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands) Description The Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) (Attachment 5) indicates that there are no Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands) within a 30 km radius of the Project. Nature and extent of likely impact No Wetlands of International Importance as listed under the EPBC Act will be impacted by the Project. 3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities Threatened Flora One Threatened Flora taxon listed as pursuant to the EPBC Act was recorded within the Development Envelope ‐ Conostylis lepidospermoides ‐ Endangered (Figure 3 – Attachment 1). This Threatened taxon Conostylis lepidospermoides was the subject of targeted searching and was recorded widely in the western part of the infrastructure corridor study area, including within the proposal footprint (Woodman Environmental 2015 – Attachment 6).

The Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) (Attachment 5) indicates that there are potentially another 16 Threatened flora likely to occur within a 30 km radius of the project. None of these taxa are known to occur within the project area and none were recorded during the intensive foot traverses of the infrastructure corridor. It is considered that many of the taxa returned from this search are not relevant to this assessment; most are not known from within 50 km of the project area, with many known to be endemic to the Stirling Ranges (DPaW 2015).

Nature and extent of likely impact A total of 2129 individuals were recorded from a study area of 1578 ha, including the Development Envelope. There are likely to be further individuals in the broader area as this taxon is relatively common in the study area and was recorded in several similar areas outside the study area. This species is known to have been recorded previously over a relatively large (> 160 km) range, but is considered to be inconspicuous when not in flower, which may explain why such a large population of this species has been overlooked until now (Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2008).

A total of 1351 individuals from 394 locations were recorded within the Development Envelope from seven vegetation types. It is considered that the Development Envelope has been comprehensively surveyed for this taxon (Woodman 2015). The project footprint will impact a number of these individuals within the Development Envelope.

Threatened Fauna A search of the EPBC Act PMST (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2015 – Attachment 7) identified 7 threatened fauna species as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project area. Marine species have been omitted from the results. These results are applicable to a 30km radius from the central point of the project area. The fauna assessment (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2015) indicated that the following fauna listed under the EPBC Act (Table 4) have been recorded or are likely to occur and determined the likelihood of occurring in the project area.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 12 of 16

Table 4: Likelihood of occurrence for Threatened fauna species identified as potentially occurring in the project area Species EPBC Habitat description and distribution Likelihood Likelihood justification of occurrence Botaurus En The Australasian Bitterns’ preferred habitat is Unlikely Very low due to a lack of suitable habitat. poiciloptilus beds of tall dense Typha, Baumea and sedges in Australian Bittern the shallows of freshwater swamps. Distribution is from Moora east to Cape Arid and the south‐ west of Western Australia. Locally common in the wetter parts of the south‐west. The subpopulation in Western Australia is restricted to a few records away from the south coast and Lake Muir wetlands, with few confirmed records from the Swan Coastal Plain since 1992. Calyptorhynchus En Carnaby’s Black‐Cockatoo is found in the south‐ Recorded Biota Environmental Sciences (2000) and latirostris west of Australia from Kalbarri through to Coffey Environments (2009) recorded them Carnaby’s Black‐ Ravensthorpe. It has a preference for feeding on on the RNO tenements, as did Terrestrial Cockatoo the seeds of Banksia, Hakea, Eucalyptus, Ecosystems in its 2013 and 2014 surveys Grevillea, Pinus and Allocasuarina spp.. It is (Attachments 8 and 9). Carnaby’s Black‐ nomadic often moving toward the coast after Cockatoo were frequently seen feeding in breeding. October 2008 (Coffey Environments 2009) in roadside vegetation near the RNO mine village.

There is preferred foraging habitat in the project area. Panabtechinus En Geographic distribution includes the Unlikely Very low, as it has not been recorded in the apicalis Fitzgerald River National Park, east of Cheyne area and current known distribution does Dibbler Beach and Torndirrup National Park. It is also not include the RNO project area. found on Boullanger and Whitlock Islands off the Western Australian coast near Jurien and the DPaW’s threatened and priority species database also recorded Dibblers in the Fitzgerald River National Park, plus Jerdacuttup and Kundip. Phascogale calura En This small, nocturnal, arboreal marsupial lives Unlikely Very low, as it has not been recorded in the Red‐tailed mostly in unburnt eucalypt woodlands such as area. Red‐tailed Phascogales have not been Phascogale wandoo in areas that receive 350 ‐ 600mm of caught in any of the fauna surveys around rain per year. It is an opportunistic predator, RNO, its current known distribution does not preying on insects, spiders, small birds and small include the RNO project area. The project mammals. It is currently found in remnant does not support wandoo woodland. bushland in the Western Australia wheatbelt between Brookton and the Fitzgerald River National Park. Leipoa ocellata Vu Malleefowl is a large, ground‐dwelling bird that Likely Low, but present in adjacent areas. Malleefowl rarely flies unless it is alarmed or is perching for the night. Historically, Malleefowl have been A Coffey Environments’ (2009) search of all found in mallee regions of southern Australia habitats considered suitable for Malleefowl from approximately the 26th parallel of latitude in the Shoemaker‐Levy project area failed to southwards. The species’ range has contracted find any active or inactive mounds but a due to fox predation and land clearing. Their single Malleefowl was recorded in the 2010 abundance in the eastern Goldfields is low and survey. Terrestrial Ecosystems (2014) saw a they are sparsely distributed, favouring those Malleefowl crossing Mason Bay Road and areas that are more densely vegetated. recorded three individuals by motion sensitive cameras at various locations. The search of the proposed infrastructure corridor in 2014 found no evidence of Malleefowl mounds and there was very little suitable habitat in this area.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 13 of 16 Dasyurus geoffroii Vu The Chuditch now has a patchy distribution Likely Low, but present in adjacent areas. Western Quoll or throughout the Jarrah forest and mixed Chuditch Karri/Marri/Jarrah forest of south‐west WA. Its Chuditch have previously been recorded on habitat is sclerophyll forest or dry woodland and the RNO tenements. However, there is very mallee shrubland. It dens in hollow logs and little habitat in the conveyor belt corridor burrows and has also been recorded in tree that would be suitable for Chuditch, so it is hollows and cavities. unlikely to be in the corridor. It could be present in the Hale‐Bopp proposed pit area nearby the previous records. Pseudomys Vu It is now only known in WA from a population Likely Low, as there is very little suitable habitat. shortridgei around Ravensthorpe, Lake Magenta Nature Heath Mouse Reserve and Fitzgerald River National Park Could be present in the unburnt areas of the (Smith et al. 2007). It prefers long unburnt dry conveyor belt project area in relatively low heath land that is floristically rich. numbers.

Nature and extent of likely impact Eight potential sources of impacts on vertebrate fauna have been identified including clearing of vegetation, spread of dieback, dust, altered drainage, increased risk of fire, saline water spills, road deaths, spread of introduced predators (foxes and cats); and noise. The single most significant factor that will impact on the fauna species inhabiting the RNO tenements will be the modification of habitat as a result of mining and related disturbance. Habitat modification may include loss of habitat through clearing, habitat fragmentation resulting in isolated fauna populations, altered fire regimes and the introduction of weed species and plant diseases.

Terrestrial Ecosystems (2015) reported that one EPBC listed species was confirmed to occur within the infrastructure corridor ‐ Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris). Three other EPBC listed species have been recorded on RNO tenements (Biota 2000, Coffey 2009, 2010, Terrestrial Ecosystems 2013, 2104, 2015) and may occur in the proposed Development Envelope:  Heath Mouse (Pseudomys shortridgei)  Chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii)  Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)

Based on the fauna review (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2015) and previous studies as indicated above, an assessment against the Matters of National Environmental Significance ‐ Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DOTE 2013) was undertaken for each of these EPBC listed species (see Tables 5 ‐ 8).

Carnaby’s Cockatoo In accordance with the DOE Referral Guidelines for the Three Species of Western Australian Black Cockatoos (DSEWPAC, 2012), an assessment against the criteria was undertaken (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2015) to determine if the proposed impact was likely to be significant or required referral (Table 5). It is unlikely that Carnaby’s Cockatoos will be significantly impacted by the project.

Table 5: Assessment against the significant impact guidelines 1.1 – Carnaby’s Cockatoo

Significant impact criteria Comment The project is likely to result in the removal of low quality foraging habitat. Lead to a long‐term decrease in the The proposed clearing is unlikely to cause long‐term decrease in the size of the black cockatoo size of a population population due to: • The project area is located outside the known breeding range for Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (DSEWPAC, 2012). • The migratory nature of the Black Cockatoo population. • There were no trees with hollows identified in the survey area. The project is unlikely to significantly reduce the area of occupancy of the Black Cockatoos within the Reduce the area of occupancy of the local or regional area. species Clearing will not impact on a known roosting site. The very small number of tall trees in the project area would strongly suggest that Black‐Cockatoos are unlikely to roost in the project area. The project is unlikely to further fragment the population, as clearing will be limited to a narrow Fragment an existing population into linear strip within a larger vegetated area. two or more populations Due to the migratory nature and dispersal capability of the Black Cockatoos, the fragmentation of a population is considered unlikely. The project is likely to result in the removal of more than 1 ha of low quality foraging Cockatoo Adversely affect habitat critical to the habitat, which is a small proportion of the known range. The habitat is not considered to be critical to survival of a species the survival of this species.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 14 of 16 The project is approximately 30km east of DPaWs mapped known breeding habitat, and there are no Disrupt the breeding cycle of a nesting opportunities in the project area. population The project area does not contain breeding habitat for Carnaby’s Black‐Cockatoo. The loss of habitat represents only a small area of potential habitat available in the vicinity of the Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or project. Due to the mobility of the species, clearing should not become a barrier to the movement of decrease the availability or quality of the species across the area. habitat to the extent that the species The project is not likely to modify and destroy habitat to the extent that the species will decline. is likely to decline The project may potentially cause the introduction of additional invasive species such as weeds, feral Results in invasive species that are cats and foxes. It is unlikely that the project will cause harm to the species through the introduction harmful to a critically endangered or of invasive species. endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat Due to the migratory nature and dispersal capability of the Black cockatoos and the amount of Interfere with the recovery of the clearing required it is unlikely that the project will interfere with the recovery of the species. species. There is suitable habitat within the vicinity of the project area.

Heath Mouse The Heath Mouse has been recorded in the vicinity of the project area, though not in recent surveys since 2010 (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2014). A management plan for the Heath Mouse and Western Whipbird was previously developed for RNO tenements and surveys have been conducted regularly since 1998 (RNO 2006). It is unlikely that the project will have a significant impact on the Heath Mouse (Table 6).

Table 6: Assessment against the significant impact guidelines 1.1 – Heath Mouse (Pseudomys shortridgei)

Significant impact criteria Comment The project is likely to result in the removal of habitat. The proposed clearing is unlikely to cause long‐ Lead to a long‐term decrease in the term decrease in the size of the Heath Mouse population due to the relatively small amount of size of a population clearing within the surrounding area. The project is unlikely to significantly reduce the area of occupancy of the Heath Mouse within the Reduce the area of occupancy of the local or regional area. species In Western Australia the Heath Mouse inhabits long unburnt heath (that is, 30 year post fire) with no individuals recorded in recently burnt heath (that is, less than 10 years post fire) (DSEWPAC 2011). There is only a low probability that they are present in the corridor section because of a lack of substantial long‐unburnt dense vegetation (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2015). The project is unlikely to further fragment the population, clearing will be limited to a narrow linear Fragment an existing population into strip and small pit area within a larger vegetated area. two or more populations The project is likely to result in the removal of areas of Heath Mouse habitat, which is a small Adversely affect habitat critical to the proportion of the known range. It is unlikely to constitute habitat critical to the survival of the Heath survival of a species Mouse. The Heath Mouse primarily inhabits heathlands that have been patchily burnt to create a mosaic of Disrupt the breeding cycle of a age classes including areas of high productivity. The Heath Mouse colonise relatively recently burnt population areas, temporarily increasing in abundance. When the habitat returns to the previous unproductive state they disperse again to colonise another newly burnt area (DSEWPAC 2011). In addition to dispersal, the population density decreases at sites as the time since burning increases, because juvenile survival decreases in mature heathlands (DSEWPAC 2011). Changes in burning regimes may be related to the decline in this species distribution, particularly as a result of increased fire frequencies and large‐scale fires resulting in uniform vegetation ages (DSEWPAC 2011). The project area has not been subject to any large scale fires. The most recent large scale fire was in 1996. The loss of habitat represents only a small area of potential habitat available in the vicinity of the Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or project. The project is not likely to modify and destroy habitat to the extent that the species will decrease the availability or quality of decline. habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline The project may potentially cause the introduction of additional invasive species such as weeds, feral Results in invasive species that are cats and foxes. It is unlikely that the project will cause harm to the species through the introduction harmful to a critically endangered or of invasive species. endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat The project will not involve any actions that may cause the introduction of diseases that will affect Introduce disease that may cause the the Heath Mouse. species to decline Clearing of the vegetation may spread diseases such as Phytophthora spp., if appropriate standards of hygiene are not maintained during clearing and/or operation. This aspect is able to be effectively managed and controlled by the mine.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 15 of 16 Due to the dispersal capability of the Heath Mouse and the amount of clearing required it is unlikely Interfere with the recovery of the that the project will interfere with the recovery of the species. species. There is suitable habitat within the vicinity of the project area.

Chuditch Chuditch have previously been recorded on the RNO tenements. Ten Chuditch were caught by Coffey Environments in 2010 on Bandalup Hill near the current mining areas. Permanent long‐term monitoring sites were established in 2013 to monitor the presence of Chuditch. Motion sensitive cameras located in the vicinity of the Coffey Environment (2010) captures in 2014 failed to record any Chuditch. There is very little habitat in the conveyor belt corridor that would be suitable for Chuditch, so it is unlikely to be in the corridor. It is unlikely that the project will have a significant impact on the Chuditch (Table 7).

Table 7: Assessment against the significant impact guidelines 1.1 – Chuditch

Significant impact criteria Comment The previous records are in proximity to the Hale‐Bopp proposed pit expansion of the proposal. The Lead to a long‐term decrease in the proposed clearing is unlikely to cause long‐term decrease in the size of the Chuditch population if size of a population present, the Chuditch are likely to move into adjacent habitat before being directly impacted by vegetation clearing. The project is likely to result in the removal of habitat. The project is unlikely to significantly reduce the area of occupancy of the Chuditch within the local or Reduce the area of occupancy of the regional area. The previous Chuditch recorded were in an area south of the proposed pit expansion species (Coffey 2010 – Attachment 10), that is adjacent to a large area of vegetation. The project is unlikely to further fragment the population, clearing will be limited to a narrow linear Fragment an existing population into strip within a larger vegetated area and a small pit area in the already active mining area. two or more populations Due to the dispersal capability of the Chuditch, the fragmentation of a population is considered unlikely. The Chuditch were previously recorded in an area that is adjacent to a large area of vegetation and Adversely affect habitat critical to the the Bandalup Corridor. The habitat proposed to be cleared is not considered to be critical to the survival of a species survival of this species. Chuditch breed seasonally, with mating occurring late April to early July. Litters of between two and Disrupt the breeding cycle of a six suckle as pouch young for 61 days and then remain as den young until weaning (approx. population September to November). Clearing of vegetation will be reduced to as minimal as practicable during the period between July and September in areas likely to contain Chuditch breeding sites. The loss of habitat represents only a small area of potential habitat available in the vicinity of the Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or project. Due to the mobility of the species, clearing should not become a barrier to the movement of decrease the availability or quality of the species across the area. habitat to the extent that the species The project is not likely to modify and destroy habitat to the extent that the species will decline. is likely to decline The project may potentially cause the introduction of additional invasive species such as weeds, feral Results in invasive species that are cats and foxes. It is unlikely that the project will cause harm to the species through the introduction harmful to a critically endangered or of invasive species. endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat The project will not involve any actions that may cause the introduction of diseases that will affect Introduce disease that may cause the the Chuditch. species to decline Clearing of vegetation may spread diseases such as Phytophthora spp., if appropriate standards of hygiene are not maintained during clearing and/or operation. This aspect is able to be effectively managed and controlled by the mine. Due to the dispersal capability of the Chuditch and the amount of clearing required in potential Interfere with the recovery of the habitat, it is unlikely that the project will interfere with the recovery of the species. species. There is suitable habitat within the vicinity if the project area.

Malleefowl Fire and predation are two of the major existing threats for populations of Malleefowl. Feral predator control and fire management are important aspects of conservation of Malleefowl habitat and the surrounding habitat will benefit from the increased capacity for fire control (firefighting apparatus and trained personnel) in the region of the project. It is unlikely that the project will have a significant impact on the Malleefowl (Table 8).

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 16 of 16 Table 8: Assessment against the significant impact guidelines 1.1 – Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) Significant impact criteria Comment The project is likely to result in the removal of habitat. The proposed clearing is unlikely to cause Lead to a long‐term decrease in the long‐term decrease in the size of the malleefowl population due to the absence of evidence of size of a population Malleefowl mounds and very little suitable habitat in the proposal area (Terrestrial Ecosystems). The project is unlikely to significantly reduce the area of occupancy of the Malleefowl within the local Reduce the area of occupancy of the or regional area. species Clearing will not impact on any known mounds. The project is unlikely to further fragment the population, clearing will be limited to a narrow linear Fragment an existing population into strip within a larger vegetated area and a relatively small expansion of pit area within the operating two or more populations mine.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the The habitat is not considered to be critical to the survival of this species. survival of a species Disrupt the breeding cycle of a The search of the proposed infrastructure corridor in 2014 found no evidence of Malleefowl mounds population and there was very little suitable habitat in this area. The loss of habitat represents only a small area of potential habitat available in the vicinity of the Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or project. Dispersion is through corridors of native vegetation, as indicated by sightings of single birds decrease the availability or quality of and pairs walking along roadside remnants at considerable distances from larger remnants habitat to the extent that the species (DSEWPAC 2010). Due to the mobility of the species, clearing should not become a barrier to the is likely to decline movement of the species across the area. The project is not likely to modify and destroy habitat to the extent that the species will decline. Results in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or The project may potentially cause the introduction of additional invasive species such as weeds, feral endangered species becoming cats and foxes. It is unlikely that the project will cause harm to the species through the introduction established in the endangered or of invasive species. critically endangered species’ habitat The project will not involve any actions that may cause the introduction of diseases that will affect the Malleefowl. Introduce disease that may cause the Clearing of the vegetation may spread diseases such as Phytophthora spp., if appropriate standards of species to decline hygiene are not maintained during clearing and/or operation. This aspect is able to be effectively managed and controlled by the mine. Due to the migratory nature and dispersal capability of Malleefowl and the amount of clearing Interfere with the recovery of the required it is unlikely that the project will interfere with the recovery of the species. species. There is suitable habitat within the vicinity of the project area for dispersal.

Threatened Ecological Communities Description The Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) (Attachment 5) indicates that there are potentially two listed Threatened Ecological Communities likely to occur within a 30 km radius of the project:  Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt ‐ Critically Endangered Community  Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of Western Australia ‐ Endangered Community Nature and extent of likely impact Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt ‐ Critically Endangered Community. The listing of the Eucalypt Woodlands TEC occurred in November 2015 and as such was not assessed in the May 2015 report of the Flora and Vegetation assessment of the proposed infrastructure corridor (Woodman Environmental 2015). Eighteen vegetation types were mapped for the proposed infrastructure corridor and arranged into three broad groups. Groups 1 and 2 comprising 15 vegetation types consist of woodlands and mallee. However, the project is located in the Southern and coastal woodlands that are considered as ‘not included’ in the listing of this TEC (DOTE 2016). As such, it is not considered that any of these vegetation types represent the ‘Eucalypt Woodlands of the Western Australian Wheatbelt’ TEC. Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of Western Australia ‐ Endangered Community. Five vegetation types (VTs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 15) mapped by Woodman Environmental (2015) over the proposed infrastructure corridor component of the proposal are considered to represent the ‘Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of Western Australia’ TEC. These VTs all occur in an area that was burnt in 2004, and vegetation cover remains lower than long‐unburnt areas in adjacent areas. It is therefore considered that, given adequate time, the cover of Proteaceae taxa would meet the threshold level of 30%, as most quadrats established within these VTs are rich in Proteaceae taxa.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 17 of 16 Initial assessment of the southern component of the proposal (Hale‐Bopp pit extension) considers that the vegetation is likely to represent this TEC. Further delineation of the vegetation types in this area is required to determine extent of the Kwongkan TEC. A precautionary approach has been adopted until further assessment is conducted and so the entire area of the Hale‐Bopp pit extension (29 ha) has been determined as this TEC. The Kwongkan community extends beyond the Development Envelope as mapped by Woodman Environmental (2015). The total area of Kwongkan TEC in the Development Envelope is 118 ha (Figure 4 – Attachment 1). The area of Kwongkan TEC potentially impacted by the project footprint would be no more than 74 ha. It is considered that the proposal will have a significant impact on the TEC as the clearing will reduce the extent of an ecological community and fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community (DOTE 2013).

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 18 of 16 3.1 (e) Listed migratory species Description The fauna assessment (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2015) and the PMST (DOTE 2015) (Attachment 5) assessed whether the following migratory species listed under the EPBC Act (Table 9) have been recorded or are likely to occur.

Table 9 Likelihood of occurrence for migratory species identified as potentially occurring in the project area

Species EPBC Habitat description and distribution Likelihood Likelihood justification of occurrence Haliaeetus Migratory White‐bellied Sea Eagles are most commonly seen Unlikely Low, may infrequently be seen leucogaster around the coastline; however, they have been flying over the area. White‐ reported many kilometres inland. bellied Sea‐ The project area provides no eagle particular resource that would attract this species, the clearing of vegetation is unlikely to significantly impact on this species. Pandion Migratory This relatively large bird of prey is mostly found in Unlikely Very low, may infrequently be seen haliaetus coastal areas and lower reaches of rivers and on flying over the area but will not be Osprey offshore islands. It feeds predominantly on fish and significantly impacted by the seasnakes when living in a coastal environment, but proposed vegetation clearing and will also take birds and reptiles. construction activities. Apus pacifus Migratory The Fork‐tailed Swift breeds in north‐east and mid‐ Unlikely Low, may infrequently be seen Fork‐tailed east Asia and northern Australia and winters in flying over the area. Swift Australia and New Guinea. It arrives in the Kimberley in late September and in central and Given that the Fork‐tailed Swift is southern WA in November and leaves in late April. highly mobile and rarely lands and The Fork‐tailed Swift may be an infrequent visitor that the proposed land clearing to the area although it has not been recorded in represents a very small fraction of previous surveys. habitat in the general area, the proposed clearing in the project area is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species. Ardea alba Migratory Herons and egrets all depend to some extent upon Unlikely Very low due to a lack of suitable Great Egret surface water for hunting. The Great Egret is the habitat and therefore will not be largest of the Australian egrets, and is an elegant, significantly impacted on by white wader dependent upon floodwaters, rivers, vegetation clearing and the shallow wetlands and intertidal mud flats. It is also proposed development. found in wet pastures and estuarine mangroves. Its diet consists of a range of small, aquatic invertebrates and small vertebrates. Ardea ibis Migratory Distribution in Western Australia as being mostly Unlikely Very low due to a lack of suitable Cattle Egret confined to the irrigation areas surrounding habitat Kununurra; however, its migratory nature and current invasive tendencies suggest that it may occur elsewhere in the State, and may still be expanding its distribution. Thinornis Migratory This species frequents the margins and shallows of Unlikely Very low due to a lack of suitable rubricollis salt lakes, and along coastal beaches, where it habitat Hooded forages for invertebrates. It is found along the Plover southern coast and salt lakes north to Port Gregory, Three Springs, Mt Gibson, Lake Brown, Lake Barlee, Lake Cowan and Eyre. It is an uncommon to common resident on the southern sea beaches from Cape Naturaliste east to Eyre. It probably breeds in the samphire habitat along the boundary of some of the salt lakes in the bioregion. Merops Migratory The Rainbow Bee‐eater is widespread during late Recorded Seasonal ornatus spring and summer in the southern section of WA, Rainbow particularly in sandy areas that have access to Bee‐eater water.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 19 of 16 Nature and extent of likely impact The Table 10 provides an assessment against the Significant Impact Criteria for migratory species (DOE 2013). It is unlikely that the proposal will have any significant impact on the Rainbow Bee‐eater.

Table 10 Assessment against the significant impact guidelines 1.1 – Rainbow Bee‐eater

Significant impact criteria Comment The proposed land clearing represents a very small fraction of similar habitat in the Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, general area, and will not substantially modify or isolate an area of important altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or habitat for the Rainbow bee‐eater. altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species The project may potentially cause the introduction of additional invasive species Result in an invasive species that is harmful to such as weeds. It is unlikely that the project will cause harm to the species through the migratory species becoming established in the introduction of invasive species. an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or The proposed clearing in the project area is unlikely to have a significant impact on Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, this species and it will readily move to other areas if it is disturbed. feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area Description The project does not occur within a Commonwealth marine area. Nature and extent of likely impact The project is not considered to impact a Commonwealth marine area. 3.1 (g) Commonwealth land Description The project does not occur on Commonwealth land. Nature and extent of likely impact The project is not considered to impact Commonwealth land. 3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Description The project does not occur in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Nature and extent of likely impact The project is not considered to impact the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development Description The project is not related to a coal seam gas development or large coal mining development. Nature and extent of likely impact The project is not considered to impact a water source in relation to a coal seam gas development or large coal mining development.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 20 of 16 3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action?  No Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the  No Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a  No Commonwealth marine area? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))

3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on  No Commonwealth land? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))

3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the  No Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 1 of 16 3.3 Other important features of the environment

3.3 (a) Flora and fauna

Flora The project is located in the Esperance Plains Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) region. The vegetation of this IBRA region is characterised by a mallee‐heath formation on the predominant sand plains, with the most dominant mallee species being Eucalyptus pleurocarpa (tallerack), and the heath understorey dominated by proteaceous and myrtaceous shrubs. Herbfields and heaths occur on granite tors and quartzite ranges that rise from the plains, while Eucalypt mallee and woodlands occur in gullies and alluvial foot‐slopes. Thickets and scrub occur on dunes close to the coast, with thickets and heaths occurring in swampy areas. There are several large salt lakes on the plain. Within this IBRA region, the majority of the project is located within the Fitzgerald IBRA subregion, with the southern end located within the Recherche IBRA subregion.

The proposed infrastructure corridor or northern part of the Development Envelope has a total of 530 discrete vascular flora taxa and 1 known hybrid recorded (Woodman Environmental 2015). These taxa represent 59 families and 203 genera. The most well‐represented families were Myrtaceae (92 taxa and 1 known hybrid), Fabaceae (63 taxa), Proteaceae (54 taxa) and Cyperaceae (40 taxa). A total of 13 significant flora taxa were recorded by this survey of the Study Area, including Conostylis lepidospermoides listed as Threatened under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) (WC Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) (EPBC Act).

A total of 18 vegetation types (VT) were described for the area arranged into 3 broad groups, as outlined below:  Group 1 (VTs 1‐4) corresponds to vegetation that is commonly referred to as Kwongan shrubland on sandplains. This group generally consists of mallee shrubland or woodland dominated by Eucalyptus pleurocarpa over taxon‐rich shrublands on sandplains, with variable levels of laterite.  Group 2 (VTs 5‐15) corresponds to vegetation on clay soils associated with greenstone or laterite geology, including drainage lines associated with such geologies. It generally consists of mallee woodlands co‐dominated by a number of Eucalyptus taxa over mixed shrublands.  Group 3 (VTs 16‐18) corresponds to vegetation on granite‐derived soils. It generally consists of tall to mid shrublands dominated by Allocasuarina campestris and/or Calothamnus quadrifidus subsp. quadrifidus, over low mixed shrublands and sedgelands.

The Hale‐Bopp pit extension in the southern part of the Development Envelope predominantly contains two habitat types (Western Botanical 2006), Laterite Mallee Shrublands (LMS) and Sandy Silcrete Thicket (SST), with pockets of Mallee Heath on Komatiite (MHK), Mallee Heath on Duplex Soils (MHD) and Drainage Line Woodland (DRW) bordering the edges. The LMS habitat supports a very diverse vegetation assemblage with 240 species noted (Cockerton & Evelegh 2002). It is described as a mallee shrubland characterised by Eucalyptus pleurocarpa, E. falcata and E. lehmanii subsp. parallela mallees, Banksia lemanniana, Dryandra quercifolia (now known as Banksia heliantha A.R.Mast & K.R.Thiele), Acacia heterochroa subsp. heterochroa with a range of smaller proteaceous and myrtaceous shrubs dominating the understorey on gravely lateritic soils with ferricrete boulders. The SST habitat supports a dense thicket community characterised by Taxandria spathulata, Jacksonia elongata, Kunzea similis ssp. mediterranea, Isopogon trilobus, Beaufortia micrantha and a wide range of small shrubs. It is considered that the EPBC‐listed Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) ‘Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of Western Australia’ (Endangered) occurs in the Development Envelope (Figures 3.1 and 3.2 – Attachment 1).

Fauna Since 2000, RNO has commissioned extensive ecological surveys within the tenements, including the Hale‐Bopp, Halley’s, and Shoemaker‐Levy deposits. These surveys have recorded 132 vertebrate species comprising 77 birds, 15 native and four introduced mammals, 34 reptiles and two frogs, and including seven threatened or priority species (3 birds, 4 mammals). Fifteen Conservation significant fauna species have been recorded from RNO tenements and surrounding areas including the EPBC listed species:

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 1 of 16  Carnaby’s Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris ) (WC Act Schedule 1; EPBC Act Endangered)  Dibbler (Panabtechinus apicalis ) (WC Act Schedule 1; EPBC Act Endangered)  Heath Mouse (Pseudomys shortridgei ) (WC Act Schedule 1; EPBC Act Vulnerable)  Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) (WC Act Schedule 1; EPBC Act Vulnerable)  Rainbow bee‐eater (Merops ornatus) (WC Act Schedule 3; EPBC Act Migratory)  Western Quoll (Dasyurus geoffroii )(WC Act Schedule 1; EPBC Act Vulnerable)  Western Whipbird (Psophodes nigrogularis ) (DPAW Priority 4)

3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows The land surface within the local Bandalup Hill and broader Ravensthorpe Range is characterised as gently undulating with subdued ridgelines, gentle slopes (e.g. <5% grade or <3) and defined drainage lines dissecting the range. The relief varies from 135m RL within the central drainage lines on the western side of the range to 220m RL along the ridge line. Whilst the majority of the slopes of the range are relatively gentle, slopes of up to 10% grade or 6 do occur in the immediate vicinity of the drainage lines.

The surface drainage system is geologically controlled, with the streams and river systems having preferentially etched into the underlying in situ regolith and bedrock along lines of structural weakness and discontinuity. The surface of the range is armoured (resistant to erosion) by a surficial lateritic caprock, which is typical of Tertiary weathered landscapes of Western Australia. Whilst local‐scale surface water flows occur off the exposed lateritic caprock, the potential for surface water flows from the ridge to reach the drainage channels is low due to the undulating upper surface of the caprock and its highly fractured or structured nature; the lateritised upper slopes and ridgeline can therefore be considered as zones of infiltration and deep recharge, which has facilitated the supergene formation of the nickel orebody. With distance downslope, the lateritic caprock thins‐out and is replaced by surface sands overlying the in situ saprolitic regolith. These surface sands feed the drainage system, and thus the actual catchment for the stream channels is considered to be restricted to the vicinity around the drainage line – a similar drainage and recharge system occurs through the Darling Range, Whicher Scarp and Scott Coastal Plain.

3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics The landscape across the Ravensthorpe Range and Bandalup Hill is characterised as an in situ Tertiary weathered profile, with a defined isovolumetric weathering sequence consisting of:  surface gravel, which have formed by the continued weathering of the underlying caprock;  lateritic caprock;  saprolite, which preserves the fabric and structure of the parent rock;  saprock or transition zone  unweathered bedrock

The parent geology throughout the Ravensthorpe Nickel Project is komatiitic ultra mafic, representing the Ravensthorpe Greenstone Belt, which is surrounding by granitic gneiss of the Yilgarn Craton. The ultramafic nature of the parent geology supplies the source of the nickel that is mined, with supergene alteration accumulating the nickel, and associated iron and aluminium, in the near‐surface soil horizons. This Tertiary weathering sequence results in the formation of the lateritic caprock.

The upper surface of the lateritic caprock is gently undulating and given the closeness of the Project Area to the coastline, depression in lateritic surface have subsequently been filled with sand (Bandalup Sand). The surface soils therefore range from exposed laterite, to decomposed lateritic gravels to sand lens of varying thickness. This contrast in soil type, and their associated limiting properties, is likely to be a major contributing factor to the high level of floristic endemism seen in this region. In addition, the fine‐grained komatiitic ultra mafic parent geology also results in a high clay saprolite (often smectitic), which is likely to represent an important water source for the native vegetation, and supports the high plant density in the area.

The soils and landscape across the Project Area, including the Hale‐Bopp North West (HBNW) Deposit have been regionally mapped by CSIRO as part of the Australian Soil Resource Information System (ASRIS). The soils belong to the Ravensthorpe Zone (Zone 244), with the dominant soil types being represented by:  Ravensthorpe System (244Ra) – undulating hills on Archean greenstone of metasediments and ultramafics with alkaline red shallow loamy duplex, shallow gravel and stony soils.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 2 of 16  Oldfield System (244Od) – Dissected headwater plains and rises on Proterozoic and Archean granite and gneiss, with grey duplex (shallow and deep) and deep sandy gravels.

A local‐scale soil survey was completed by Outback Ecology (2005) during baseline studies for the original Halley’s and Hale‐Bopp Deposits, which included the HPNW Deposit. Soils pits to 2m depth, or to refusal, were excavated and soil samples collected from the exposed soil profile for laboratory analysis. This study highlighted the diversity of the surface soils, ranging from grey sands over lateritic to deep red loams over mottled clayey saprolite to thin skeletal gravels. Within the proposed HBNW Deposit, all surface soils are alkaline, non‐saline to highly saline, dispersive and highly sodic. Although a defined topsoil occurs, as indicated by an accumulation of organic matter in the surface 5‐10cm of the profile, all soils are considered nutritionally deficit with very low to low levels of macro‐nutrients (e.g. N, P, K and S).

3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features Natural heritage is an important factor for RNO, which is located within the Fitzgerald River Biosphere, one of 12 UN recognised international biospheres in Australia. The biosphere captures the Fitzgerald River National Park and Ravensthorpe Ranges. This natural heritage is important as a focus for tourist activity within the region (Shire of Ravensthorpe 2010). RNO is sensitive to its location within the Fitzgerald River biosphere and all employees are made aware of its importance.

3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation Five vegetation system associations as defined by Shepherd et al. (2002) occur in the project area. The majority of vegetation system associations present remain relatively well represented, with more than 60 % of the pre‐European extent remaining. Only Esperance_47 has been extensively cleared, with less than 15 % of its pre‐European extent remaining. However, the majority of vegetation system associations present in the Study Area are not well protected for conservation; only Qualup_516 is considered well protected, with more than 51 % of its current extent reserved. The remaining vegetation system associations have less than 15 % of their current extent reserved.

3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) N/A

3.3 (g) Current state of the environment The project area is located on a combination of cleared agricultural land owned by FQM and bushland on vacant crown land under mining leases. The majority of the 252 ha Development Envelope is native vegetation except the southern end of the proposed infrastructure corridor component of 48 ha which is cleared where it joins to the processing plant and previously cleared areas of operations.

A total of 16 introduced flora taxa were recorded within the study area for the proposed infrastructure corridor (Woodman Environmental 2015). Of these Eragrostis curvula (African Lovegrass) is considered to be a serious weed of disturbed ground capable of invading adjacent bushland (Hussey et al. 2007). The remaining weeds recorded in the study area are not considered to be particularly serious; however, Cynodon dactylon (Couch) is known to be highly invasive in wetland areas (Hussey et al. 2007).

Introduced predators such as foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felix catus) are known to be present in the project area. Tracks and other linear clearings in the natural vegetation can provide movement corridors for foxes and cats through the landscape, which can increase predation on native species.

The land surface across the Project Area is structurally stable and does not exhibit erosional features. The surface lateritic profile is resistant to erosion, and the abundance of native vegetation minimises raindrop impacts on the surface soils that may cause clay mobilisation. The natural vegetated land surface is therefore stable.

3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values No Commonwealth Heritage Places intersect or are adjacent to the project area.

3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values Aboriginal cultural, heritage and ethnographic surveys took place throughout the Project’s history, paving the way for exploration, construction and operations. FQM has in place a Heritage Management Plan (HMP), which is a condition of EPA Ministerial Statement 633. There are currently eight (8) known places on RNO tenements that conform to the definitions of places to which the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 applies, and their management is included in the HMP.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 3 of 16 The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 requires FQM to ensure that it is not at risk of, or actively, impacting any heritage places in disturbance areas. WA Government approval processes also ensure that this process has been completed prior to any future disturbance.

In addition, FQM has in place Agreements with the Wagyl‐Kaip/Southern Noongar Peoples and the Esperance Nyungar Peoples, which include extensive commitments and procedures relating to heritage matters. These commitments form the backbone of the FQM HMP, and ensure that FQM meets its legal obligations and commitments to the local aboriginal people including ongoing consultation and engagement.

3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment The nearest conservation reserves to RNO include Nature Reserve 27177 (20.64 ha), for Conservation of Flora, 1.5 km west of the Project Area; and Nature Reserve 43060, Scarlet Pear Gum Reserve, located on the corner of Mason Bay Road and Jerdacuttup Road. Other reserves include the adjacent Fitzgerald River National Park, Kundip Nature Reserve to the west and Jerdacuttup Lakes Nature Reserve to the south of Project Area.

RNO leases fall within the buffer zone (defined as vacant Crown land and other reserves) of the Fitzgerald Biosphere Reserve. The part of the buffer zone known as the Bandalup Corridor is an area of remnant vegetation which, along with other vegetation corridors such as the Ravensthorpe Ranges and Carlingup Corridor, links the Fitzgerald River National Park with vegetation to the northeast, leading to the eastern Goldfields.

3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold) The proposal is located on mineral leases issued under the WA Mining Act 1978 and includes tenements M74/108, M74/115, M74/144, M74/168, M74/171, M74/235, L74/21 and L74/32. The proposed corridor will cross the South Coastal Highway and intersect the road reserve managed by Main Roads WA.

3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area The land use in the region is a mixture of Unallocated Crown Land, existing cleared agricultural land, reserves and Fitzgerald River National Park.

3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area Beyond the action described in this Referral, there are no other known proposed land uses within the project area.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 4 of 16 4 Environmental outcomes

The construction and operation of the infrastructure corridor and pit expansion has the potential for environmental impact on one Threatened plant, the Endangered Conostylis lepidospermoides, two threatened mammal species, the Chuditch and Heath Mouse, two Threatened birds, Carnaby’s Cockatoo and Malleefowl and the ‘Threatened Ecological Community, Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of Western Australia’, listed as Endangered. No World Heritage Property, National Heritage Property or Ramsar wetlands have been identified in the project area.

Measures to avoid or reduce the nature and extent of any associated impact will be detailed in the Public Environmental Review undertaken as part of the assessment under the EPBC Act and Part IV of WA’s EP Act. This risk‐based assessment will address potential for impact on listed threatened species and their habitat and form the basis of operational (construction) and environmental management plans covering aspects such environmental education and induction, weed management, fauna management (including feral animal control), clearing controls, and rehabilitation to be developed for the project and consistent with existing operations.

Further surveys of the Threatened Flora Conostylis lepidospermoides will be conducted to quantify the scale of the impact of the proposal footprint on this species. Similarly, additional assessments will be conducted to accurately quantify the potential impact to the ‘Threatened Ecological Community, Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of Western Australia’.

Larger, more‐mobile mammals and reptiles such as kangaroos, monitors and larger skinks will be able to move away from the areas of disturbance to surrounding uncleared habitat. Similarly, transient or migratory birds are unlikely to be impacted by the RNO as they are highly mobile and can move to alternative habitat and are not critically reliant on any habitat within the Development Envelope. Large trees that are potential nesting sites are present in low numbers within the vegetation communities that are to be disturbed, therefore the possible impact on nesting sites for these species is very low. However, populations of small reptiles, mammals and amphibians will almost certainly be lost.

Potential negative impacts from the disturbance footprint of the existing operations of RNO, have been offset by various strategies that are likely to lead to enhanced protection of adjacent areas of the Bandalup Corridor. These strategies have included: • purchase of a 660 ha part of Location 1399 (uncleared vegetation) by RNO and its preservation for conservation purposes • revegetation of approximately 550 ha of existing cleared land resulting in an extension of the Bandalup corridor • enhanced capacity for fire management in the RNO area and adjacent Bandalup Corridor, through the presence of fire‐fighting apparatus and trained personnel at RNO.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 5 of 16 5 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts

FQM will comply with all State and Federal legislative requirements, codes and standards as a minimum and will design, construct, operate and decommission the project in a manner consistent with relevant government policies so as to have the lowest practicable impact on the environment and communities.

The existing RNO Vegetation and Priority Flora Management Plan (Attachment 11a) and Fauna Management Plan (Attachment 11b) will be revised to include the entire operations with the proposed additional areas of the infrastructure corridor and pit expansion. The Fauna Management Plan incorporates two approaches to manage fauna of the RNO, including the Bandalup Corridor. Firstly, a general management strategy which seeks to protect fauna and fauna habitat outside of the disturbance footprint of the RNO by treating native vegetation in these areas similar to conservation areas. Secondly, specific management strategies will be implemented for threatened or priority fauna species potentially at risk by RNO activities.

Further studies are required to be conducted and Table 11 details the commitments to reduce impacts and provide offsets as is currently understood. Further commitments and outcomes will be identified through consultation with regulators and the assessment process.

FQM believes that the current regulatory assessment and operating controls required by Commonwealth and State regulatory agencies will ensure that appropriate controls and reporting mechanisms are in place to effectively manage and mitigate potential additional risks to the environment from the project.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 1 of 16 Table 11 Measures to avoid, reduce, manage or offset any relevant impacts of the action

Inherent impact and aspects that may cause a Mitigation actions to address residual Proposed regulatory mechanisms for ensuring Outcome to significant impact impacts mitigation

Clearing of Threatened and/or Endangered Flora Avoid – The Development Envelope will be Threatened Flora obligations will be managed Flora and Vegetation will be managed by managed to avoid some of the known by the Vegetation and Flora Management Plan Ministerial Conditions and Vegetation and Flora locations of the Conostylis (to be revised) to meet the objectives for the Management Plan. lepidospermoides. factor of Flora and Vegetation. Rare flora will be managed according to the WC Avoid – Known locations of Threatened FQM will also commit to developing offsets to Act Permit to Take conditions, Ministerial flora where no ground disturbance is counterbalance any significant residual impacts Conditions. required will be avoided where from clearing of Threatened Flora. practicable.

Minimise – Access corridor and pit designs will minimise the clearing of threatened flora to ensure viable populations. Minimise – Vegetation and Flora Management Plans will be in place prior to any clearing of rare flora to minimise impacts through unauthorised clearing. Rehabilitate – progressive rehabilitation will be implemented which will include the use of Conostylis lepidospermoides material. Offsets – an offsets strategy will be developed and implemented where required. Clearing of the EPBC listed Endangered TEC Avoid – reduction of clearing of TEC as Management of vegetation will be undertaken ‘Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of much as possible. Where no ground under the Vegetation and Flora Management the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of disturbance is required TEC will be Plan (to be revised) that will contain obligations Western Australia’ avoided where practicable. for the mitigation, rehabilitation and management of vegetation. Minimise – Access corridor and pit designs

will minimise the clearing of TEC to ensure FQM will also commit to developing offsets to viable populations. counterbalance any significant residual impacts Minimise – Vegetation Management Plans from clearing of native vegetation. will be in place prior to any clearing of TEC to minimise impacts through unauthorised clearing. Rehabilitate – progressive rehabilitation

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 1 of 16 Inherent impact and aspects that may cause a Mitigation actions to address residual Proposed regulatory mechanisms for ensuring Outcome to significant impact impacts mitigation

will be implemented which will include the use of locally indigenous proteaceous material. Offsets – an offsets strategy will be developed and implemented where required. Spread/introduction of weeds Avoid – weed hygiene inspections of The Biosecurity Management Plan will be ground disturbance equipment will be developed and implemented to meet conducted prior to arriving on site. Ministerial conditions for the ongoing management and mitigation against the spread Minimise – periodic weed surveys will be of invasive species. conducted including species identification and mapping. Minimise – Weed management controls will be implemented for areas adjacent to native vegetation as required. Increased disease risk (Phytophthora) Avoid – dieback hygiene inspections of The Biosecurity Management Plan will revise ground disturbance equipment will be the Dieback and Hygiene Management Plan and conducted prior to arriving on site. implemented to meet Ministerial conditions for the ongoing management and mitigation Avoid ‐ All equipment will use the against dieback. washdown bay prior to going to and departing from native vegetation. Minimise – annual dieback surveys will be conducted. Minimise – Dieback management controls will be implemented for areas adjacent to native vegetation through the Dieback and hygiene management plan. Clearing of foraging habitat for the EPBC listed Avoid – reduction of clearing of foraging Management of vegetation will be undertaken Terrestrial fauna will be managed by the species. habitat required as much as possible. under the Vegetation and Flora Management Ministerial Statement and the implementation of Plan (to be revised) that will contain obligations the Fauna Management Plan and the Vegetation Minimise – infrastructure will be for the mitigation, rehabilitation and and Flora Management Plan contained within as small a corridor as management of vegetation and fauna habitat. possible.

Vegetation and Flora Management Plans FQM will also commit to developing offsets to will be in place prior to any clearing of counterbalance any significant residual impacts conservation significant fauna species from clearing of foraging habitat. habitat to minimise impacts through

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 2 of 16 Inherent impact and aspects that may cause a Mitigation actions to address residual Proposed regulatory mechanisms for ensuring Outcome to significant impact impacts mitigation

unauthorised clearing. Rehabilitate ‐ areas required for construction will be rehabilitated with foraging species for Carnaby’s Cockatoo where appropriate. Offsets – an offsets strategy will be developed and implemented where required.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 3 of 16 6 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts 6.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?

No, complete section 6.2  Yes, complete section 6.3

6.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action.

6.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action Matters likely to be impacted World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A) National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C) Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)  Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)  Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A) Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A) Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E) Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A) Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28) Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)

The construction and operation of the infrastructure corridor and pit expansion has the potential for environmental impact on one Threatened plant the Endangered Conostylis lepidospermoides, two threatened mammal species, the Chuditch and Heath Mouse, two Threatened birds, Carnaby’s Cockatoo and the Malleefowl and the ‘Threatened Ecological Community, ‘Proteaceae Dominated Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Floristic Province of Western Australia’, listed as Endangered.

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 1 of 16 7 Environmental record of the responsible party

Yes No 7.1 Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible  environmental management?

The original Ravensthorpe Nickel Project (RNP) was commenced by Comet Resources in 1998. BHP Billiton (BHPB) purchased RNP in 2002 and commenced construction in 2003 and operations in 2008. BHPB shut down the operation due to operational difficulties in 2009, and the plant was placed into care and maintenance. In February 2010, First Quantum Minerals Australia Nickel (FQM) purchased RNO and commenced modifications and upgrades. Commissioning started in June 2011 and nickel was first produced in October 2011, with first exports shipped in November 2011; commercial production was achieved in December 2011.

Legal requirements arise predominately from State and Commonwealth legislation, mining tenement conditions, commitments made in Notices of Intent (NOIs) or Mining Proposals (after February 2006), conditions on environmental approvals (such as Ministerial Statements, operating licences and clearing permits) and conditions in contracts RNO has entered into with other parties.

RNO maintains a Legal Obligations Register which contains legally binding conditions and commitments and/or legal obligations applicable under relevant State and Federal legislation. Tenement conditions and Ministerial Statement No. 633 include specific requirements for management plans to be developed and implemented by RNO. The following Plans have commitments relevant to environmental management:  Management Plan for Priority Flora and Significant Vegetation Communities.  Fauna Management Plan.  Groundwater Management Plan.  Surface Water Management Plan.  Dieback Management Plan.  Heritage Management Plan. 7.2 Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been  applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources?

If yes, provide details

7.3 If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance  with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?

If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework FQM has an Environmental Management System that comprises all Environmental Management plans and work is conducted according to the FQM Environmental Policy (Attachment 12)

7.4 Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or  been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?

Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known)

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 2 of 16 8 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above) 8.1 References

Biota Environmental Sciences (2000) Ravensthorpe Nickel Project – Fauna Survey 2000. Unpublished report for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations.

Coffey Environments (2009) Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Risk Assessment for the Shoemaker‐Levy Ore Body, Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations, Unpublished report for BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel, Ravensthorpe.

Coffey Environments (2010) Fauna Monitoring, Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations, January 2010. Unpublished report for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations, Ravensthorpe.

Department of the Environment (2013) Matters of National Environmental Significance ‐ Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1.

Department of the Environment (2016) Protected Matters Search Tool Report created: 29/06/16 16:14:49. Report reference: PMST_N1DPXR.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2010) Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals. Guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011) Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals. Guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities. 2012. EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for Three Threatened Black Cockatoo Species: Carnaby's Cockatoo (endangered) Calyptorhynchus latirostris, Baudin's Cockatoo (vulnerable) Calyptorhynchus baudinii, Forest Redtailed Black Cockatoo (vulnerable) Calyptorhynchus banksii naso. Canberra.

Goode B. (2012) Report of a Desktop Aboriginal Heritage Survey of FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd Mining Operations Granted Tenements in Ravensthorpe, Western Australia. A report prepared for FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd, Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations.

Outback Ecology (2005) Soil Characteristics and Management at the Ravensthorpe Nickel Operation. A report prepared for BHP Billiton, Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations

Shepherd D., Beeston G.R. and Hopkins A. (2002) Native Vegetation in Western Australia. Extent, type and Status. Resource Management Technical Report 249. Department of Agriculture.

Shire of Ravensthorpe (2010) TOURISM STRATEGY for the Shire of Ravensthorpe EVOLVE Solutions.

Terrestrial Ecosystems (2013) Conservation Significant Vertebrate Fauna Monitoring for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations, Ravensthorpe. Unpublished report for FQM Australia Nickel, Ravensthorpe.

Terrestrial Ecosystems (2014) Conservation Significant Vertebrate Fauna Monitoring for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations ‐ 2014, Ravensthorpe. Unpublished report for FQM Australia Nickel, Ravensthorpe.

Terrestrial Ecosystems (2015) Potential impact of vegetation clearing and the development of a conveyor belt on fauna at the Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations. Unpublished report for FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008) Approved Conservation Advice for Conostylis lepidospermoides (Sedge Conostylis). Government of Australia. Available: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/9254‐conservation‐advice.pdf

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 3 of 16 Western Botanical (2006) Ravensthorpe Nickel Significant Species Condition Assessment Program, October 2005 to July 2006. Report Number WB346. Unpublished report for BHP Billiton Ravensthorpe Nickel, Ravensthorpe.

Woodman Environmental (2015) Shoemaker Levy Access Corridor Flora and Vegetation Assessment. Unpublished report for FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd.

8.2 Reliability and date of information The information used to compile this referral document is considered to be reliable and is sourced from published and unpublished references listed in Section 8.1, Western Australian Government online databases and field surveys undertaken by specialist consultants since 2005, with the most recent works undertaken in the period 2014 to 2015. Information regarding the presence of Matters of National Environmental Significance was obtained through the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool accessed on 29 June 2016. Data reliability in respect to threatened species was checked on the Species Profile and Threat (SPRAT) database.

8.3 Attachments

 attached Title of attachment(s) Attachment 1a You must attach figures, maps or aerial photographs  showing the project locality (section 1) Figure 1: Location Map (Regional) GIS file delineating the boundary of the Attachment 1b referral area (section 1) Figure 2: RNO Showing Development Envelope GIS Attachment FQM_RNO_EPBC GIS Files

Attachment 1c figures, maps or aerial photographs  showing the location of the project in Figure 3.1: Threatened Flora respect to any matters of national Comprised of Kunzea and environmental significance or important Conostylis lepidospermoides features of the environments (section 3) and Other Priority and Conservation Significant Flora Attachment 1d Figure 3.2: Threatened Flora Comprised of Kunzea and Conostylis lepidospermoides and Other Priority and Conservation Significant Flora Attachment 1e Figure 4: Threatened Ecological Community Compiled of Vegetation Mapping Units 1, 3, 4 and 8

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 4 of 16 Attachment 2 If relevant, attach copies of any state or local government  approvals and consent conditions (section Approval Decision – 2.5) Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine (EPBC 2001/172) Attachment 3a Minister for the Environment Statement Number 000633 Statement to Amend Conditions Applying to a Proposal (Pursuant to the Provisions of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986) Attachment 3b Attachment 3 to Ministerial Statement 633 Change to Proposal Approved under Section 45C of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 Attachment 4 Amended License for Prescribed Premises Environmental Protection Act 1986 License Number L8008/2004/4; File Number DER2014/000631

copies of any completed assessments to meet state or local government approvals and outcomes of public consultations, if available (section 2.6) Attachment 6 copies of any flora and fauna investigations  and surveys (section 3) Shoemaker‐Levy Access Corridor Flora and Vegetation Assessment Attachment 7 Potential impact of vegetation clearing and the development of a conveyor belt on fauna at the Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations Attachment 8 Conservation Significant Vertebrate Fauna Monitoring for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations Attachment 9 Conservation Significant Vertebrate Fauna Monitoring for Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations ‐ 2014 Attachment 10 Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Risk Assessment for the

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 5 of 16 Shoemaker‐Levy Orebody, Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations

Attachment 5 technical reports relevant to the  assessment of impacts on protected EPBC Act Protected Matters matters that support the arguments and Report conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4) Attachment 11a Management Plan for Priority Flora and Significant Vegetation Communities Attachment 11b Fauna Management Plan RNO‐HSE‐PLN‐0007 Attachment 12 First Quantum Minerals Environmental Policy report(s) on any public consultations undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders (section 3)

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 6 of 16 9 Contacts, signatures and declarations Project title: Changes to Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations

9.1 Person proposing to take action

1. Name and Title: Tony Petersen Manager, Health, Safety & Environment

2. Organisation (if applicable): FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd (FQM)

3. EPBC Referral Number (if known): 4: ACN / ABN (if applicable): 135 761 465

5. Postal address Lot 1269, South Coast Highway Ravensthorpe WA 6346

6. Telephone: (08) 9838 2601 7. Email: [email protected] 8. Name of proposed N/A proponent (if not the same person at item 1 above and if applicable): 9. ACN/ABN of proposed N/A proponent (if not the same person named at item 1 above):

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF YOU QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE FEE(S) THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYABLE

I qualify for exemption □ an individual; OR from fees under section

520(4C)(e)(v) of the EPBC Act because I am: □ a small business entity (within the meaning given by section 328-110 (other than subsection 328-119(4)) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997); OR

 not applicable.

If you are small business entity you must provide the Date/Income Year that you became a small business entity:

Note: You must advise the Department within 10 business days if you cease to be a small business entity. Failure to notify the Secretary of this is an offence punishable on conviction by a fine (regulation 5.23B(3) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (Cth)).

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPLY FOR A WAIVER

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 7 of 16

REFERRAL CHECKLIST NOTE: This checklist is to help ensure that all the relevant referral information has been provided. It is not a part of the referral form and does not need to be sent to the Department.

HAVE YOU:  Completed all required sections of the referral form?  Included accurate coordinates (to allow the location of the proposed action to be mapped)?  Provided a map showing the location and approximate boundaries of the project area?  Provided a map/plan showing the location of the action in relation to any matters of NES?  Provided a digital file (preferably ArcGIS shapefile, refer to guidelines at Attachment A) delineating the boundaries of the referral area?  Provided complete contact details and signed the form?  Provided copies of any documents referenced in the referral form?  Ensured that all attachments are less than three megabytes (3mb)?  Sent the referral to the Department (electronic and hard copy preferred)?

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 9 of 16 Attachment A

Geographic Information System (GIS) data supply guidelines

If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a point layer. If the area greater than 5 hectares, please provide as a polygon layer. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipeline) please provide a polyline layer.

GIS data needs to be provided to the Department in the following manner:  Point, Line or Polygon data types: ESRI file geodatabase feature class (preferred) or as an ESRI shapefile (.shp) zipped and attached with appropriate title  Raster data types: Raw satellite imagery should be supplied in the vendor specific format.  Projection as GDA94 coordinate system.

Processed products should be provided as follows:  For data, uncompressed or lossless compressed formats is required - GeoTIFF or Imagine IMG is the first preference, then JPEG2000 lossless and other simple binary+header formats (ERS, ENVI or BIL).  For natural/false/pseudo colour RGB imagery: o If the imagery is already mosaiced and is ready for display then lossy compression is suitable (JPEG2000 lossy/ECW/MrSID). Prefer 10% compression, up to 20% is acceptable. o If the imagery requires any sort of processing prior to display (i.e. mosaicing/colour balancing/etc) then an uncompressed or lossless compressed format is required.

Metadata or ‘information about data’ will be produced for all spatial data and will be compliant with ANZLIC Metadata Profile. (http://www.anzlic.org.au/policies_guidelines#guidelines).

The Department’s preferred method is using ANZMet Lite, however the Department’s Service Provider may use any compliant system to generate metadata.

All data will be provide under a Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/)

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 10 of 16