Environmental Review Document

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Hamersley Iron Pty Limited May 2020

RTIO-HSE-0337176

Hamersley Iron Pty Limited

152-158 St Georges Terrace, Perth

GPO Box A42, Perth WA 6837 Disclaimer and Limitation This report has been prepared by Rio Tinto’s Iron Ore Group (Rio Tinto), on behalf of Hamersley Iron Pty Limited (the Proponent), specifically for the Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal. Neither the report nor its contents may be referred to without the express approval of Rio Tinto, unless the report has been released for referral and assessment of proposals.

Document Status

Rev Author Reviewer/s Date Approved for Issue

To Whom Date

1 Danielle White, Sarah Lisa Adams 12 July 2019 Rio Tinto 12 July 2019 Muller, Briana Wingfield, Jeremy Mitchell

2 Danielle White, Sarah Lisa Adams 27 September Rio Tinto 27 September Muller, Briana Wingfield, / Joel 2019 2019 Jeremy Mitchell McShane

3 Danielle White, Nicole Lisa Adams 25 October Rio Tinto 25 October 2019 McAlinden, Jeremy Mitchell / Joel 2019 McShane

4 Danielle White, Nicole Joel 31 October EPA Services 31 October 2019 McAlinden, Jeremy Mitchell, McShane 2019 Lisa Adams

5 Sarah Muller, Jeremy Joel 21 February Rio Tinto 21 February 2020 Mitchell, Lisa Adams McShane 2020

6 Sarah Muller, Jeremy Joel 10 March Rio Tinto 10 March 2020 Mitchell, Lisa Adams McShane 2020

7 Sarah Muller, Jeremy Joel 17 March EPA Services 17 March 2020 Mitchell, Lisa Adams McShane / 2020 Melinda Brand

8 Jeremy Mitchell, Lisa Joel 23 April 2020 Rio Tinto 23 April 2020 Adams McShane

9 Jeremy Mitchell, Lisa Joel 29 April 2020 EPA Services 29 April 2020 Adams McShane

10 Jeremy Mitchell, Lisa Joel 1 May 2020 Public review 5 May 2020 Adams McShane

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document Invitation to make a submission

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) invites people to make a submission on the environmental review for this Proposal. Hamersley Iron Pty Limited (the Proponent) proposes to sustain production via extension to existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range and development of a new deposit at Western Range. This Proposal is located approximately 6 km south of the town of Paraburdoo in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (WA), and is an integral part of the Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub supporting the Rio Tinto Group (Rio Tinto) integrated network of iron ore mines in the Pilbara. The existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range, which are not subject to a Ministerial Statement issued under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act), are currently regulated under Part V of the EP Act and the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (RiWI Act). Clearing is currently authorised under clearing permits CPS 4032, CPS 4594, and CPS 5090. Licence L5275/1972 authorises the operation of prescribed activities relating to the existing Paraburdoo and Eastern Range operations. The Proposal will involve additional clearing of up to 4,300 hectares (ha) of native vegetation (in addition to disturbance from existing operations) within a Development Envelope of 17,422 ha. The Environmental Review Document (ERD) is the report by the Proponent on their environmental review, which describes this Proposal and its likely effects on the environment. The ERD has been prepared in accordance with the EPA’s Procedures Manual (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2).

The ERD is available for a public review period of two weeks from 13 May 2020, closing on 27 May 2020. Information on the Proposal from the public may assist the EPA to prepare its assessment report in which it will make recommendations on the Proposal to the Minister for Environment. Why write a submission? The EPA seeks information that will inform its consideration of the likely effects of the Proposal, if implemented, on the environment. This may include relevant new information that is not in the ERD, such as alternative courses of action or approaches. In preparing its assessment report for the Minister for Environment, the EPA will consider the information in submissions, the Proponent’s responses and other relevant information. Submissions will be treated as public documents unless provided and received in confidence, subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 1992. Why not join a group? It may be worthwhile joining a group or other groups interested in making a submission on similar issues. Joint submissions may help to reduce the workload for an individual or group. If you form a small group (up to 10 people), please indicate the names of all participants. If your group is larger, please indicate how many people your submission represents. Developing a submission You may agree or disagree with, or comment on, information in the ERD. When making comments on specific elements of the ERD: • What to include in your submission Include the following in your submission to make it easier for the EPA to consider your submission: • your contact details – name and address; • date of your submission;

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document • whether you want your contact details to be confidential; • summary of your submission, if your submission is long; • list points preferably by environmental factor so that issues raised are clear; • refer each point to the page, section and, if possible, paragraph of the ERD; and • attach any reference material, if applicable, making sure your information is accurate.

The closing date for public submissions is 27 May 2020. The EPA prefers submissions to be made electronically via the EPA’s Consultation Hub at https://consultation.epa.wa.gov.au. Alternatively, submissions can be: • posted to: Chairman, Environmental Protection Authority, Locked Bag 10, Joondalup DC WA 6919; or • delivered to: Environmental Protection Authority, Prime House, 8 Davidson Terrace, Joondalup WA 6027. If you have any questions on how to make a submission, please contact EPA Services at the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation on (08) 6364 7000.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document

Scoping Checklist

A checklist setting out how matters required to be addressed under Schedule 4 of the EPBC Regulations is included at Appendix 1.

Required Work Item Required work Section in ERD No.

Flora and vegetation

Identify and characterise the flora and vegetation of areas that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposal in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Technical Guidance– Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment (2016). This should 1) Section 5.3.1 include sampling more broadly to inform local and regional context. Demonstrate how surveys are relevant and consistent with current EPA policy and guidance. Ensure database searches and taxonomic identifications are up to date.

Identify and describe the vegetation and significant flora species present and likely to be present within the development envelope, and any areas that may be indirectly impacted by the proposal beyond the development 2) Section 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 envelope. Include an analysis of the significance of flora and vegetation in local, regional and State contexts as appropriate in accordance with the relevant guidance set out below.

Provide maps depicting the recorded locations of the significant flora, listed ecological communities and significant vegetation in relation to the Figure 5-3, Figure 5-4, 3) development envelope in accordance with the relevant guidelines set out Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8 below.

Map weed occurrences in areas likely to be directly and indirectly 4) Section 5.3.3, Figure 5-9 impacted by the Proposal.

Assess the potential direct and indirect impacts of the construction and operational elements of the proposal on identified environmental values. Include an assessment of impacts to groundwater/surface water dependent vegetation, including riparian vegetation. Include a Section 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3 5) quantitative assessment of levels of impact on significant flora, listed and 5.5.2 ecological communities and all vegetation units. Describe and assess the extent of any cumulative impacts within local, regional and State contexts as appropriate.

Describe and justify any proposed mitigation to reduce the potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposal. Include any 6) proposed management and/or monitoring plans that will be implemented Section 5.7 pre- and post-construction to ensure residual impacts to identified environmental values (direct and indirect) are not greater than predicted.

Identify, describe and quantify the potential residual impacts to identified environmental values (direct, indirect and cumulative) that may occur 7) Section 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 following implementation of the proposal after considering and applying avoidance and minimisation measures.

Prepare a Mine Closure Plan, consistent with DMP and EPA Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (2015), which includes methodologies 8) to ensure progressive rehabilitation of disturbed land meets closure Appendix 5 objectives, including vegetation composed of native species of local provenance.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document

Required Work Item Required work Section in ERD No.

Provide a report that details the likely success of future rehabilitation activities in establishing self-sustaining areas of rehabilitation, taking into account: a. evidence of success of rehabilitation undertaken to date in the 9) region Appendix 5 b. relevant contemporary scientific evidence c. the types of area to be rehabilitated d. the scale of rehabilitation activities.

Determine and quantify any significant residual impacts by applying the Residual Impact Significance Model (page 11) and WA Offset Template 10) (Appendix 1) in the WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines (2014) and Section 10 include reference to the Commonwealth Assessment Guide for any Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES).

Where significant residual impacts remain, propose an appropriate offsets package that is consistent with the WA Environmental Offsets Policy and 11) Guidelines. Spatial data defining the area of significant residual impacts Section 12 for each environmental value should also be provided (e.g. vegetation type, vegetation condition, specific fauna species habitat)

Demonstrate in the ERD how the Proponent proposes to ensure the EPA 12) Section 5.8 objective for this factor can be met.

Terrestrial fauna

In accordance with the requirements of EPA Technical Guidance: a. conduct a desktop study, incorporating existing regional terrestrial fauna surveys (including SRE invertebrate species) and databases; and

13) b. undertake terrestrial fauna (including short-range endemic Section 6.3.1 (SRE) invertebrate species) surveys in all areas of impact, to identify and characterise terrestrial fauna and fauna habitat, at a local and regional scale, that may be impacted directly and indirectly by the implementation of the proposal. This should include sampling inside and outside the impact areas and consider cumulative impacts.

Describe the values and significance of fauna and fauna habitat that may be impacted directly and indirectly by implementation of the proposal during both construction and operations and describe the significance of Sections 6.4, 6.5 and 14) these values in a local and regional context. Identify important or 10.7 restricted habitats e.g. breeding habitat, foraging / feeding / dispersal habitat.

Provide figures and maps illustrating the known recorded locations of 15) conservation or other significant species and SRE invertebrate species in Figure 6-4 relation to the proposal impact areas and fauna habitats.

Describe and assess the extent of direct and indirect impacts as a result of implementation of the proposal during both construction and operations Sections 6.4, 6.5 16) to terrestrial fauna taking into consideration cumulative impacts and the 10.7 and 10.8 significance of fauna and fauna habitat.

Quantify the extent of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, including 17) Section 6.4 and 10.7 percentages of habitat types to be disturbed or otherwise impacted.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document

Required Work Item Required work Section in ERD No.

Discuss known existing threats to any significant species, whether or not 18) attributable to the proposal, with reference to relevant impacts from the Sections 6.4 and 10.8 proposal.

Describe and justify any proposed mitigation to reduce the potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposal on significant terrestrial fauna. Include any proposed management and/or monitoring plans that will be implemented pre- and post-construction to ensure residual impacts (direct and indirect) are not greater than predicted. Including for example, consideration of appropriate buffer zones around Pilbara leaf-nosed bat and Ghost bat roost sites based on: Sections 6.7, 10.6; 19) Table 6-7 and Figure 10-5 a. discussion of the characteristics of the geology between the proposed disturbance and identified caves and the caves itself (i.e. fractures, sound transmissions, cave length, cave humidity/temperature (microclimate) direction; b. evaluation of the appropriateness of the proposed buffer width/distance based on the characteristics above.

Demonstrate how the proposal is not inconsistent with relevant statutory 20) Section 10.10 recovery plans and threat abatement plans.

Prepare a Mine Closure Plan, consistent with DMP and EPA Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (2015) which includes methodologies 21) Appendix 5 to ensure progressive rehabilitation of disturbed land meets closure objectives.

Identify, describe and quantify the potential residual impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) that may occur following implementation of the 22) Sections 6.5 and 10.8 proposal after considering and applying avoidance and minimisation measures.

Provide a report that details the likely success of future rehabilitation activities in establishing self-sustaining areas of rehabilitation, taking into account: a. evidence of success of rehabilitation undertaken to date in the 23) region Appendix 5 b. relevant contemporary scientific evidence c. the types of area to be rehabilitated d. the scale of rehabilitation activities.

Determine and quantify any significant residual impacts by applying the Residual Impact Significance Model (page 11) and WA Offset Template 24) (Appendix 1) in the WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines (2014) and Sections 10 and 12 include reference to the Commonwealth Assessment Guide for any MNES.

Where significant residual impacts remain, propose an appropriate offsets package that is consistent with the WA Environmental Offsets Policy and 25) Guidelines. Spatial data defining the area of significant residual impacts Section 12 for each environmental value should also be provided (e.g. vegetation type, vegetation condition, specific fauna species habitat).

In the circumstance that offsetting of residual significant impacts on MNES is a requirement, include a discussion of the consideration of the 26) EPBC Environmental Offsets Policy including, but not limited to: Section 12 a. The extent to which the proposed offset correlated to the residual significant impacts on MNES.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document

Required Work Item Required work Section in ERD No.

Demonstrate in the ERD how the Proponent proposes to ensure the EPA 27) Sections 6.8 and 10.9 objective for this factor can be met.

Subterranean fauna

In accordance with EPA Technical Guidance: a. conduct a desktop study, incorporating existing regional subterranean fauna surveys and databases; and

28) b. undertake surveys in all areas of impact, to identify and Section 7.3.1 characterise subterranean fauna and subterranean fauna habitat, at a local and regional scale, that may be impacted directly and indirectly by the implementation of the proposal. This should include sampling inside and outside the impact areas and consider cumulative impacts.

Describe the characteristics of subterranean fauna habitat that may be Sections 7.4.1 and 7.5.1 impacted directly and indirectly by implementation of the proposal during both construction and operations, and describe the significance of these 29) values in a local and regional context. Include relevant geological and hydrological information to determine habitat suitability and connectivity, including inside and outside the impact areas.

Provide figures and maps showing the extent of subterranean fauna Sections 7.4.2 and 7.5.2 30) habitat in relation to the proposal and species distributions.

Describe and assess the extent of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts as a result of implementation of the proposal during both construction and Sections 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 7.5.3 31) operations to subterranean fauna, taking into consideration the and 7.5.4 significance of fauna and fauna habitat.

Quantify the extent of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, including Sections 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 7.5.3 32) where feasible, percentages of habitat types to be disturbed or otherwise and 7.5.4 impacted.

Describe and justify any proposed mitigation to reduce the potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposal. Include any 33) proposed management and/or monitoring plans that will be implemented Sections 7.4.6 and 7.5.6 pre- and post-construction to ensure residual impacts (direct and indirect) are not greater than predicted

Determine and quantify any significant residual impacts by applying the Residual Impact Significance Model (page 11) and WA Offset Template 34) (Appendix 1) in the WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines (2014) and Sections 7.4.6 and 7.5.6 include reference to the Commonwealth Assessment Guide for any MNES.

Where significant residual impacts remain, propose an appropriate offsets package that is consistent with the WA Environmental Offsets Policy and 35) Guidelines. Spatial data defining the area of significant residual impacts Section 12 for each environmental value should also be provided (e.g. vegetation type, vegetation condition, specific fauna species habitat)

Demonstrate in the ERD how the Proponent proposes to ensure the EPA Sections 7.4.6, 7.4.7, 7.5.6 36) objective for this factor can be met. and 7.5.7

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document

Required Work Item Required work Section in ERD No.

Inland waters

Hydrological regimes including surface water quality, catchment boundaries, creek flows and flood patterns: Sections 8.3.3 and 8.3.5, Figure 8-1, Appendix 8 (hydrological reports) Characterise the baseline hydrological and hydrogeological regimes, Hydrogeological regimes, ecological values and water quality, both in a local and regional context, including groundwater 37) including, but not limited to, catchment boundaries, creek flows, flood levels and quality: Section patterns, groundwater levels, aquatic fauna assemblages and water 8.3.4, Figure 8-3 to quality. Figure 8-6 and Appendix 8 (hydrogeological reports) Ecological values including groundwater dependent ecosystems: Section 5.3.2 (Vegetation and Flora), Appendix 4 (GDE assessment) and aquatic fauna: Section 8.3.5.

Provide a hydrogeological assessment for the proposal (including 38) Section 8.3.4 drillings, test pumping and groundwater modelling).

Describe and map any sensitive/significant environmental (water) receptors which may be impacted by changes to Sections 5, 7 and 8.3, 8.4 39) hydrological/hydrogeological regimes. Clarify/map the area of potential and 8.5 impact, including areas that are downstream and outside of the development envelope.

Provide a detailed description of the design and location of the proposal Section 8.4, Figure 8-11 40) (including maps/figures where appropriate) as it relates to potential to and Figure 8-12. impact surface or groundwater.

Provide a numerical groundwater model and surplus water discharge Section 8.3, Figure 8-11 41) model for the proposal. and Figure 8-14

Provide a conceptual site water balance model over the life of the Section 8.4.1 proposal and provide an assessment of water management options and 42) discuss the capacity to reuse surplus mine dewater. Demonstrate Aquifer reinjection has application of the waste hierarchy to minimise discharge of surplus mine been removed from this dewater to mine pits, surface water and via aquifer reinjection. Proposal

If surplus discharge is required, include predictions of the extent of the 43) wetting front and assess any environmental impacts from changed flow Sections 8.4.2 and 8.5.1 regimes.

Section 8.4.2 Undertake groundwater modelling to show the impacts of aquifer 44) Aquifer reinjection has reinjection and groundwater drawdown. been removed from this Proposal

Undertake modelling to show the formation and long term quality of pit lakes. This modelling should be used to inform the closure objectives, 45) Sections 8.4.3 and 8.6 completion criteria and preliminary management measures for the Mine Closure Plan.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document

Required Work Item Required work Section in ERD No.

Assess the nature, extent and duration of potential impacts of 46) groundwater abstraction with a focus on possible impacts to groundwater Sections 8.4.2 and 8.5.1 dependent ecosystems’

Characterise the geochemical and physical properties of waste rock and 47) waste fines to allow an assessment of the potential risk from waste rock Sections 8.4.3 and 8.5.2 dumps and waste fines storage facilities.

Analyse, discuss and assess potential groundwater and surface water impacts (direct and indirect). The analysis should include, but not be limited to: a. Changes in groundwater levels and surface water flows associated with the proposal. b. Presence of PAF materials and risks associated with Acid Mine Drainage (AMD). c. Changes in groundwater and surface water chemistry. Sections 5.5.1, 8.4.2, 8.4.3, 48) d. Assessment of the function, reliance and potential impacts to 8.5.1, 8.5.2 and 8.6 groundwater dependent vegetation. e. Assessment and description of direct and indirect impacts to aquatic fauna through drawdown, discharge or changes to hydrological regimes. f. The nature, extent and duration of the potential impacts. g. Impacts to the environmental values of significant receptors. h. Impacts associated with the post-closure formation of permanent pit lakes.

Apply the mitigation hierarchy and discuss proposed objectives/outcomes, monitoring, management and mitigation measures 49) Table 8-6 where necessary to be implemented to appropriately avoid and minimise impacts to inland waters.

Prepare a Closure Plan consistent with DMP and EPA Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (2015), which includes criteria to ensure 50) hydrological regimes and the quality of groundwater and surface water Appendix 5 resources are suitable so that any dependant environmental values are maintained post closure.

Demonstrate in the ERD how the Proponent proposes to ensure the EPA Section 8.7 and 8.7 51) objective for this factor can be met.

Social surroundings

Characterise and describe the heritage and cultural values within the development envelope and any sensitive receptors that may be directly 52) Section 9.3 or indirectly impacted as a result of this proposal to identify sites of social significance and their significance within a regional context.

Conduct investigations, including ethnographic and archaeological surveys in consultation with the Traditional Owners, to determine the 53) Section 9.3.3 significance of potential impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) to social surroundings as a result of this proposal.

Describe and assess the potential impacts to social surroundings as a 54) Sections 9.4 and 9.5 result of changes to the environment from the proposal.

Discuss consultation that has been, and will continue to be, undertaken 55) Section 9.3.4 with Traditional Owners.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document

Required Work Item Required work Section in ERD No.

Apply the mitigation hierarchy and discuss proposed objectives/outcomes, monitoring, management and mitigation measures 56) Section 9.6 where necessary to be implemented to appropriately avoid and minimise impacts to social surroundings.

57) Prepare a Mine Closure Plan consistent with DMP and EPA Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (2015), which considers social Section 9.5.3 surroundings.

58) Demonstrate in the ERD how the Proponent proposes to ensure the EPA Sections 9.6 and 9.6 objective for this factor can be met.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document

Executive summary

Introduction

Background and context

The Proposal will be developed within a 17,422 ha Development Envelope which encompasses the Western Range, Paraburdoo and Eastern Range mining areas and all associated infrastructure (Figure ES 1). The Proposal will sustain the current iron ore production (currently around 25 Mt/a) from Paraburdoo and Eastern Range by extending the life of these existing operations for approximately 20 years and is critical to sustain the town of Paraburdoo and more broadly the Proponent’s business activities in the Pilbara region. The Proposal is subject to both the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and Western Australian Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has determined that the Proposal is to be assessed under Part IV of the EP Act and the Proposal will undergo an accredited assessment in which the Commonwealth will rely on the outcomes of the assessment conducted by the Western Australian Government to inform its consideration for approval under the EPBC Act. The Proponent referred the Proposal to the then Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE, now the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment [DAWE]) and the delegate for the Minister for the Environment determined that the Proposal is a Controlled Action under s. 75 of the EPBC Act requiring further assessment and approval. The relevant Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) is 'Listed threatened species and communities'. The significance of the impacts from the Proposal to MNES is addressed separately in this Environmental Review Document (ERD) with respect to the relevant EPBC Act guidance. As the existing operations at Paraburdoo commenced in 1972, they have not been referred under s. 38 of the EP Act and; therefore, are not subject to a Ministerial Statement issued under Part IV of the EP Act. Eastern Range (pits 23 East to 42 East) was first referred to the EPA in April 1998, and the EPA set an ‘Informal Review with Public Advice’ level of assessment in May 1998. Additional disturbance at Eastern Range was referred to the EPA in November 2004 and in December 2004 the EPA determined that that proposal did not require assessment. The existing operations also pre-date the commencement of the EPBC Act. In 2002 the Commonwealth Environment Department (then Environment Australia) was briefed on the Eastern Range development, including the planned additional disturbance that was subsequently referred to the EPA in 2004. Based upon the consultation, the Proponent determined that these activities did not warrant referral and assessment under the EPBC Act. The purpose of this ERD is to provide a report on the environmental review for the Proposal to the EPA and for public review. The scope of the ERD is to present an environmental review of the principal components of the Proposal, including a detailed impact assessment and application of the mitigation hierarchy for the key environmental factors in accordance with the Environmental Scoping Document (ESD). This ERD has been prepared in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document i

Divisions 1 and 2) Administrative Procedures 2016 (EPA 2016l) to meet the requirements of s. 40(2)(b) of the EP Act. This ERD is now published for a period of two weeks, during which time the public is invited to comment on the ERD. At the close of the public review period the EPA will conduct its own assessment of the Proposal including consideration of the Proponent's response to submissions and prepare an assessment report and recommendations which will be provided to the Minister for the Environment and open to appeal. The Minister for the Environment will then decide whether the Proposal may be implemented and, if so, the conditions of approval.

Overview of Proposal

The Proponent proposes to sustain production from the Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub through the development of a new deposit at Western Range and the extension of existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range (Figure ES 2). The Development Envelope comprises three areas defined by the following deposits: • Western Range – 36 West (36W) to 66 West (66W) deposits; • Paraburdoo – 4 East Extension (4EE), 14–16 West (14–16W), 20 West (20W) and 27 West (27W) deposits; and • Eastern Range – 42 East Extension (42EE) and 47 East (47E) deposits. The Proposal includes the following key components: • construction and operation of new mine pits: • development of Above Water Table (AWT) and Below Water Table (BWT) pits at Western Range – 36W to 66W; • 4 East Extension (4EE) at Paraburdoo as an extension, in width and depth, of the existing 4E BWT pit, including new dewatering of the Wittenoom Formation; • development of new AWT pits at Paraburdoo – 14-16 West (14-16W), 20 West (20W) and 27 West (27W); and • development of new AWT pits at Eastern Range – 42 East Extension (42EE) and 47 East (47E). Activities required to facilitate the development of new pits which may include as relevant, but are not limited to, the following: • mineral waste management: including waste dumps, constructed landforms and waste fines storage; • low grade ore, topsoil and subsoil stockpiles; • processing infrastructure at Western Range, and new and upgraded processing infrastructure at Paraburdoo; • support facilities: including workshops, hydrocarbon storage, laydown areas and offices; • transport, utilities and communications infrastructure; • surface water management infrastructure: including diversion drains, levees and culverts; • infrastructure for dewatering and groundwater abstraction to allow BWT mining and operational water supply; and • surplus water management and associated infrastructure: including options for discharge to surface water systems and disused mine pits.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document ii

A summary and key characteristics of the Proposal are provided in Table ES 1 and Table ES 2 respectively. Within the 17,422 ha Development Envelope, the existing operations have a disturbance footprint of 3,225 ha (current to the end of 2018). Clearing for the existing operations is authorised under the current NVCP’s outlined in Table 2-1, of which approximately 896 ha remains available to be cleared if required for the continuation of existing operations whilst this Proposal is under assessment. Under this Proposal, the Proponent proposes up to 4,300 ha of additional disturbance. Taking into consideration the existing disturbance footprint and remaining clearing that is authorised under current NVCP’s, the total disturbance within the Development Envelope will not exceed 8,452 ha. The location, conceptual footprint of the key physical elements of the Proposal and the Development Envelope are presented in Figure ES 1 and Figure ES 2. Table ES 1: Summary of Proposal

Item Details

Proposal title Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub

Proponent name Hamersley Iron Pty Limited

The Proposal is to extend the existing Greater Paraburdoo iron ore mining operations located approximately 6 km to the south of the town of Paraburdoo in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia. The Proposal includes the development of new deposits at Western Range including above Short and below water table mining and the extension of existing operations at Paraburdoo and description Eastern Range and associated infrastructure, including: • mineral waste management, including in-pit storage of waste fines; • dewatering and surplus dewater management including use in ore processing, on-site use and surface discharge; and • other associated mine infrastructure and support facilities.

Table ES 2: Location and proposed extent of physical and operational elements

Element Location Proposed extent

Physical elements

Mine and Additional clearing of up to 4,300 ha within a 17,422 ha Development associated Figure ES 2 Envelope* infrastructure

Operational elements

Dewatering and Additional abstraction of up to 5 GL/a for a total abstraction up to 14 GL/a Figure ES 2 water supply

Up to 1.7 GL/a managed via options including**: Management of Figure ES 2 • discharge to disused mine pits (passive recharge); and surplus water Figure ES 1 • controlled discharge of surplus water to watercourses. Clearing authorised under NVCP approvals (CPS 4032, CPS 4594 and CPS 5090) is described in Section 2.3. Total disturbance (including existing historical and current approved disturbance) within the Development Envelope will be up to 8,452 ha. **Predicted surplus water has been revised down from the 6 GL/a predicted at Referral. This will be managed via a s. 43A change to the Proposal.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document iii This Proposal excludes the following activities: • Activities that are part of or required for continuation of the existing mining operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range. For the avoidance of doubt this includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Upgrades to existing facilities, including processing facilities and WFSF. • Upgrades to accommodation and facilities at the Paraburdoo townsite and airport, and associated activities. • Operation of dewatering and water supply bore fields within the abstraction limits of current s. 5C groundwater licences issued under the RiWI Act as specified in Table 2-1. • Low impact activities, including drilling and associated activities (such as upgrades to existing roads/tracks) for the purposes of resource evaluation, geotechnical assessment and hydrogeological investigation prior to Part IV approval of the Proposal (which are subject to relevant provisions under Part V of the EP Act, and the RIWI Act). • Construction camp and associated activities (currently authorised under the Clearing Permits issued under Part V of the EP Act). • Environmental, heritage and other studies/investigations involving fieldwork. Current operational activities are authorised via statutory environmental approvals under Part V of the EP Act and RiWI Act. The Proponent notes that, while the Proposal is under assessment, additional approvals or amendments to existing approvals may be required to support the continuation of existing operations that do not relate to the implementation of this Proposal. Therefore, the above exclusions are not limited to only those activities already approved.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document iv 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Legend Figure ES-1: Location of the Proposal Port Hedland Develop ment Envelop e Highway

" Port Major Road

! Rio Tinto Mine Rio Tinto Railway Murujuga Cape National " Lambert Town National Park Dampier Park " Wickham

0 Karratha 0 0 Roebourne 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 7 7 , , 7 7

Karratha P I L B A R A A U S T R A L I A

Perth

Millstream-Chichester G r National Park e a t

Pannawonica o 0 0 r ¯ 0 0

0 t 0 , ,

h 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 ! 0

0 e 0

6 Kilometres 6 , r ,

7 Mesa A ! n 7 Mesa J Map units in metres

H y a i Drawn: A.D. Proj: NGuDlAla 1g9in94e MGA Zone 50 g

h Plan: PDE0167760v2 Scale: 1:2,000,000 @ A4

h w Date: October 2019 [email protected] g a i Disclaimer: This d ocument has been p rep ared to the highest level of accuracy p ossible, for the p urp oses of Rio Tinto’s iron ore H y l business. Rep rod uction of this d ocument in whole or in p art by any means is strictly p rohibited without the exp ress ap p roval of Rio Tinto. Further, this d ocument may not be referred to, quoted or relied up on for any p urp ose whatsoever without the written ap p roval of a Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto will not be liable to a third p arty for any loss, d amage, liability or claim arising out of or incid ental to a third p arty t using or relying on the content contained in this d ocument. Rio Tinto d isclaims all risk and the third p arty assumes all risk and releases s and ind emnifies and agrees to keep ind emnified Rio Tinto from any loss, d amage, claim or liability arising d irectly or ind irectly from the a use or reliance on this d ocument.

o Silvergrass C

t ! Nammuldi s e !

W ! Brockman 2

0 h 0 0 t 0 0 0 , r Brockman 4 , 0 ! 0 o 0 Marandoo 0 5 N 5 , ! , 7 ! Tom Price 7 W e s t e r n Western Turner ! Yandicoogina R a n g e Syncline Mount Tom Price !

Karijini National Hope Downs 1 Paraburdoo W e s t e r n Park ! R a n g e Paraburdoo ! Hope Downs 4 Paraburdoo ! ! Eastern Range ! !! Paraburdoo ! West Angelas Eastern Range Channar ! Channar 0 5 10 15 20 Newman 0 0 0 0 0 0

, Kilometres , 0 0 0 0 4 4 , ,

7 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 7 540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000

Legend

0 Figure ES-2: Development Envelope and conceptual 0 0 0

0 Rio Tin to Min e Develop men t En velop e 0 P , footprint ! , 5 5

4 a 4 4 4 , , r Existin g op eration s

7 Tow n 7

b Proposed Conceptual Footprint

u Con veyor

d Pit Rio Tin to Railw ay

o Waste Dump Major Road Stockp ile Major Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 , ,

0 W a s t e 0 4 4 4 4

, D u m p 5 , 7 k 7 e re C 5 5 W - 6 6 W Western Range d n R la o le a b 3 6 W - 5 0 W d a T

Bellary Creek 0 0

0 k 0

0 e 0 , e ,

5 r 2 7 W 5

3 C W a s t e 3 4 4 , ile , 7 D u m p 4 Paraburdoo 7 M ix S W a s t e D u m p 3 1 4 W - 1 6 W W a s t e D u m p 1 b W a s t e 2 0 W ! Paraburdoo D u m p 1 a 0 0

0 2 7 W 0 0 0 , ,

0 W a s t e 0

3 4 E E 3 4 4

, D u m p , 7 7 4 2 E E ek ek re re C C u ile rd M Eastern Range u en ab v 4 E E rr Se Pi W a s t e ! D u m p

4 7 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 2 2 4 4 , , 7 7 ¯ 0 5

Kilometres Map un its in metres

Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zon e 50 Plan: PDE0167891v2 Scale: 1:150,000 @ A4 0 0

0 Date: Octob er 2019 [email protected] 0

0 k 0

, e , Disclaimer: This documen t has b een p rep ared to the highest level of accuracy p ossib le, for the e 0 Cr 0 2 p urp oses of Rio Tin to’s iron ore b usin ess. Rep roduction of this documen t in w hole or in p art b y e 2 4 an y mean s is strictly p rohib ited w ithout the exp ress ap p roval of Rio Tin to. Further, this documen t e 4 , ur , 7 may n ot b e referred to, quoted or relied up on for an y p urp ose w hatsoever w ithout the w ritten T 7 ap p roval of Rio Tin to. Rio Tin to w ill n ot b e liab le to a third p arty for an y loss, damage, liab ility or claim arisin g out of or in ciden tal to a third p arty usin g or relyin g on the con ten t con tain ed in this documen t. Rio Tin to disclaims all risk an d the third p arty assumes all risk an d releases an d in demn ifies an d agrees to keep in demn ified Rio Tin to from an y loss, damage, claim or liab ility arisin g directly or in directly from the use or relian ce on this documen t.

540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000

Environmental impact assessment

The EPA identified the following preliminary key environmental factors relevant to the environmental assessment of the Proposal: • Flora and vegetation; • Terrestrial fauna; • Subterranean fauna; • Inland waters; and • Social surroundings. Table ES 3 summarises the potential impacts to these environmental factors arising from implementation of the Proposal, together with the proposed mitigation and the predicted residual environmental outcome following mitigation. Two major drainage lines, Pirraburdu and Seven Mile creeks, intersect the Development Envelope in proximity to existing and proposed mining activities. Both creeks originate to the north and run through the Paraburdoo Range before flowing south towards the Ashburton River. Although both creeks are locally significant, the Proponent recognises Pirraburdu Creek as holding particularly high environmental and cultural heritage value. This watercourse hosts Ratty Springs (also known as Johnny’s Gorge), which is a significant semi-permanent surface water feature in the Development Envelope and provides an important water source and foraging habitat for local fauna - particularly Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bats which occupy a maternity roost adjacent to Ratty Springs, which is also the only such Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat roost in the Development Envelope. The pools around Ratty Springs are also important foraging habitat for Ghost Bats and other significant species. Pirraburdu Creek also provides alluvial habitat for stygofauna and hosts riparian vegetation including groundwater dependent ecosystems. The cultural and heritage value of Pirraburdu Creek is highlighted by it being the location of one of two identified Sites of Special Significance for the Yinhawangka Traditional Owners in the Development Envelope. Gardagarli encompasses Ratty Springs and is still regularly accessed by the Yinhawangka People. The Proposal has been designed to avoid direct and indirect impacts to Ratty Springs and the adjacent Gorge/Gully habitat that supports the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat maternity cave. Visual impact assessment shows that mining and support infrastructure will be only just visible from the creek. The riparian vegetation of Pirraburdu Creek will not be affected by dewatering and any surface water discharge required will occur well below Ratty Springs and is expected to be intermittent. One Threatened flora species (Aluta quadrata) was recorded within the Development Envelope, along with six Priority flora species. The Proponent has recognised Aluta quadrata as a key environmental value since the species was identified at Western Range in 2009 and the Proposal conceptual footprint has been designed to reduce impacts to the taxa from original mine plan designs. These mine plan amendments included sterilisation of deposits that were previously planned for mining and the relocation of four ramps required for pit access. These measures cannot avoid all disturbance to A. quadrata as it occurs on top of and directly adjacent to deposits. The Proposal will result in a predicted loss equating to 18.1% direct and 19.7% total (direct and potential indirect) loss of the Western Range population. The Proposal includes the establishment of mining exclusion zones which capture 79% of the remaining A. quadrata at Western Range, ensuring this population will be self-sustaining. The Proponent also recognises the importance of Gorge/Gully, Breakaway and Riverine habitats to significant terrestrial fauna, particularly MNES species Ghost Bat, Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat, Northern Quoll and Pilbara Olive Python, as these habitats are restricted in the landscape and provide important breeding, shelter and foraging habitat. The Proponent has undertaken comprehensive surveys to identify the terrestrial fauna values within the Development Envelope and has modified the conceptual footprint where practicable to minimise disturbance to high value habitat. Particularly Ghost Bat roosts where the conceptual footprint has been modified to avoid impacts to two potential maternity roosts. Mining

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document vii

restriction zones have also been established to protect these and two other significant caves in proximity to the conceptual footprint. Iron-bearing formations within the Pilbara region are known to contain habitat for subterranean fauna, and troglofauna and stygofauna are known to occur in the Development Envelope. Subterranean fauna are considered Short Range Endemics (SRE), which identifies the potential for range restriction, and thus informal conservation significance, for each taxon. Removal and disturbance of troglofauna habitat and individuals will occur under this Proposal; however, due to the continued availability and connectivity of habitat, residual impacts are not expected to be significant. Removal and disturbance of stygofauna habitat and individuals will also occur, with continued availability and connectivity of habitat also expected to support ongoing viability of most species and assemblages. However, the Proponent recognises that Bathynellidae ‘sp. WAM-BATH001’ and Bathynellidae ‘sp. GP2’ are currently known only from within the proposed groundwater drawdown area (from dewatering at Paraburdoo) in the alluvial aquifer of Seven Mile Creek. These two stygofauna taxa are expected to also occur in the alluvials of Seven Mile Creek to the south and north of the Paraburdoo Range due to the intermittent connection of alluvial habitat (when groundwater levels are high) and the presence of other stygofauna species in multiple bores along the alluvial aquifer indicating habitat connectivity. The Proponent recognises the deep ties that the Yinhawangka People have with the land within the Development Envelope, articulated through an Agreement which commits the Proponent and the Yinhawangka People to work together on country to manage and maintain the areas in which the Proponent operates. Surveys have identified rich and diverse heritage, archaeological and ethnographic features and sites within the Development Envelope. Consultation regarding identification and management of significant sites such as Gardagarli in Pirraburdu Creek and Garrabagarrangu (Red Ochre Quarry) continues to be undertaken in accordance with clear guidelines, procedures and protocols. Such consultation has led to the modification of the conceptual footprint and the establishment of a buffer zone to avoid impacts to Garrabagarrangu, along with the maintenance of an access corridor so the site may continue to be accessed by Traditional Owners during and post-mining. Offsets are considered where it is determined that after avoidance, minimisation, and best-practicable rehabilitation a significant residual environmental impact is still likely to occur. Using the residual impact significance model (GoWA 2014), offsets for significant residual impacts arising from the Proposal are considered for the following: • clearing of up to 4,300 ha of native vegetation in Good to Excellent condition; • clearing of up to 3 ha of riparian vegetation in Good condition; and • clearing of up to 5,179 individuals of Aluta quadrata within an area of 14.6 ha. The clearing of up to 4,300 ha of native vegetation will also impact terrestrial fauna habitats. Offsets may be considered for significant residual impacts to conservation significant fauna associated with the following: • clearing of up to 335 ha of high value Gorge/Gully and Breakaway habitat for Northern Quoll, Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat, and Ghost Bat; • clearing of up to 342 ha of high value Gorge/Gully, Breakaway and Riverine habitat for Pilbara Olive Python; and • removal of two confirmed diurnal roosts, two potential diurnal roosts, and one nocturnal feed cave for Ghost Bats; all of which have low or occasional use by Ghost Bats and were not identified as priorities for protection by Bat Call (2020b). Traditional land acquisition offsets are not possible in the Pilbara region as the Pilbara is mostly Crown land. In addition, tenure constraints including pastoral leases and mineral tenements make it difficult to implement on-ground conservation actions to deliver long-term protection of biodiversity (EPA 2014a). The Pilbara Offset Fund (the Pilbara Fund) has been established to receive financial contributions from

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document viii

Proponents to offset the clearing of native vegetation considered in Good to Excellent condition and has been used as the standard offset approach by the EPA and proponents in the Pilbara since 2012. Where there are other environmental values with elevated significance, a higher offset is applied to account for this greater value. The current rates (subject to change) for native vegetation comprise:

• $821 per hectare of vegetation in Good to Excellent condition; and • $1,642 per hectare of riparian vegetation. The Proponent notes that rates will be adjusted to take Consumer Price Index (CPI) into account and, subject to approval, final rates would be specified in the Ministerial Statement and Decision Notice for the Proposal. From 2012 to 2018, the approach to MNES offsets in the Pilbara has been the application of conditions to EPBC Act decision notices that require either a contribution to the Pilbara Fund or an alternative but equivalent resourcing of an offset project that will provide direct benefits to the MNES in the Pilbara. In 2019, the DAWE (then DotEE) commenced a review of the suitability of the Pilbara Fund in delivering offset outcomes for MNES under the EPBC Act Environmental Offset Policy. The review is expected to be completed in 2020 and a decision will be made as to whether the Pilbara Fund will be endorsed by the Commonwealth Minister for Environment as an acceptable mechanism for delivering MNES offset outcomes. Consistent with recent decisions regarding mining in the Pilbara, the Proponent anticipates that if the Proposed Action is approved, then it is likely that a condition would be applied that requires the preparation of an Offset Strategy within six months of approval. If this occurs, the Offset Strategy would be prepared in consultation with, and subject to approval of, the DAWE and EPA and detail projects that will be implemented to achieve a positive conservation outcome for the relevant MNES. If the Pilbara Fund receives Commonwealth endorsement before the Offset Strategy is due to be submitted, then the Fund would be proposed as the appropriate mechanism for the delivery of MNES offsets, subject to approval in line with any conditions. Where clearing results in significant residual impacts to multiple values, the clearing will only be offset once and at the highest rate applicable, given the values that will be affected. Therefore, it is anticipated that the offset condition of the EP Act will include a clause that states that the proponent may apply in writing and seek the written approval of the CEO to reduce all or part of the contribution payable where a payment has been made to satisfy a condition of an approval under the EPBC Act in relation to the Proposal. Based on the proposed avoidance of significant areas, proposed mitigation strategies and the continued implementation of existing management strategies, the Proponent considers that the EPA objectives can be met for all environmental factors. The Proponent considers that the Proposal is environmentally acceptable and can be adequately managed through the proposed Ministerial Statement for the Proposal under the EP Act; and through the anticipated approval Decision Notice for the Proposed Action under the EPBC Act.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document ix

Table ES 3: Summary of potential impacts, proposed mitigation and outcome

Flora and Vegetation EPA To protect flora and vegetation so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained. objective

EPA Policy and Guidance • EPA Instructions on how to prepare Environmental Protection Act 1986 Part IV Environmental Management Plans (EPA 2018a). • EPA Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA 2018b). • EPA Environmental Factor Guideline: Flora and Vegetation (EPA 2016b). Policy and • EPA Technical Guidance: Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact guidance Assessment (EPA 2016c). • EPA Instructions on how to prepare an Environmental Review Document (EPA 2018c). • DMP and EPA Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (DMP and EPA 2015). Other policy and guidance • Government of Western Australia WA Environmental Offsets Policy (GoWA 2011). • Government of Western Australia WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines (GoWA 2014).

Direct impacts: • Loss of native vegetation. • Loss of some individuals of Threatened and Priority flora species. Potential Indirect impacts: impacts • Introduction/spread of weeds. • Degradation/alteration of vegetation as a result of altered hydrological regimes. • Impacts to riparian vegetation as a result of groundwater drawdown from mine dewatering and surplus water discharge to surface water systems. Avoidance • The conceptual footprint has been modified as far as practicable to avoid impacts to A. quadrata. Measures include: • Changing the location of four ramps required for pit access from locations that directly impacted A. quadrata to locations that do not directly impact any recorded individuals (Figure 5-11; Figure 5-12). • Sterilising two pods of ore to reduce direct and indirect impacts to A. quadrata and fragmentation of habitat. • Ensuring no A. quadrata individuals will be directly impacted by the placement of waste dumps, land bridges, stockpiles or other infrastructure. Minimise • The conceptual footprint has been modified as far as practicable to minimise impacts to locally significant vegetation units and Aluta quadrata. • The Proponent proposes to minimise impacts to A. quadrata through the establishment of mining exclusion zones that will capture 79% of the Western Range A. quadrata population. Mitigation • The Proponent will take measures to minimise the threat of new weeds entering the development envelope and the abundance and distribution of existing weed species through continued implementation of the Iron Ore (WA) Pilbara Weed Management Strategy including key actions such as periodic spraying and equipment hygiene. This program will include surveying and spraying for *Ruellia simplex (Mexican petunia). • Groundwater abstraction and dewatering will be minimised to that required for operational purposes and to safely access ore. • Abstracted groundwater will be used on site for processing and dust suppression to minimise discharge as far as practicable. • Discharge to surface water systems will be minimised as discharge to dis-used pits will be utilised where practicable. • Discharge of surplus water to Seven Mile Creek, Pirraburdu Creek and Six Mile will be managed such that the discharge does not extend beyond the boundary of the Development Envelope. • The Proponent proposes that clearing be subject to a Ministerial Statement (MS). Schedule 1 of the MS shall authorise additional clearing of up to 4,300 ha within the Development Envelope of 17,422 ha.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document x

Rehabilitation • The Proponent will undertake progressive rehabilitation to restore vegetation within cleared areas using recovered topsoil and seed of local provenance. • Rehabilitated vegetation will be self-sustaining and compatible with the post closure land use. • Indicative closure completion criteria include: • No impact to A. quadrata individuals within mining exclusion zones as a result of closure activities. • Maintenance of a self-sustaining A. quadrata population post closure. • Any weed species recorded within rehabilitation areas are present within the local uncleared area. • Weed spraying during rehabilitation, especially if progressive during life of mine (LOM). • Groundwater levels are expected to recover following the cessation of dewatering. • Discharge of surplus water will be small and discharge intermittent during the life of mine. Riparian environments are expected to adapt to the lower water availability following cessation of discharge. No active rehabilitation is proposed within the extent of discharge. Significant residual impact The significant residual impacts are expected to be: • Clearing of up to 4,300 ha of native vegetation in Good to Excellent condition, including clearing up to 156 ha of moderate conservation significant local vegetation units. • Clearing of up to 3 ha of riparian vegetation in Good condition • Clearing of threatened flora species, Aluta quadrata; within 14.6 ha of the conceptual footprint: • 18.1% loss of Western Range population; and Outcomes • 12.6% loss of total known population. The Proponent proposes an environmental offset for the clearing of Aluta quadrata, native vegetation in Good to Excellent condition and riparian vegetation. After the mitigation hierarchy has been applied, including avoidance and minimisation of direct impacts to key flora and vegetation values and the proposed offset, the Proponent considers that the Proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objective for Flora and Vegetation. The proposed loss of vegetation is not expected to cause a loss of biological diversity at the local or regional scale and the ecological integrity of the area surrounding the proposed disturbance footprint is expected to be maintained. Terrestrial fauna EPA To protect terrestrial fauna so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained. objective EPA Policy and Guidance • EPA Instructions on how to prepare an Environmental Review Document (EPA 2018a). • EPA Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA 2018b). • EPA Environmental Factor Guideline: Terrestrial Fauna (EPA 2016d). • EPA Technical Guidance: Sampling Methods for Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna (EPA 2016f). • EPA Technical Guidance: Terrestrial Fauna Surveys (EPA 2016e). • EPA Technical Guidance: Sampling of Short Range Endemic Invertebrate Fauna (EPA 2016g). • EPA Instructions on how to prepare Environmental Protection Act 1986 Part IV Environmental Management Plans (EPA 2018c). Policy and • DMP (now DMIRS) and EPA Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (DMP and guidance EPA 2015). Other policy and guidance • Government of Western Australia WA Environmental Offsets Policy (GoWA 2011). • Government of Western Australia WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines (GoWA 2014). • Australian Government Environmental Management Plan Guidelines (Australian Government 2014). • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy (2012). • Relevant recovery plans, conservation advice and/or threat abatement plans for conservation significant species that are known to occur or are likely to occur in the vicinity of the conceptual footprint. Direct impacts: Potential impacts • Loss of potential fauna habitat as a result of clearing. • Loss of fauna individuals as a result of clearing or other interactions.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xi

Indirect impacts: • Degradation/alteration of foraging and dispersal habitat as a result of altered hydrological regimes. • Habitat fragmentation and barriers to fauna movement. • Habitat degradation associated with construction activity and/or increased human activity, including transmission of weeds, dust and increased abundance of introduced fauna species. • Disturbance from light, noise and/or vibration, and possible displacement of fauna associated with construction activity and mining operations. Avoidance • The conceptual footprint has been modified where practicable to avoid impacts to high value fauna habitat and cave systems, including: • modification of the 36W pit crest to provide an adequate stand-off for the protection of Cave 6 (potential Ghost Bat maternity roost); and • modification of Waste Dump 1B to allow for the retention of Cave 18 (potential Ghost Bat maternity roost). • The Proposal avoids direct and indirect impacts to Ratty Springs. • The mine design incorporates 100 m mining restriction zones from Ghost Bat caves 6, 16, 17 and 18 to avoid direct disturbance, minimise the impact of blasting and associated vibration on the structure and quality of roosts and protect the integrity of the habitat values of these caves. Minimise • Clearing of high value vertebrate fauna habitat will be restricted to these areas: • up to 290 ha Gorge/Gully; • up to 45 ha Breakaway; and • up to 7 ha Riverine. • Mining restriction zones retain high and moderate value habitat within the Development Envelope. • Intact high, moderate and low value habitat will remain within and around the Development Envelope. • Mining restriction zones with a 100 m radius will be established around Ghost Bat caves in proximity to the conceptual footprint (being Caves 6, 16, 17 and 18) to avoid direct impacts to the species. No blasting will occur in these zones. • Proponent will implement a Blast Management Plan for Ghost Bat Caves 6, 16, 17 and 18 to Mitigation ensure to ensure the structural integrity of the caves is maintained. • Surplus groundwater will be utilised on-site for mine operations and processing, where practicable. Use of dewatering for operational water supply will minimise the need for additional groundwater abstraction from water supply borefields. • Discharge of surplus dewatering water to surface water systems will be minimised (to reduce risk of alterations in Riverine/ Drainage Line habitat) as discharge to dis-used pits will be utilised where practicable. • The Proponent will undertake feral animal control within the Development Envelope. • The Proponent will avoid the use of barbed wire fencing within the Development Envelope as far as practicable, noting the requirement for pastoralists, whose leases intersect the Development Envelope, to use barbed wire in stock fences. Where the use of barbed wire fencing is legislated, the top strand will be replaced with single strand wire and reflectors will be installed to deter bat interaction. • The Proponent will implement the following management measures: • speed limits will reduce risk to fauna; • undertake progressive clearing to allow fauna to migrate away from clearing activities or machinery movements; • weeds will be managed during operations in accordance with the Iron Ore (WA) Pilbara Weed Management Strategy including key actions such as periodic spraying and equipment hygiene; • dust suppression to minimise disturbance to fauna habitats; • locate and construct water sources, domestic waste facilities, administration facilities and camps to minimise fauna (and feral animal) access; • lighting in mining areas will be directed inwards towards mining activities to minimise light overspill; and • awareness training to identify conservation significant fauna and habitat, relevant management measures, personnel/contractor responsibilities, and incident reporting requirements (i.e. reporting of fauna observations and/or incidents).

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xii

Rehabilitation • The Closure Plans includes objectives to ensure that vegetation on rehabilitated land is self- sustaining and compatible with the post closure land use, and final landforms are stable and consider ecological and hydrological factors. Rehabilitation will be undertaken progressively to minimise the presence of disturbed areas. • Habitat elements considered part of the rehabilitation design include, amongst others: • vegetation known to provide food or shelter; • retaining and replacing woody debris; • retention of leaf litter using small-scale topography; and • introducing in-situ rock features. • Rehabilitation will be conducted in accordance with the Rio Tinto Iron Ore Rehabilitation Handbook and will involve fauna and habitat monitoring. • Weeds will be managed during closure as part of the rehabilitation process. Significant residual impact The Proponent considers the following residual impacts are significant for significant terrestrial fauna, particularly MNES (Northern Quoll, Ghost Bat, Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat and Pilbara Olive Python), and may require offsets: • Clearing of 342 ha of high value habitat including 290 ha of Gorge/Gully, 45 ha of Breakaway and 7 ha of Riverine habitats. • Removal of two confirmed diurnal roosts, two potential diurnal roosts and one nocturnal foraging cave for Ghost Bat. Outcomes Any removal of roost caves is considered significant under the Conservation Advice, however these caves were not identified as priorities for protection by Bat Call (2020a) and therefore, their removal is not expected to result in a decline in the local population. The Proponent proposes an environmental offset for the clearing of high value fauna habitat. After the mitigation hierarchy has been applied, including avoidance of direct impacts to key habitat and key habitat features, the Proponent considers that the Proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objective for Terrestrial Fauna; the proposed loss of habitat is not expected to cause a loss of biological diversity at the local or regional scale and the ecological integrity of the area surrounding the footprint is expected to be maintained. Subterranean fauna EPA To protect subterranean fauna so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained. objective EPA Policy and Guidance • EPA Instructions on how to prepare an Environmental Review Document (EPA 2018a). • EPA Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA 2018b). • EPA Environmental Factor Guideline: Subterranean Fauna (EPA 2016h). Policy and • EPA Technical Guidance: Subterranean Fauna Survey (EPA 2016i). guidance • EPA Technical Guidance: Sampling Methods for Subterranean Fauna (EPA 2016j). Other policy and guidance • Government of Western Australia WA Environmental Offsets Policy (GoWA 2011). • Government of Western Australia WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines (GoWA 2014). Direct impacts: • Removal and/ or loss of potential subterranean fauna habitat. • Loss/ mortality of subterranean fauna individuals. • Reduction in stygofauna habitat through mine dewatering. Potential Indirect impacts: impacts Degradation of potential subterranean fauna habitat from: • Clearing. • Vibration. • Compaction. • Changes in surface hydrology. • Contamination.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xiii

Troglofauna Minimise • Impacts to troglofauna taxa and assemblages will be minimised through the continued availability of significant connected pre-mining habitat. • Clearing will be minimised to only that required for implementation of the Proposal. • Hydrocarbon management measures will minimise potential for contamination of troglofauna Mitigation habitat. Rehabilitation • The Closure Plans include a closure objective to ensure that the final landform is stable and considers ecological and hydrogeological factors, and that vegetation is self-sustaining. Progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken which will assist in re-establishing nutrient flows into the subterranean environment. Significant residual impact Outcomes After the mitigation hierarchy has been applied, no significant residual impact to troglofauna are expected and the Proponent considers that the Proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objectives for Subterranean Fauna in relation to troglofauna. Stygofauna Minimise • Impacts to stygofauna taxa and assemblages will be minimised through the continued availability of significant connected pre-mining habitat. • Dewatering and abstraction for water supply will be minimised to that required to implement the Proposal. • Water from mine dewatering will be used on site in the first instance to minimise the requirement for additional groundwater abstraction for operational water supply. • The Proponent will abstract groundwater within licence limits and monitor groundwater levels to ensure impact remains within the predicted range of drawdown. • Impacts to most (>96%) stygofauna taxa and assemblages will be minimised through the continued availability of significant connected pre-mining habitat. Mitigation • Clearing will be minimised and limited to only that required for implementation of the Proposal. • Management controls will be implemented in respect of all ground disturbing activities to ensure the Proposal is developed in accordance with all regulatory approvals and that ground disturbance is minimised. Rehabilitation • Cessation of groundwater abstraction at BWT pits will enable recovery of groundwater levels and re-saturation of stygofauna habitat. • The Closure Plans include a closure objective to ensure that the final landform is stable and considers ecological values and that vegetation is self-sustaining. Progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken which will assist in re-establishing nutrient flows into the subterranean environment. Significant residual impact The stygofauna taxa Bathynellidae ‘sp. WAM-BATH001’ and Bathynellidae ‘sp. GP2’ are currently known only from within the proposed groundwater drawdown area in Seven Mile Creek but are expected to also occur in the alluvials of Seven Mile Creek to the south and north of the Paraburdoo Outcomes Range. Therefore, as these species are likely to persist in habitats outside the predicted impact area the habitat loss is not considered a significant residual impact. The Proponent considers that with regard to Stygofauna the Proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objective for subterranean fauna in relation to stygofauna. Inland waters EPA To maintain the hydrological regimes and quality of groundwater and surface water so that objective environmental values are protected. EPA Policy and Guidance • EPA Instructions on how to prepare an Environmental Review Document (EPA 2018a). • EPA Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA 2018b). Policy and • EPA Environmental Factor Guideline: Inland Waters (EPA 2018d). guidance • Inland Waters of the Pilbara Western Australia (Part 1) (EPA 1988a). • Inland Waters of the Pilbara Western Australia (Part 2) (EPA 1989b). • DMP (now DMIRS) and EPA Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (DMP and EPA 2015).

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xiv

• DWER Operational Policy 5.12 – Hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well. Other policy and guidance • Department of Water Western Australian water in mining guideline (2013). Direct impacts • Alteration to groundwater aquifers due to abstraction of groundwater. • Alteration to hydrological regimes of surface water systems from discharge of surplus dewatering water. • Alteration to groundwater aquifers from discharge of surplus dewatering water to disused mine pits. • Alteration to existing surface water catchments, surface water flow paths and sheetflows. Potential impacts Indirect impacts: • Reduction in quality of groundwater and surface water as a result of: • Surface water discharge. • Waste rock dumps. • Waste fines storage. • Post closure formation of permanent and ephemeral pit lakes. • Increased sediments from infrastructure and drainage. • Storage and handling of hazardous materials and waste. Mitigation Avoidance • Diversion of surface water flows in major creeks including Seven Mile Creek and Pirraburdu Creek will be avoided. • Landforms will be constructed to ensure separation between pit lakes and natural flows in Seven Mile Creek and Pirraburdu Creek. Minimise • Cumulative water balance modelling and hydrogeological modelling has been, and will continue to be, undertaken to facilitate understanding and effective management of current and future operational water demands and dewatering requirements, with a view to minimising groundwater abstraction for water supply. • Abstraction from the 4EE dewatering borefield is expected to reduce demand from the Turee Creek and Channar borefields. • Only water that is surplus to operational requirements will be discharged. • Discharge to surface water systems will be minimised where practicable via alternative discharge methods including in-pit disposal and aquifer recharge. • Surface water discharge will occur intermittently during the life of mine. • Surface water discharge will be managed such that the wetting front does not extend beyond the Development Envelope. • Surface water management during mining and closure will be designed to reduce where practicable adverse impacts on the natural function and environmental value of watercourses, water quality and sheet flow downstream for the mine area. Water management structures will be constructed where practicable in key risk areas to minimise discharge of sediment laden runoff from the site (e.g. banks, sediment traps, catch bunds). • A Mineral Waste Management Plan, and the Spontaneous Combustion and ARD (SCARD) Management Plan will be implemented to ensure waste material is adequately geochemically characterised and PAF material from Paraburdoo that poses an AMD risk is appropriately managed. This will involve encapsulation of potentially acid forming waste with inert material in waste dumps. • Groundwater monitoring across the Development Envelope will continue in accordance with the Greater Paraburdoo Groundwater Operating Strategy. Data will be reported annually within the Annual Aquifer Review. • Additional pit lake modelling will be undertaken to confirm the predicted pit lake water quality closer to closure. • Hydrocarbon storage facilities and all associated connections will be constructed within appropriately bunded areas. Rehabilitation • Groundwater levels are expected to recover following cessation of dewatering. No specific rehabilitation is proposed. • Waste landforms at closure will be rehabilitated to ensure they are stable and revegetated.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xv

• The pit lake that forms in the 4EE pit void is predicted to be a terminal sink (i.e. groundwater will flow continually towards the pit lake, confining potential impacts to the immediate vicinity of the pit void), water quality will have circum-neutral pH and TDS will steadily increase due to evapoconcentration. Significant residual impacts Outcomes After the mitigation hierarchy has been applied, no significant residual impact to environmental values supported by hydrological processes or water quality are expected and the Proponent considers that the Proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objectives for Inland Waters. Social surroundings EPA To protect social surroundings from significant harm. objective EPA Policy and Guidance • EPA Instructions on how to prepare an Environmental Review Document (EPA 2018a). • EPA Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA 2018b). • EPA Environmental Factor Guideline: Social surroundings (EPA 2016k). Policy and • DMP (now DMIRS) and EPA Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (DMP and guidance EPA 2015). Other policy and guidance • Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Department of Premier and Cabinet Due Diligence Guidelines, Version 3.0 (2013).

Direct impacts: • Disturbance of sites of cultural and heritage significance. Potential • Changes to local landforms which may result in altered visual landscapes within the region. impacts Indirect impacts: • Changes to the physical and biological attributes of the environment which may impact the values associated with significant heritage sites.

Avoidance • Direct Impacts to Sites of Special Significance (SoSS); Gardagarli (Johnny’s Gorge and Ratty Springs) and Garrabagarrangu (Red Ochre Quarry) will be avoided. • Waste dump design at Western Range has been modified to allow for the provision of an exclusion zone around Garrabagarrangu and a 200 m wide corridor to ensure the site can continue to be accessed both during and on cessation of operations. • The Proponent is committed to avoiding heritage sites, wherever practicable. Minimise • Mitigation strategies such as salvaging of heritage sites that are subject to ss. 16 and 18 of the AH Act will be undertaken in consultation with the Yinhawangka People, and if appropriate, stored in the Keeping Place currently housed at Paraburdoo Operations. • An inventory of salvaged material is maintained and managed by Rio Tinto’s Heritage Team. Consultation is ongoing with the Yinhawangka to discuss the timings and procedures of repatriating of cultural materials currently held by Rio Tinto and will be formalised over the coming years once Yinhawangka have established their own Keeping Place facility. Mitigation • A Blast Management Plan for rock shelters will be developed. Where impacts from vibration are unavoidable, Rio Tinto will apply to assess the significance of rock shelters under s16 of the AH Act. Rio Tinto will consult with Yinhawangka people about management of rock shelter sites that could be impacted by vibration. The Proposal has been designed to minimise impacts to pools and catchments where practicable. • The Proposal has been designed to minimise impacts to pools and catchments where practicable. • The pit design of the 14-16W deposit has been modified to minimise physical and visual impacts to Pirraburdu Creek based on consultation with the Yinhawangka People. • Mineral waste dumps will be designed to consider: • minimisation of dump height; • shaping of dumps to blend in with the surrounding natural topography; • construction to meet the requirements of the final rehabilitation design; and • drainage and erosion management features. • The Proposal has been designed to minimise impacts to pools and catchments where practicable.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xvi

• Surface water management will be implemented to minimise disruption to natural flows, minimise erosion and prevent contamination of surface and groundwater where practicable. • Dust management and implementation of a Blast Management Plan will minimise indirect impacts on sites of archaeological significance. Rehabilitation • The Closure Plans regarding operations within the Development Envelope consider the long- term access to heritage sites which will be further refined during life of mine, as well as how salvaged artefact material (as a result of direct impacts) will be managed. • Progressive backfilling will be implemented as far as practicable and progressive rehabilitation with local native vegetation has been, and will continue to be, undertaken where practicable. Self-sustaining ecosystems are intended to be re-established. Significant residual impact Outcomes After the application of the mitigation hierarchy and with ongoing consultation with the Yinhawangka People regarding the Proposal, and obligations under the AH Act, the Proponent considers that the Proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objective for Social Surroundings.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xvii

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1 1.1. Purpose and scope of this document 1 1.2. The Proponent 1 1.3. Environmental impact assessment process 4 1.3.1. Environmental Protection Act 1986 4 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 4 1.4. Other approvals and regulation 5 1.4.1. Land tenure and State Agreement 5 1.4.2. Native title 6 1.4.3. Other approvals 8 1.4.4. Decision making authorities 9

2. The Proposal 10 2.1. Background 10 2.2. Existing operations 10 2.2.1. Paraburdoo 10 2.2.2. Eastern Range 10 2.3. Existing operation approvals 13 2.4. Proposal description 15 2.4.1. Exclusions 16 2.4.2. Detailed Proposal elements 19 Justification and alternatives considered 21 2.5.1. Justification 22 2.5.2. Alternatives and Proposal optimisation 22 2.6. Local and regional context 24 Bioregion 24 Geology 24 Topography and land systems 24 2.6.4. Surface water and hydrology 26 2.6.5. Land use 26 2.6.6. Conservation areas 27 2.6.7. Key environmental values in the Development Envelope 27

3. Stakeholder engagement 28 3.1. Key stakeholders 28 3.2. Stakeholder engagement process 28 3.3. Stakeholder consultation 28

4. Environmental principles and factors 33 4.1. Preliminary key environmental factors 33 4.2. Environmental management 33

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xviii

4.3. Principles 33

5. Flora and Vegetation 36 5.1. EPA objective 36 5.2. Policy and guidance 36 5.3. Receiving environment 36 5.3.1. Previous studies 36 5.3.2. Vegetation 40 Flora 64 5.4. Potential impacts 81 5.4.1. Direct impacts 81 Indirect impacts 84 Cumulative impacts 85 5.5. Assessment of impacts 88 5.5.1. Direct Impacts 88 Indirect impacts 93 5.6. Closure 96 5.7. Mitigation 97 5.8. Predicted outcome 103

6. Terrestrial fauna 105 6.1. EPA objective 105 6.2. Policy and guidance 105 6.3. Receiving environment 105 6.3.1. Previous studies 105 6.3.2. Fauna habitat 109 6.3.3. Species diversity 118 6.3.4. Conservation significant fauna 120 6.3.5. Invertebrates and Short-range endemic fauna 127 6.4. Potential impacts 136 6.4.1. Direct impacts 136 6.4.2. Indirect impacts 137 6.4.3. Cumulative impacts 138 6.5. Assessment of impacts 139 6.5.1. Direct impacts 139 6.5.2. Indirect impacts 141 6.6. Closure 142 6.7. Mitigation 143 6.8. Predicted outcome 147

7. Subterranean Fauna 149 7.1. EPA objective 149 7.2. Policy and guidance 149 7.3. Receiving environment 149

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xix

7.3.1. Previous studies 150 7.3.2. Regional context 158 7.3.3. Local context 158 7.4. Troglofauna 158 7.4.1. Habitat suitability 158 7.4.2. Records 159 Potential impacts 166 7.4.4. Assessment of impacts 168 7.4.5. Closure 171 7.4.6. Mitigation 171 7.4.7. Predicted outcomes 173 7.5. Stygofauna 174 7.5.1. Habitat suitability 174 7.5.2. Records 175 7.5.3. Potential impacts 185 7.5.4. Assessment of impacts 191 7.5.5. Closure 193 7.5.6. Mitigation 193 7.5.7. Predicted outcomes 196

8. Inland waters 197 8.1. EPA objective 197 8.2. Policy and guidance 197 8.3. Receiving environment 197 8.3.1. Previous studies 197 8.3.2. Rainfall 200 8.3.3. Surface hydrology and regional context 200 8.3.4. Hydrogeology 205 8.3.5. Aquatic fauna 214 8.3.6. Existing water management 216 8.4. Potential impacts 218 8.4.1. Proposed water management scheme 218 8.4.2. Direct impacts 224 8.4.3. Indirect impacts 232 8.4.4. Cumulative impacts 233 8.5. Assessment of impacts 234 Direct impacts 234 8.5.2. Indirect impacts 239 8.5.3. Cumulative impacts 240 8.6. Closure 240 8.6.1. Paraburdoo closure outcomes 240 8.6.2. Western Range closure outcomes 241 8.6.3. Eastern Range closure outcomes 241

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xx

8.7. Mitigation 242 8.8. Predicted outcomes 246

9. Social surroundings 248 9.1. EPA objective 248 9.2. Policy and guidance 248 9.3. Receiving environment 248 9.3.1. Previous studies 248 9.3.2. Amenity and land use 256 9.3.3. Heritage 256 9.3.4. Consultation 257 9.4. Potential impacts 258 9.4.1. Direct impacts 259 9.4.2. Indirect impacts 259 9.5. Assessment of impacts 260 9.5.1. Direct impacts 260 9.5.2. Indirect impacts 263 9.5.3. Closure 264 9.6. Mitigation 265 9.7. Predicted Outcomes 268

10. Matters of National environmental significance 269 10.1. Matters of National Environmental Significance 269 10.2. Proposed action and assessment process 269 10.3. Controlled action provisions 269 10.4. Policy and guidance 270 10.4.1. Significant Impact Guidelines 270 10.4.2. Approved conservation advice and recovery plans 271 10.4.3. Threat abatement plans 272 10.5. Listed threatened species and ecological communities 273 10.5.1. Flora 273 10.5.2. Ecological communities 273 10.5.3. Fauna 274 10.6. Existing environmental values 276 10.6.1. Habitat suitability for MNES 276 10.6.2. Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) 278 10.6.3. Pilbara Olive Python (Liasis olivaceus barroni) 282 10.6.4. Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas) 285 10.6.5. Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat (Rhinonicteris aurantia) 301 10.7. Potential impacts 306 10.7.1. Direct impacts 306 10.7.2. Indirect impacts 309 10.8. Assessment of impacts 310

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxi

10.8.1. Northern Quoll 310 10.8.2. Pilbara Olive Python 314 10.8.3. Ghost Bat 317 10.8.4. Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat 327 10.9. Proposed management 331 10.10. Consistency with relevant recovery plans and other guidance 333 10.10.1. Northern Quoll 333 10.10.2. Pilbara Olive Python (Liasis olivaceus barroni) 336 10.10.3. Ghost Bat 337 10.10.4. Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat 339

11. Other environmental factors 341 11.1. Air Quality - Greenhouse gas emissions 341

12. Offsets 343 12.1. Offset policy and guidance 343 12.1.1. EP Act 343 12.1.2. EPBC Act 344 12.2. Assessment of significant residual impact – EP Act 344 12.3. Assessment of significant residual impact - EPBC Act 349 12.3.1. Northern Quoll 349 12.3.2. Pilbara Olive Python 350 12.3.3. Ghost Bat 351 12.3.4. Pilbara Leaf-nose Bat 352 12.4. Proposed offsets 352 12.5. Stakeholder consultation 357

13. Holistic impact assessment 358 13.1. Conclusion 362

14. References 364

15. Appendices 373 Appendix 1: Schedule 4 EPBC Regulations Checklist 373 Appendix 2: Environmental Scoping Document 373 Appendix 3: Environmental Management Plan 373 Appendix 4: Key Flora and Vegetation Studies 373 Appendix 5: Mine Closure and Rehabilitation Documents 373 Appendix 6: Key Terrestrial Fauna Studies 373 Appendix 7: Key Subterranean Fauna Studies 374 Appendix 8: Key Inland Waters Studies 374 Appendix 9: Key Social Surroundings Studies 374 Appendix 10: Draft ministerial statement conditionsa 374

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxii

Tables

Table 1-1: Proponent identification ...... 2 Table 1-2: Tenements and status within the Development Envelope ...... 5 Table 1-3: Other approvals ...... 8 Table 1-4: Decision-making authorities ...... 9 Table 2-1: Existing and historic approvals ...... 13 Table 2-2: Summary of Proposal ...... 16 Table 2-3: Location and proposed extent of physical and operational elements ...... 16 Table 2-4: Proposed new deposits within the Development Envelope ...... 19 Table 2-5: Land use in the Pilbara region ...... 27 Table 3-1: Stakeholder consultation register ...... 29 Table 4-1: Consideration given to environmental principles ...... 34 Table 5-1: Summary of technical studies for flora and vegetation ...... 37 Table 5-2: Land systems and major soil type...... 40 Table 5-3: Occurrences of regional vegetation associations within the Development Envelope ...... 42 Table 5-4: Vegetation types within the Development Envelope ...... 48 Table 5-5: Vegetation condition for remnant vegetation in the Development Envelope...... 58 Table 5-6: Key GDE vegetation units within the Development Envelope ...... 61 Table 5-7: Conservation significant flora species recorded within the Development Envelope...... 68 Table 5-8: Species expected to be range extensions...... 79 Table 5-9: Potential impacts on vegetation with moderate significance within the Development Envelope...... 82 Table 5-10: Direct and indirect loss of conservation significant flora species within the Development Envelope...... 83 Table 5-11: Indirect impacts to GDEs from groundwater drawdown ...... 85 Table 5-12: Cumulative impacts on vegetation associations ...... 86 Table 5-13: Cumulative impacts on land systems ...... 87 Table 5-14: Assessment of impacts to locally conservation significant vegetation of moderate value .. 88 Table 5-15: Assessment of impacts on GDEs from groundwater abstraction located in high risk zones ...... 95 Table 5-16: Application of mitigation hierarchy for flora and vegetation ...... 101 Table 6-1: Summary of technical studies for terrestrial fauna ...... 106 Table 6-2: Fauna habitat within the Development Envelope ...... 110 Table 6-3: Conservation significant fauna listed under the BC Act recorded or likely to occur within the Development Envelope ...... 120 Table 6-4: Suitability of habitat types for SRE fauna within the Development Envelope ...... 131

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxiii Table 6-5: Proposed clearing of moderate and high value fauna habitat types within the Development Envelope...... 136 Table 6-6: Assessment of impacts to fauna habitat ...... 139 Table 6-7: Application of mitigation hierarchy for terrestrial fauna ...... 144 Table 7-1: Summary of technical studies for subterranean fauna ...... 150 Table 7-2: Troglofauna sampling effort across the Greater Paraburdoo Hub...... 151 Table 7-3: Stygofauna sampling effort across the Greater Paraburdoo Hub...... 151 Table 7-4: SRE categorisation used by WAM ...... 156 Table 7-5: Habitat suitability categories ...... 157 Table 7-6: Troglofauna taxa recorded from the Development Envelope ...... 160 Table 7-7: Maximum cumulative loss of 3D troglofauna habitat from the Proposal...... 168 Table 7-8: Risk of significant impacts to individual troglofauna taxa...... 169 Table 7-9: Application of mitigation hierarchy for troglofauna ...... 172 Table 7-10: Stygofauna taxa recorded from the Development Envelope...... 175 Table 7-11: Maximum cumulative loss or alteration of 3D stygofauna habitat from the Proposal ...... 191 Table 7-12: Application of mitigation hierarchy for stygofauna ...... 194 Table 8-1: Summary of technical studies for inland waters ...... 198 Table 8-2: Paraburdoo hydrogeological characteristics ...... 206 Table 8-3: Western Range hydrogeological characteristics ...... 209 Table 8-4: Western Range groundwater: summary of chemical characteristics (concentrations in mg/L) ...... 211 Table 8-5: Conceptual predicted water balance for the Proposal per mine area ...... 221 Table 8-6: Application of mitigation hierarchy for inland waters ...... 243 Table 9-1: Summary of technical studies for social surroundings ...... 248 Table 9-2: Application of mitigation hierarchy for social surroundings ...... 266 Table 10-1: Relevant guidance on MNES ...... 271 Table 10-2: Relevant threat abatement plans for the Proposed Action ...... 272 Table 10-3: EPBC Act fauna species and likelihood of occurrence in the Development Envelope ..... 275 Table 10-4: Fauna habitat in the Development Envelope ...... 276 Table 10-5: Summary of roost/feed caves for Ghost Bat recorded in the Development Envelope ..... 290 Table 10-6: Proposed clearing of MNES fauna habitat in the Development Envelope ...... 307 Table 10-7: Extent of high to moderate value MNES habitat estimated to be cleared for the Proposed Action within the Development Envelope ...... 308 Table 10-8: Assessment of the significance of impacts to Northern Quoll ...... 313 Table 10-9: Assessment of the significance of impacts to Pilbara Olive Python ...... 316 Table 10-10: Assessment of the significance of impacts to Ghost Bat ...... 325 Table 10-11: Assessment of the significance of impacts to Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat ...... 329

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxiv Table 10-12: Summary of residual impacts to MNES following implementation of management and mitigation measures ...... 331 Table 10-13: National Recovery Plan actions for the Northern Quoll ...... 334 Table 10-14: Regional and local priority actions in the Conservation Advice for the Olive Python ...... 337 Table 10-15: Regional and local priority actions in the Conservation Advice for the Ghost Bat ...... 338 Table 10-16: Regional and local priority actions in the Conservation Advice for the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat ...... 339 Table 11-1: Assessment of potential impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 342 Table 12-1: Residual Impact Significance Model (RISM) ...... 346 Table 12-2: Environmental Offsets Summary ...... 354 Table 12-3: Considerations of principles of WA offset policy ...... 355 Table 12-4: Consideration of Commonwealth offset principles ...... 356 Table 13-1: Connections and interactions between key environmental factors and predicted outcomes ...... 359 Figures

Figure 1-1: Location of the Proposal ...... 3 Figure 1-2: Land tenure...... 7 Figure 2-1: Existing operations - Paraburdoo ...... 11 Figure 2-2: Existing operations – Eastern Range ...... 12 Figure 2-3: Extent of existing approvals ...... 14 Figure 2-4: Development Envelope and conceptual footprint ...... 18 Figure 2-5: IBRA subregions and land systems ...... 25 Figure 5-1: Coverage of flora and vegetation surveys ...... 39 Figure 5-2: Regional vegetation associations ...... 44 Figure 5-3: Vegetation types within the Development Envelope ...... 52 Figure 5-4: Local conservation significant vegetation ...... 57 Figure 5-5: Vegetation condition in the Development Envelope ...... 59 Figure 5-6: Riparian vegetation and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems ...... 62 Figure 5-7: Conservation significant flora recorded within the Development Envelope ...... 72 Figure 5-8: Regional location of conservation significant flora species within 30 km of the Development Envelope...... 76 Figure 5-9: Introduced flora species recorded within the Development Envelope ...... 80 Figure 5-10: Aluta quadrata Area of Occupancy ...... 92 Figure 5-11: Mine plan modifications to avoid Aluta quadrata – 36W to 50W ...... 98 Figure 5-12: Mine plan modifications to avoid Aluta quadrata – 55W to 66W ...... 99 Figure 5-13: Mining exclusion zones for Aluta quadrata ...... 100

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxv Figure 6-1: Terrestrial fauna surveys ...... 108 Figure 6-2: Fauna habitat types within the Development Envelope ...... 114 Figure 6-3: Conservation significant fauna records ...... 123 Figure 6-4: SRE habitat suitability and records in the Development Envelope ...... 132 Figure 7-1: Coverage of Subterranean fauna surveys...... 152 Figure 7-2: Troglofauna habitat prospectivity and taxa recorded in Western Range ...... 163 Figure 7-3: Troglofauna habitat prospectivity and taxa recorded in Paraburdoo ...... 164 Figure 7-4: Troglofauna habitat prospectivity and taxa recorded in Eastern Range ...... 165 Figure 7-5: Stygofauna habitat suitability and taxa recorded ...... 180 Figure 7-6: Hydrogeological cross section of Seven Mile Creek showing hydraulic barriers ...... 188 Figure 7-7: Bathynellidae records & maximum modelled groundwater drawdown ...... 189 Figure 8-1: Surface hydrology ...... 201 Figure 8-2: Hydrogeological cross section of Ratty Springs (Pirraburdu Creek)...... 202 Figure 8-3: Paraburdoo hydrogeology (cross section)...... 207 Figure 8-4: Paraburdoo hydrogeology (plan view) ...... 208 Figure 8-5: Western Range hydrogeology (cross-section) ...... 212 Figure 8-6: Western Range hydrogeology (plan view) ...... 213 Figure 8-7: Existing Greater Paraburdoo Operations Water Scheme ...... 217 Figure 8-8: Predicted groundwater abstraction requirements ...... 220 Figure 8-9: Proposed surplus water discharge locations – 4EE and 36W ...... 222 Figure 8-10: Proposed Six Mile Creek (66W) surplus water discharge locations ...... 223 Figure 8-11: Maximum modelled drawdown (wet season) in metres from 2001 levels in the 4E groundwater area ...... 226 Figure 8-12: Maximum modelled drawdown at Western Range ...... 227 Figure 8-13: Constructed landforms relative to surface water flows – 4EE and Eastern Range ...... 231 Figure 8-14: Observed and predicted hydrographs for groundwater beneath Seven Mile Creek, upstream (SMC_North) and downstream (PMO1) of the Mount McRae Shale barrier ...... 236 Figure 8-15: 4E area and Seven Mile Creek - Location of hydrographs (Figure 8-14), Mt McRae Shale and Wittenoom Formation ...... 237 Figure 9-1: Heritage Survey Areas ...... 255 Figure 9-2: Viewshed analysis and photo locations ...... 262 Figure 10-1: Northern Quoll records and suitable habitat within the Development Envelope ...... 281 Figure 10-2: Pilbara Olive Python records and suitable habitat within the Development Envelope .. 284 Figure 10-3: Ghost Bat significant caves, records and suitable habitat within the Development Envelope ...... 297 Figure 10-4: Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat records and suitable habitat within the Development Envelope ...... 305

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxvi

Figure 10-5: Ghost Bat Mining Restriction Zones and Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat Mine Exclusion Zone within the Development Envelope ...... 321

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxvii

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

AH Act Aboriginal Heritage Act (WA) 1972

AMD Acid Mine Drainage

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand

AWT Above Water Table

BAM Act Biosecurity and Agricultural Management Act 2007

BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act (WA) 2016

BIF Banded Iron Formation

BoM Bureau of Meteorology

BrIF Brockman Iron Formation

BWT Below Water Table

CALM Act Conservation and Land Management Act 1984

CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan

CS Act Contaminated Sites Act 2003

DAWE Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

DBCA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions

DG Safety Act Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004

DMA Decision-making Authorities

DMIRS Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

DotEE Department of the Environment and Energy

DPIRD Department of Primary Industries and Regional Developments

DPLH Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

DWER Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

eDNA Environmental Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environment Management Plan

EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

EPA Services Environmental Protection Authority Services

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxviii

Abbreviation Description

ERD Environmental Review Document

ESD Environmental Scoping Document

EWR Ecological Water Requirement

FIFO Fly-in, Fly-out

GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem

GL Gigalitres

GL/a Gigalitres per annum

GoWA Government of Western Australia

GWL Groundwater Licence

HSE Health, Safety and Environment

IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia

ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement

JTSI Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation

KNP Karijini National Park

LIC Local Implementation Committee

mbgl metres below ground level

MCP Mine Closure Plan

MEZ Mining Exclusion Zone

mg/L Milligrams per Litre

Mining Act Mining Act 1978

mm/a millimetres per annum

MMIF Marra Mamba Iron Formation

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

mRL minimum reporting level

MS Ministerial Statement

Mt Million tonnes

Mt/a Million tonne per annum

NNTT National Native Title Tribunal

NVCP Native Vegetation Clearing Permit

NVIS National Vegetation Information System

OoM Order of Magnitude

OPV Obligate Phreatophytic Vegetation

p/a Per annum

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxix

Abbreviation Description

P Priority

PA Participation Agreement

PAF Potentially acid forming

Paraburdoo State Agreement Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1968 (Paraburdoo)

PEC Priority Ecological Communities

PER Public Environmental Review

PRI Pilbara Regional Inventory

PPV Peak Particle Velocity

Rio Tinto Rio Tinto Group

RISM Residual Impact Significant Model

RiWI Act Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914

ROM Run of Mine

RRA Rights Reserved Areas

SCARD Spontaneous Combustion and Acid Rock Drainage

SRE Short Range Endemic

T Threatened

TAP Threat Abatement Plan

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TEC Threatened Ecological Communities

TO Traditional Owner

TSSC Threatened Species Scientific Committee

UCL Unallocated Crown Land

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

WAH Western Australian Herbarium

WAM Western Australian Museum

Wet Plant Paraburdoo Fines Processing Plant

WFSF Waste Fines Storage Facility

WoNS Weeds of National Significance

YAC Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation

YHW Yinhawangka People

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document xxx

Overview and Proposal

1. INTRODUCTION

Hamersley Iron Pty Limited (the Proponent) operates the existing Paraburdoo and Eastern Range iron ore mines which are located approximately 6 km south of the town of Paraburdoo in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia (WA) (Figure 1-1). The Proponent proposes to sustain production by expanding existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range; and develop a new deposit at Western Range. These developments collectively make up the Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub (the Proposal). The Proposal is located within a 17,422 ha Development Envelope which encompasses the Western Range, Paraburdoo and Eastern Range mining areas and all associated infrastructure (Figure 1-1). The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has determined that the Proposal is to be assessed under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act); and the Proposal will undergo an accredited assessment process with the Australian (Commonwealth) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

1.1. Purpose and scope of this document The purpose of this Environmental Review Document (ERD) is to provide a report on the environmental review for the Proposal to the EPA. The ERD describes and assesses the significance of the environmental impacts that have the potential to occur from the construction, operation and closure of the proposed mine extensions at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range, and a new mine at Western Range. Environmental impacts are considered in the context of the preliminary key environmental factors identified by the EPA in its decision to assess the Proposal at the level of Public Environmental Review (PER). Existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range are currently managed under Part V of the EP Act and are not part of the Proposal (Section 2.4.2 provides further context relating to exclusions of the Proposal). In accordance with the requirements of the EPA’s 'Instructions on how to prepare an Environmental Review Document' (EPA 2018a), the scope of the ERD includes: • A description of the Proposal, including key characteristics of the Proposal which have the potential to cause an impact on the environment (Section 2). • A summary of stakeholder consultation undertaken in support of the Proposal (Section 3). • An assessment of potential significant impacts of the Proposal for each of the EPA’s key environmental factors (Section 5 to Section 9). • Identification of any offsets proposed for the Proposal (Section 12). • A holistic impact assessment summarising potential impacts of the Proposal (Section 13). This document also satisfies the requirements for an accredited assessment under the EPBC Act and includes assessment of potential significant impacts of the Proposal impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (Section 10), and a checklist of requirements outlined in the Schedule 4 of the EPBC Regulations against the ERD (Appendix 1).

1.2. The Proponent Hamersley Iron Pty Limited (a 100% owned entity of Rio Tinto) is the Proponent for this Proposal. The Proponent details are provided in Table 1-1.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 1

Table 1-1: Proponent identification

Item Detail

Proponent Hamersley Iron Pty Limited

ACN 004 558 276

Address 152-158 St Georges Terrace, Perth, WA, 6000

Joel McShane Senior Advisor Environmental Approvals Contact State Agreements & Approvals, Iron Ore Rio Tinto Telephone: +61 8 9327 2000 Email: [email protected]

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 2 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Legend Figure 1-1: Location of the Proposal Port Hedland Develop ment Envelop e Highway

" Port Major Road

! Rio Tinto Mine Rio Tinto Railway Murujuga Cape National " Lambert Town National Park Dampier Park " Wickham

0 Karratha 0 0 Roebourne 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 0 7 7 , , 7 7

Karratha P I L B A R A A U S T R A L I A

Perth

Millstream-Chichester G

r National Park e

a t

Pannawonica o 0 ¯ 0 r 0 0

0 t 0 , ,

h 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 ! 0

0 e 0

6 Kilometres 6 , , r

7 Mesa A ! n 7 Mesa J Map units in metres

H y a i Drawn: A.D. Proj: NGuDlAla 1g9in94e MGA Zone 50 g

h Plan: PDE0167760v2 Scale: 1:2,000,000 @ A4

o Silvergrass C

t !

s Nammuldi e !

W ! Brockman 2

h 0 0

0 t 0 0 0 , r Brockman 4 , 0 ! 0 o 0 Marandoo 0 5 N 5 , ! , 7 ! Tom Price 7 W e s t e r n Western Turner ! Yandicoogina R a n g e Syncline Mount Tom Price !

, Kilometres , 0 0 0 0 4 4 , ,

7 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 7

1.3. Environmental impact assessment process The Proposal is subject to both the Commonwealth EPBC Act (Section 1.3.2) and Western Australian EP Act (Section 1.3.1). The Proposal will undergo an accredited assessment in which the Commonwealth will rely on the outcomes of the assessment conducted by the Western Australian EPA to inform its consideration for approval under the EPBC Act.

1.3.1. Environmental Protection Act 1986 The EP Act is Western Australia’s primary environmental legislation governing environmental protection and impact assessment. Part IV of the EP Act provides for the consideration and assessment of Proposals that may or will have a significant impact on the environment. The impact assessment process is administered by the Environmental Protection Authority Services (EPA Services) unit within the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER). This ERD is now published for a period of two weeks, during which time the public is invited to comment on the ERD. Refer to the Invitation to make a submission section at the beginning of this document for guidance on how to make a submission and the closing date for submissions. After the public review period, the EPA will conduct its assessment of the Proposal, taking into account the ERD, any submissions received and the Proponent’s responses to any submissions received. The EPA also takes into account relevant policies and guidelines and may seek advice from relevant government agencies. The EPA will prepare an assessment report recommending whether the Proposal should be approved and, if recommending approval, any implementation conditions that should apply. The EPA Report and Recommendations (EPA Report) will be made public and is subject to appeal. After the appeal period has concluded, the EPA’s Report will be provided to the Minister for the Environment, who will decide whether the Proposal may be implemented and, if so, any implementation conditions and procedures which will apply.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The EPBC Act is the primary Commonwealth environmental legislation protecting MNES and is administered by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE). The Proposal was referred to the Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE, now DAWE) on 6 December 2018 (EPBC Act reference: EPBC 2018/8341) and on 24 January 2019, the delegate for the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment determined that the Proposal is a controlled action under s. 75 of the EPBC Act, requiring further assessment and approval. The relevant Matter (the controlling provision) is 'Listed threatened species and communities (ss. 18 and 18A of the EPBC Act). DAWE identified species and communities with the potential to be significantly impacted by the Proposal including, but not limited to: • Northern Quoll; • Ghost Bat; • Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat; and • Pilbara Olive Python. The significance, with respect to relevant EPBC Act guidance, of potential impacts from the Proposal on MNES is addressed separately in this ERD (Section 10). The EPA is assessing the Proposal as an accredited assessment on behalf of the Commonwealth under s. 87 of the EPBC Act. This assessment provides for a single environmental assessment process conducted by the State. At the completion of the assessment the EPA’s Report is provided to the DAWE assessing the likely impacts of the Proposal on MNES. DAWE is also expected review the response to submissions on the ERD.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 4

The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment will make an approval decision. On approval a Decision notice will be issued which may include implementation conditions to be applied to the controlled action.

1.4. Other approvals and regulation The Proposal is located within the area covered by the State Agreement Iron Ore (Hamersley Range) Agreement Act 1968 (Paraburdoo) (Paraburdoo State Agreement). A State Agreement is a legal contract between the Western Australian Government and a Proponent of a major project within the boundaries of Western Australia (WA). A State Agreement details the rights, obligations, terms and conditions for development of a specific project.

1.4.1. Land tenure and State Agreement The existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range are located on State Agreement Mineral Lease ML246SA and ML4SA Sections 236 & 237 granted pursuant to the Paraburdoo State Agreement. Additional Miscellaneous and General Purpose leases granted under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (Mining Act) are provided in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2: Tenements and status within the Development Envelope

Tenement Status Holder

General purpose lease

G 47/1254 Live HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LIMITED

General purpose lease S.A

G 14SA Live HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LIMITED

G 4SA Live HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LIMITED

Mineral Lease S.A.

ML 246SA Live HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LIMITED

ML 4SA Live HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LIMITED

Miscellaneous licence

L 47/130 Live HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LIMITED

L 47/326 Live HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LIMITED

The Development Envelope for the Proposal is 17,422 ha and is located within the Shire of Ashburton. It is also located on the following pastoral stations: • Rocklea Station (held and managed by the Proponent); • Mininer Station; and • Ashburton Downs Station. Land tenure is presented in Figure 1-2.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 5

1.4.2. Native title The Development Envelope includes two Native Title claim areas: • Yinhawangka Part A (WC2010/016); • Yinhawangka Part B (WC2010/011). The Development Envelope is located within the Rio Tinto and Yinhawangka People Indigenous Land Use Agreement Area as registered with the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) (WI2013/001). This is a voluntary agreement about the use and management of an area of land or waters, made between the Yinhawangka People native title group and the Proponent.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 6 530,000 540,000 550,000 560,000 570,000 580,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0

5 ¯ 5 Figure 1-2: Land Tenure 0 10 4 4 , , 7 Kilometres 7 Map un its in metres

Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Z on e 50 Plan: PDE0167888v2 Scale: 1:200,000 @ A4 Date: October 2019 [email protected] Disclaimer: This documen t has been prepared to the highest level of accuracy possible, for the purposes of Rio Tin to’s iron ore busin ess. Reproduction of this documen t in w hole or in part by an y mean s is strictly prohibited w ithout the express approval of Rio Tin to. Further, this documen t may n ot be referred to, quoted or relied upon for an y purpose w hatsoever w ithout the w ritten LPL N 050 37 2 approval of Rio Tin to. Rio Tin to w ill n ot be liable to a third party for an y loss, damage, liability or claim arisin g out of or in ciden tal to a third party usin g or relyin g on the con ten t con tain ed in this Rockle a documen t. Rio Tin to disclaims all risk an d the third party assumes all risk an d releases an d in demn ifies an d agrees to keep in demn ified Rio Tin to from an y loss, damage, claim or liability Sta tion LPL N 050 37 2 arisin g directly or in directly from the use or relian ce on this documen t. Rockle a Sta tion

LPL N 050 37 2 k 0 ree 0 0 Rockle a C 0

0 d 0 , lan , 0 Sta tion ble 0 4 Ta 4 4 4 , , 7 7

ek re C ry lla Be L47/00271 E47/01478 Six Mile L47/00326 Creek ML246SA G5SA L47/00272 LPL N 049 71 8 Min in e r Sta tion 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0

3 LPL N 049 71 8 3 4 4 , ,

7 Min in e r 7 Sta tion ek re C G47/01254 u rd bu G14SA rra ek ML4SA Pi re C Sec 236 LPL N 050 03 6 ile G4SA M ML4SA Ashb urto n en ev Sec 237 Dow n s Statio n S

M265SA L47/00130 L47/00883 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 2 2 4 4 , ,

7 Legend 7

Developmen t En velope Land Administration Act Tenure Rio Tinto Mining Act Tenure

RLioP TLi nNto0 R5a0i0lw3a6y Gen eral Lease Live Other Ashb urto n LPL N 049 71 8 Pastoral Lease Live Min in g Lease LPL N 050 67 6 MDaojworn Rso aSdtatio n Min in e r Tu ree Cre ek Sta tion Sta tion Min or Road Un allocated Crow n Lan d reek Turee C Major Creek Other

530,000 540,000 550,000 560,000 570,000 580,000

1.4.3. Other approvals Other Western Australian legislation applicable to the Proposal includes, but is not limited to: • Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (AH Act); • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act); • Biosecurity and Agricultural Management Act 2007 (BAM Act); • Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (CALM Act); • Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (CS Act); • Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 (DG Safety Act); • Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994; • National Environmental Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure 2003; • Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (RiWI Act). Secondary approvals that may be required for the Proposal with respect to the environment are summarised in Table 1-3. The key Decision Making Authorities (DMAs) and other relevant approvals for this Proposal are also identified in Table 1-3.

Table 1-3: Other approvals

Legislation Land Proposal activities Type of approval regulating the Regulatory agency tenure/access activity Refer to Table Paraburdoo Department of Jobs, All proposal activities 1-2 and Proposal approval State Tourism, Science and Figure 1-2 Agreement Innovation (JTSI) s. 16 authorisation to enter, excavate, examine or remove Disturbance of sites of Refer to Table anything on an Department of Aboriginal heritage 1-2 and Aboriginal site. AH Act Planning, Lands and significance Figure 1-2 s. 18 consent where Heritage (DPLH) impact on an Aboriginal site is unavoidable. Contained Storage and handling of Department of Mines, within the Dangerous goods hazardous materials DG Safety Act Industry Regulation Development licence. during construction and Safety (DMIRS) Envelope Construction and operation of prescribed Refer to Table premises with potential Works approvals and 1-2 and EP Act Part V DWER to cause emissions and licences. Figure 1-2 discharges to air, land or water 4EE dewatering Section 5C licence to Abstraction of borefield with take water. groundwater for use water piped to Section 26D licence to RiWI Act DWER during construction. Western construction or alter a Range. well.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 8

Legislation Land Proposal activities Type of approval regulating the Regulatory agency tenure/access activity Undertake works (that Permit to Interfere obstruct, interfere, or Figure 2-4 with the Bed or Banks RiWI Act DWER destroy) the bed or of a Watercourse. banks of a watercourse Licencing associated Department of Refer to Table with fauna and flora Biodiversity, Biological surveys 1-2 and surveys and research BC Act Conservation and Figure 1-2 Fauna Handling Attractions (DBCA) licence Note that not all activities will necessarily be required.

1.4.4. Decision making authorities A number of decision-making authorities are identified in the ESD. The DMAs and their relevance to the Proposal are summarised in Table 1-4.

Table 1-4: Decision-making authorities

Decision-making authority Relevant legislation

Minister for Environment (WA) BC Act

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs AH Act

Minister for State Development Paraburdoo State Agreement

Minister for Water RiWI Act

State Mining Engineer, DMIRS Mine Safety and Inspection Act 1994

Chief Dangerous Goods Officer, DMIRS DG Safety Act

EP Act Chief Executive Officer, DWER RiWI Act

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 9

2. THE PROPOSAL

This section describes the Proposal and provides context for its development. The Proposal includes the development of a new deposit at Western Range and extension to existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range. The existing operations are not part of this Proposal.

2.1. Background The Proponent referred the Proposal to the EPA under s. 38 of the EP Act on 5 November 2018. On 7 December 2018, the EPA determined that the Proposal would be formally assessed with the level of assessment set as PER including a two-week public review period. The Proponent subsequently prepared an Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) which sets out the matters to be addressed in the ERD (EPA 2019a, Appendix 2). The EPA review of the draft ESD included seeking the advice of relevant stakeholders including: DWER; DBCA; DMIRS; DAWE (then DotEE); DPLH; and JTSI. The EPA approved the ESD on 21 June 2019.

2.2. Existing operations Existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range commenced in 1972 and 2004 respectively and both operations employ traditional open-cut mining techniques (drill, blast load and haul). A summary of each operation is provided below and presented in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. The Channar mine, located to the east of Eastern Range, is owned by the Proponent in joint venture with Sinosteel Corporation. Operations commenced in 1990 and are approved under Ministerial Statement (MS) 16 and the Iron Ore (Channar Joint Venture) Agreement Act 1987. The Channar mine is not included in the scope of this Proposal and is located outside of the proposed Development Envelope. Details of the operating elements at the existing Paraburdoo and Eastern Range mines are outlined in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.

2.2.1. Paraburdoo Paraburdoo is the original mine at Paraburdoo Range and is the location of the central processing plant facilities and majority of supporting infrastructure that will service the Proposal. The existing Paraburdoo mine consists of several above water table (AWT) and below water table (BWT) open-cut pits (described as 11 West [11W], 5 West [5W], 4 West [4W], North Lobe Creek, 4 East [4E] and 18 East [18E]), waste dumps, low grade stockpiles, processing plant (wet and dry), waste fines storage facility (WFSF); Run of Mine (ROM), overland conveyor and topsoil and subsoil stockpiles. Supporting infrastructure and facilities include but are not limited to: administration buildings; mobile and fixed plant equipment workshops; warehouse; hydrocarbon storage facilities; ANFO storage facility; power station and associated power distribution network; dewatering and water supply borefields; wastewater treatment plants; laydown yards; and Class I and II landfill facilities. Key existing features at Paraburdoo are presented in Figure 2-1.

2.2.2. Eastern Range Eastern Range is located approximately 6 km to the east of Paraburdoo and consists of several AWT open-cut pits and waste dumps (described as: 23 East [23E], 24 East [24E], 32 East [32E], 37 East [37E], 42 East [42E] in Figure 2-1), low grade stockpiles, ROM, topsoil and sub-soil stockpiles, primary and secondary crushers and supporting infrastructure including administration buildings and hydrocarbon storage facilities. Key existing features at Eastern Range are presented in Figure 2-2.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 10 552,500 555,000 557,500 560,000 562,500 565,000 567,500

Legend 0 0 0 0 0 0 , Figure 2-1: Existing operations - Paraburdoo ,

5 Develop men t En velop e 5 3 3 4 4 , , 7 Existin g Parab urdoo op eration 7

Con veyor

Rio Tin to Railw ay

Major Creek 0 0 0 0

5 4W 5 , Seve , 2 4E n Mi 2 3 Waste Dump le Cr 3 4 ee 4 , Waste Dump k , 7 5W 7 4W (AWT) Waste Dump 11W (AWT) 4E (BWT) 11W Waste Dump 4W (BWT) 4E (BWT) 4E

0 k 0 e 0 e Waste Dump 0 0 r 0 , ,

0 C 0

3 u 4W 3

4 d 4 , r ,

7 u Waste Dump 4E 7 b ra Waste Dump ir P

4E Waste Dump

18E (AWT) 0 0 0 0 5 5 , ,

7 18E 7 2 2 4 4

, Waste Dump , 7 Waste 7 Fines Facility ¯ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Kilometres Paraburdoo Map un its in metres

Paraburdoo ! Drawn: GIS Team Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zon e 50 Plan: PDE0167889v2 Scale: 1:60,000 @ A4

0 Date: Octob er 2019 [email protected] 0 0 0

0 Eastern Range 0 , ! , Disclaimer: This documen t has b een p rep ared to the highest level of accuracy p ossib le, for 5 the p urp oses of Rio Tin to’s iron ore b usin ess. Rep roduction of this documen t in w hole or in 5 2 2

4 p art b y an y mean s is strictly p rohib ited w ithout the exp ress ap p roval of Rio Tin to. Further, this 4 , documen t may n ot b e referred to, quoted or relied up on for an y p urp ose w hatsoever w ithout , 7 7 the w ritten ap p roval of Rio Tin to. Rio Tin to w ill n ot b e liab le to a third p arty for an y loss, ! damage, liab ility or claim arisin g out of or in ciden tal to a third p arty usin g or relyin g on the 0 5 10 15 20 con ten t con tain ed in this documen t. Rio Tin to disclaims all risk an d the third p arty assumes all risk an d releases an d in demn ifies an d agrees to keep in demn ified Rio Tin to from an y loss, Channar damage, claim or liab ility arisin g directly or in directly from the use or relian ce on this Kilometres documen t.

552,500 555,000 557,500 560,000 562,500 565,000 567,500 562,500 565,000 567,500 570,000 572,500 575,000 577,500

0 Legend 0 0 0 5 5 , Seve , 2 n Mil 2 3 Figuree 2C-r2ee: Existing operations - Eastern Range Develo pment Envelo pe 3 4 k 4 , , 7 7 Existing Eastern Range o peratio n

Co nveyo r

Rio Tinto Railw ay

Majo r Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 3 3 4 4 , , 7 7 23E (AWT)

37E Waste Dump

23E Waste Dump 32E

0 (AWT) 0 0 0 5 5 , 24E 37E , 7 7

2 (AWT) (AWT) 2 4 4 , , 7 7 24E 42E Waste Dump (AWT) 32E Waste Dump 37E Waste Dump 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 2 2 4 4 , , 7 7

¯ 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Kilo metres Paraburdoo Map units in metres

Paraburdoo ! Drawn: GIS Team Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zo ne 50

0 Plan: PDE0170665v2 Scale: 1:60,000 @ A4 0 0 0 5 5

, Date: Oc to ber 2019 [email protected] ,

2 Eastern Range 2 2 ! 2 Disclaimer: This do c ument has been prepared to the highest level o f ac c urac y po ssible, fo r 4 4

, the purpo ses o f Rio Tinto ’s iro n o re business. Repro duc tio n o f this do c ument in w ho le o r in ,

7 part by any means is stric tly pro hibited w itho ut the express appro val o f Rio Tinto . Further, this 7 do c ument may no t be referred to , q uo ted o r relied upo n fo r any purpo se w hatso ever w itho ut the w ritten appro val o f Rio Tinto . Rio Tinto w ill no t be liable to a third party fo r any lo ss, ! damage, liability o r c laim arising o ut o f o r inc idental to a third party using o r relying o n the 0 5 10 15 20 c o ntent c o ntained in this do c ument. Rio Tinto disc laims all risk and the third party assumes all risk and releases and indemnifies and agrees to keep indemnified Rio Tinto fro m any lo ss, Channar damage, c laim o r liability arising direc tly o r indirec tly fro m the use o r relianc e o n this Kilo metres do c ument.

562,500 565,000 567,500 570,000 572,500 575,000 577,500

2.3. Existing operation approvals The existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range are not subject to a Ministerial Statement issued under Part IV of the EP Act. The Paraburdoo operations have not been referred to the EPA under s. 38 of the EP Act. These operations began in 1972, prior to the commencement of the EP Act and were regulated under the Paraburdoo State Agreement. Mining at Eastern Range (23E–42E deposits) was referred to the EPA in April 1998. The EPA decided no assessment was required and provided public advice in May 1998. Additional disturbance at Eastern Range was referred to the EPA in November 2004 and the EPA determined that the proposal did not warrant formal assessment. As such, operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range are currently regulated through NVCP’s and Licences under Part V of the EP Act and Groundwater Licencing under the RiWI Act (refer to Table 2-1). The existing operations at Paraburdoo pre-date the commencement of the EPBC Act. In 2002 DAWE (then Environment Australia) was briefed on the Eastern Range development, including the planned additional disturbance referred to the EPA in 2004. Based on this consultation, the Proponent determined these activities did not warrant referral and assessment under the EPBC Act. As a result, Paraburdoo and Eastern Range have not been previously referred to DAWE under the EPBC Act. The disturbance footprint from both existing operations was 3,225 ha at the end of 2018. Existing and currently authorised disturbance and approvals are presented in Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Existing and historic approvals

Legislation Regulatory Authorised extent Type of approval regulating the agency activity Clearing of native vegetation Not defined State Agreement Paraburdoo JTSI State Agreement Clearing of up to 1,131 ha within the Development Various expired and EP Act (Part V) DWER Envelope surrendered clearing permits Clearing of 595 ha at Paraburdoo for the purposes of Clearing permit EP Act (Part V) DWER mineral production and mineral exploration (CPS 5090)

Clearing of 600 ha at Eastern Range for the purposes of Clearing permit EP Act (Part V) DWER mineral production and associated activities (CPS 4032) Clearing of 251.4 ha at Western Range for the purposes Clearing permit EP Act (Part V) DWER of mineral exploration, geotechnical and hydrogeological (CPS 4594) investigations, construction camp and associated activities Prescribed premises categories: Category (Cat) 5, 6, 12, 52, 64, 73

• Cat 5 (Processing of ore) – 30 Mt or more p.a. Licence for EP Act (Part V) DWER • Cat 6 (Mine dewatering) – up to 0.8GL/a of surplus Prescribed Premises dewatering water is discharged to Seven Mile Creek (L5275/1972/12) • Cat 12 (Screening, etc. of material) – 10Mt or more p.a. • Cat 52 (Electrical power generation – 127.5 MW • Cat 64 (Class II putrescible landfill) 5 kt p.a. • Cat 73 (Bulk storage of chemicals etc) – 5903 m3 in aggregate) Dewatering and water supply Abstraction of up to 9 GL/a at Paraburdoo Groundwater Licence RiWI Act DWER 109318

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 13 540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000

Legend 0 0

0 Figure 2-3: Extent of existing approvals 0 0 Rio Tin to Min e 0 , ! , 5 5 4 4 4 4 , ,

7 Develop men t En velop e 7

NVCP Areas

Existin g op eration s

Major Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 4 4 4 4 , ,

7 k 7 e re C d n la le b a T

0 k 0

0 e 0

0 e ry Creek 0 , r Bella ,

5 C 5 3 ile 3 4 4 , M ,

7 7 ix S

Paraburdoo ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 3 3 4 4 , , 7 7

ek re C ek u re Eastern Range rd e C bu il ra n M ir ve ! P Se 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 2 2 4 4 , , 7 7 ¯ 0 5

Kilometres Map un its in metres

Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zon e 50 Plan: PDE0167890v2 Scale: 1:150,000 @ A4 0 0

0 Date: Octob er 2019 [email protected] 0 0 0 , Disclaimer: This documen t has b een p rep ared to the highest level of accuracy p ossib le, for the k , 0 ree 0 2 p urp oses of Rio Tin to’s iron ore b usin ess. Rep roduction of this documen t in w hole or in p art b y e C 2 4 an y mean s is strictly p rohib ited w ithout the exp ress ap p roval of Rio Tin to. Further, this documen t re 4 , Tu ,

7 may n ot b e referred to, quoted or relied up on for an y p urp ose w hatsoever w ithout the w ritten 7 ap p roval of Rio Tin to. Rio Tin to w ill n ot b e liab le to a third p arty for an y loss, damage, liab ility or claim arisin g out of or in ciden tal to a third p arty usin g or relyin g on the con ten t con tain ed in this documen t. Rio Tin to disclaims all risk an d the third p arty assumes all risk an d releases an d in demn ifies an d agrees to keep in demn ified Rio Tin to from an y loss, damage, claim or liab ility arisin g directly or in directly from the use or relian ce on this documen t.

540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000

2.4. Proposal description The Proponent proposes to expand the existing operations at Paraburdoo through the development of a new deposit at Western Range and the extension of existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range (Figure 2-4). The existing operations are not part of this Proposal. The Proposal includes the following key components: • construction and operation of new mine pits: • development of AWT and BWT pits at Western Range – 36W to 66W; • 4 East Extension (4EE) at Paraburdoo as an extension, in width and depth, of the existing 4E BWT pit, including new dewatering of the Wittenoom Formation; • development of new AWT pits at Paraburdoo – 14-16 West (14-16W), 20 West (20W) and 27 West (27W); and • development of new AWT pits at Eastern Range – 42 East Extension (42EE) and 47 East (47E). Activities required to facilitate the development of new pits which may include as relevant, but are not limited to, the following: • mineral waste management: including waste dumps, constructed landforms and waste fines storage; • low grade ore, topsoil and subsoil stockpiles; • processing infrastructure at Western Range, and new and upgraded processing infrastructure at Paraburdoo; • support facilities: including workshops, hydrocarbon storage, laydown areas and offices; • transport, utilities and communications infrastructure; • surface water management infrastructure: including diversion drains, levees and culverts; • infrastructure for dewatering and groundwater abstraction to allow BWT mining and operational water supply; and • surplus water management and associated infrastructure: including options for discharge to surface water systems and disused mine pits. Activities that are part of or required for continuation of the existing mining operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range, including clearing authorised under Native Vegetation Clearing Permits (NVCP) (CPS 4032, CPS 5090 and CPS 4594), do not form part of the Proposal, and will not be assessed as part of this Proposal. Refer to Section 2.4.1 for further information on exclusions from the Proposal. In accordance with EPA instructions (EPA 2016a), summary and key characteristics of the Proposal tables have been provided in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3, respectively. The key characteristics are those elements of the Proposal which have the potential to impact the environment. Within the 17,422 ha Development Envelope, the existing operations have a disturbance footprint of 3,225 ha (current to the end of 2018). Clearing for the existing operations is authorised under the current NVCP’s outlined in Table 2-1, of which approximately 927 ha remains available to be cleared if required for the continuation of existing operations whilst this Proposal is under assessment. Under this Proposal, the Proponent proposes up to 4,300 ha of additional disturbance. This reflects a total disturbance limit within the Development Envelope of up to 8,452 ha. The conceptual footprint of the key physical elements of the Proposal and the Development Envelope are presented in Figure 2-4.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 15

The construction and operational elements of the Proposal are discussed in more detail in Section 2.4.2. Other activities associated with the existing operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range that are excluded from this Proposal are discussed in Section 2.4.1.

Table 2-2: Summary of Proposal

Item Details

Proposal title Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub

Proponent name Hamersley Iron Pty Limited

The Proposal is to extend the existing Greater Paraburdoo iron ore mining operations located approximately 6 km to the south of the town of Paraburdoo in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia. The Proposal includes the development of new deposits at Western Range including above and below water table mining and the extension of existing operations at Short description Paraburdoo and Eastern Range and associated infrastructure, including: • mineral waste management, including in-pit storage of waste fines; • dewatering and surplus dewater management including use in ore processing, on- site use and surface discharge; and • other associated mine infrastructure and support facilities.

Table 2-3: Location and proposed extent of physical and operational elements

Element Location Proposed extent

Physical elements

Mine and associated Additional clearing of up to 4,300 ha within a 17,422 ha Figure 2-4 infrastructure Development Envelope*

Operational elements

Dewatering and Additional abstraction of up to 5 GL/a for a total abstraction up Figure 2-4 water supply to 14 GL/a

Up to 1.7 GL/a managed via options including**: Management of Figure 2-4 surplus water • discharge to disused mine pits (passive recharge); and • controlled discharge of surplus water to watercourses. *Clearing authorised under NVCP approvals (CPS 4032, CPS 4594 and CPS 5090) is described in Section 2.3. Total disturbance (including existing historical and current approved disturbance) within the Development Envelope will be up to 8,452 ha. **Predicted surplus water has been revised down from the 6 GL/a predicted at Referral. This change will be managed via a s.43A change to the Proposal.

2.4.1. Exclusions This Proposal excludes the following activities: • Activities that are part of or required for continuation of the existing mining operations at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range. For the avoidance of doubt this includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Upgrades to existing facilities, including processing facilities and WFSF. • Upgrades to accommodation and facilities at the Paraburdoo townsite and airport, and associated activities. • Operation of dewatering and water supply bore fields within the abstraction limits of current s. 5C groundwater licences issued under the RiWI Act as specified in Table 2-1.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 16

• Low impact activities, including drilling and associated activities (such as upgrades to existing roads/tracks) for the purposes of resource evaluation, geotechnical assessment and hydrogeological investigation prior to Part IV approval of the Proposal (which are subject to relevant provisions under Part V of the EP Act, and the RIWI Act). • Construction camp and associated activities (currently authorised under the Clearing Permits issued under Part V of the EP Act). • Environmental, heritage and other studies/investigations involving fieldwork. Current operational activities are authorised via statutory environmental approvals under Part V of the EP Act and RiWI Act. The Proponent notes that, while the Proposal is under assessment, additional approvals or amendments to existing approvals may be required to support the continuation of existing operations that do not relate to the implementation of this Proposal. Therefore, the above exclusions are not limited to only those activities already approved.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 17 540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000

Legend

0 Figure 2-4: Development Envelope and conceptual 0 0 0

0 Rio Tin to Min e Developmen t En velope 0 , footprint P ! , 5 5

4 a 4 4 4 , , r Existin g operation s

7 Tow n 7

b Proposed Conceptual Footprint Con veyor (existin g) u

d Pit Con veyor (n ew )

o Waste Dump Rio Tin to Railw ay Stockpile Major Road

0 Lan dbridge 0

0 Major Creek 0 0 0 , ,

0 W a s t e 0

4 Proposed Min in g Exclusion Z on e 4 4 4

, D u m p 5 , 7 7 Proposed Min in g Restriction Z on e 5 5 W - 6 6 W Western Range k R e o re a C 3 6 W - 5 0 W d d n la le b a T I n - p i t S u r p l u s Bellary Creek 0 0

0 k 0

0 e W a t e r D i s p o s a l 0 , e ,

5 r 2 7 W 5

3 C W a s t e ( o p t i o n s ) 3 4 4 , ile , 7 D u m p 4 Paraburdoo 7 M W a s t e F i n e s ix S 2 0 W S t o r a g e F a c i l i t y W a s t e ( o p t i o n ) D u m p 3 1 4 W - 1 6 W W a s t e D u m p 1 b 1 1 W W a s t e ! Paraburdoo D u m p 1 a 4 W 0 0

0 2 7 W 0 0 0 , ,

0 W a s t e 0

3 4 E E 3 4 4

, D u m p , 7 7 4 2 E E ek ek re re C C u ile rd M Eastern Range u en ab v 4 E E rr Se Pi W a s t e ! D u m p

4 7 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 2 2 4 4 , , 7 7 ¯ 0 5

Kilometres Map un its in metres

Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Z on e 50 Plan: PDE0167891v3 Scale: 1:150,000 @ A4 0 0

0 Date: April 2020 [email protected] 0 0 0 , Disclaimer: Th is documen t h as been prepared to th e h igh est level of accuracy possible, for th e k , 0 Cree 0 2 purposes of Rio Tin to’s iron ore busin ess. Reproduction of th is documen t in w h ole or in part by Turee 2 4 an y mean s is strictly proh ibited w ith out th e express approval of Rio Tin to. Furth er, th is documen t 4 , ,

7 may n ot be referred to, quoted or relied upon for an y purpose w h atsoever w ith out th e w ritten 7 approval of Rio Tin to. Rio Tin to w ill n ot be liable to a th ird party for an y loss, damage, liability or claim arisin g out of or in ciden tal to a th ird party usin g or relyin g on th e con ten t con tain ed in th is documen t. Rio Tin to disclaims all risk an d th e th ird party assumes all risk an d releases an d in demn ifies an d agrees to keep in demn ified Rio Tin to from an y loss, damage, claim or liability arisin g directly or in directly from th e use or relian ce on th is documen t.

540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000

2.4.2. Detailed Proposal elements

Native vegetation clearing and topsoil removal Clearing of up to 4,300 ha of additional native vegetation is proposed within the 17,422 ha Development Envelope. Clearing of vegetation will occur during implementation, operation and closure of the Proposal. Topsoil and subsoil will be recovered as part of clearing activities. Topsoil is an important resource in rehabilitation as it contains a natural seed bank and typically contains significant quantities of organic material and nutrients (required for successful rehabilitation) relative to subsoil or overburden material. Topsoil layers in the Pilbara are highly variable in thickness, ranging from minimal soil development on rocky areas to approximately 300 mm in valley areas. Stripped topsoil and subsoil will be stored in out- of-pit stockpiles for later use in areas being rehabilitated (in accordance with existing management systems).

Construction of new mine pits The Proposal includes development of the following deposits outlined in Table 2-4. Mining is anticipated to involve conventional drill, blast, load and haul techniques whereby the blasted material will be excavated and loaded into haul trucks (i.e. bulk mining methods).

Table 2-4: Proposed new deposits within the Development Envelope

Location Deposits Description Ore is 99.6% AWT. Western Range 36W–66W deposits Minor BWT mineralisation occurs in 36W and 66W requiring short term dewatering of the Brockman Iron Formation. BWT 4EE Extension of the existing 4E BWT pit. Involves new Paraburdoo dewatering of the Wittenoom Formation. 14–16W, 20W, 27W AWT Eastern Range 42EE, 47E AWT

Mineral waste management Mineral waste generated by the Proposal will be stored in waste dumps (ex-pit and in-pit), and WFSFs (principally the existing Paraburdoo WFSF, excluded from this Proposal; plus an option to utilise the existing 4W pit for waste fines storage). Mineral waste will also be utilised to construct landbridges. The design of Western Range is based on all mineral waste being stored in external waste dumps. However, opportunities for progressive backfill of pits will be investigated as mine planning becomes further advanced. Mining of the 4EE deposit at Paraburdoo is expected to expose a small area of potentially acid forming (PAF) material. All PAF material will be encapsulated within the 4E external waste dump in accordance with Rio Tinto’s Spontaneous Combustion and Acid Rock Drainage (SCARD) Management Plan (Appendix 5). Mineral waste from the remaining AWT deposits, within the scope of the Proposal, at Paraburdoo will be stored in a combination of ex-pit and in-pit backfill waste dumps. An opportunity to utilise disused mine pits at Paraburdoo for in-pit waste fines storage is currently being investigated and as such has been included in the scope of this Proposal. At Eastern Range, mineral waste will be used to construct the land bridges required to access the 42EE and 47E deposits. Any surplus mineral waste will be backfilled in-pit or hauled to an existing waste dump (therefore not part of the Proposal). No new ex-pit waste dumps are required at Eastern Range.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 19

Non-mineral waste disposal The Proponent has existing systems and procedures to collect and recycle waste streams such as hydrocarbon wastes (oil, drums, rags, filters, etc.), tyres, batteries, scrap metal and conveyor belting. These existing systems will be used for the Proposal. Hazardous wastes will be collected and removed for treatment by licensed contractors. Class I and II waste generated by the Proposal will be disposed of at existing site landfill facilities licensed under the Part V licence (L5275/1972).

Ore handling and processing

Processing facilities In addition to utilising existing ore handling and processing infrastructure at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range (not part of this Proposal), the Proposal includes the following facilities: • Western Range ROM Pad; • Western Range Primary Crushing Facility; • Coarse Ore Stockpile for Western Range ore; • overland conveyor from Western Range to Paraburdoo; • modifications to the Paraburdoo Processing Facility; • 4E ROM Pad; and • 4E Crushing and Wet Screening Facility.

Support facilities The Proposal will largely utilise existing supporting facilities at Paraburdoo and Eastern Range that may be upgraded as required. These facilities are not part of the Proposal. The Proposal includes additional facilities at Western Range that may include but not be limited to:

• HV/LV workshops; • fixed plant workshop; • hydrocarbon storage; • refuelling facilities; • oily water treatment facilities; • park-up areas; • administration and crib facilities; and • power and communications infrastructure.

Power supply Power will be supplied by the existing power station at Paraburdoo (not part of the Proposal).

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 20

Transport, utilities and communications infrastructure The Proposal will utilise existing infrastructure linking Paraburdoo and Eastern Range (not part of the Proposal); however, new infrastructure connecting Paraburdoo to Western Range will be required, including: • HV and LV access roads; • 33 kilovolt (kV) powerline and associated power distribution network; • water supply pipeline; and • communications infrastructure.

Water supply and management Water for the Proposal will be supplied by new bores at 4EE, new bores at Western Range, and the existing Paraburdoo integrated water supply network (existing elements of the network are not part of the Proposal). Dewatering will be prioritised for use to meet operational demand, supplemented by additional abstraction as required from supply borefields. Water will be supplied to Western Range via an overland pipeline from Paraburdoo. Western Range contains minor BWT mineralisation at 36W and 66W. As such, dewatering of these deposits will also contribute to the water balance for a period of approximately two years for each deposit at a rate of up to 0.6 GL/a.

Surplus water discharge Based on the life of mine site water balance, possible periods of water surplus have been identified, primarily driven by BWT mining at 4EE. Additionally, a surplus is also expected to occur approximately four times per year due to plant maintenance shuts. An evaluation of the surplus water management options undertaken for the Proposal is provided in Section 2.5.2. In summary, the Proponent’s primary objective is to ensure that surplus water is managed such that water is retained within the Development Envelope, via a combination of discharge to disused mine pits and limited discharge to surface water systems. Discharge extent modelling indicates the following volumes can be discharged to surface water systems and remain within the Development Envelope under natural no flow conditions (Rio Tinto 2019a; Appendix 8): • up to 1.7 GL/a into Pirraburdu Creek; and • up to 0.8 GL/a into Seven Mile Creek. Refer to Section 8 for further description of the site water balance and assessment of associated potential impacts and management.

Surface water management All mine pits and associated infrastructure are located outside of major creek lines and floodplain areas and are mainly outside modelled critical flood levels. Some flood protection for mine pits, waste dumps and ore processing facilities will be installed to minimise production loss due to water ingress or erosion. These will be designed to largely direct water past operational areas within existing natural drainage networks.

Justification and alternatives considered This section outlines the justification for the Proposal and provides an overview of the options that have been considered by the Proponent to minimise the potential environmental impacts resulting from this Proposal.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 21

2.5.1. Justification The Proposal is the only viable option to sustain the current iron ore production from the Greater Paraburdoo Hub (currently around 25 Mt/a) whilst also continuing to utilise existing infrastructure and processing facilities. The Proposal will extend the life of the existing operations within the Greater Paraburdoo Hub for approximately 20 years and is critical to sustain the town of Paraburdoo and more broadly the Proponent’s business activities in the Pilbara region. The Proposal will result in economic benefits for Australia and Western Australia through: • contribution to the value of mineral exports; • royalties and taxation payments; • capital investment; • sustaining direct and indirect employment opportunities in the region; and • sustaining demand for goods and services supporting the regional economy. The ongoing activities of the Proponent, and more broadly Rio Tinto, in the Pilbara will continue to support social and economic development projects, including: • continued education, training, employment and business opportunities for local people, including local Aboriginal people; and • continued funding for a range of organisations in the region, including sporting and cultural groups. The Proposal will continue to make use of Rio Tinto’s existing infrastructure, including ports and railway, power, communications and road networks. This will reduce the extent of new infrastructure required and result in a smaller disturbance footprint than would otherwise be required for a greenfields Proposal of this scale.

2.5.2. Alternatives and Proposal optimisation A number of options and alternatives have been considered by the Proponent for the Proposal. These alternatives are summarised below.

Evaluation of mine design A number of pit designs and waste dump designs/locations were evaluated as part of the mine planning process; to avoid as far as practicable, the following:

• important habitat for significant terrestrial fauna and Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) (specifically for Ghost Bat, Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat, Northern Quoll and Pilbara Olive Python);

• physical disturbance to threatened flora species; • physical disturbance to ephemeral creeklines including Seven Mile Creek and Pirraburdu Creek; • physical disturbance to significant ephemeral surface water pools; and • significant ethnographic and/or archaeological sites.

Evaluation of linear infrastructure and processing options The Proponent undertook detailed options analysis on the following aspects of the Proposal as part of the engineering design process: • location of processing and non-processing infrastructure at Western Range; • overland conveyor route between Western Range and Paraburdoo;

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 22

• heavy and light vehicle transport corridor between Western Range and Paraburdoo; and • ore handling and processing infrastructure and Paraburdoo. In determining the preferred option for each of these components, the Proponent gave further consideration to: • avoiding physical disturbance to riparian vegetation in Seven Mile Creek and Pirraburdu Creek as far as practicable; • avoiding physical disturbance to threatened flora species; • avoiding physical disturbance to critical habitat for conservation significant fauna; and • maximising utilisation of existing disturbed areas.

Evaluation of surplus water management options Based on the life of mine site water balance, possible periods of water surplus of up to 1.7 GL/a have been identified, primarily driven by BWT mining at Paraburdoo (4EE). Additionally, a surplus is also expected to occur approximately four times per year due to plant maintenance shutdowns. Dewatering is required at Western Range to access minor BWT mineralisation at 36W and 66W. Dewatering modelling is predicting a water surplus of up to 0.6 GL/a will occur for a period of up to two years for each deposit. Options for the management of surplus water were evaluated in line with DWER’s water management hierarchy (outlined in the Western Australian Water in Mining Guideline (DoW 2013a) including evaluation of the following: • transfer of surplus water to other users; • storage of surplus water in mined out pit voids for infiltration / evaporation; • reinjection of surplus water from mine pit dewatering back into an aquifer; and • discharge of surplus water from mine pit dewatering into surface water systems. Transfer of surplus water to other users was not considered viable due to the remote location of the Proposal, the relatively low volume and the periodic nature of discharge. The Proponent’s primary surplus water management objective is to ensure surplus water is managed within the Development Envelope, to ensure there are no impacts to surrounding land users. Therefore, surplus water will be managed via a combination of discharge to disused pit voids and discharge to surface water systems at rates that ensure discharge does not extend beyond the boundary of the Development Envelope. The Proponent is investigating the viability of reinjecting surplus water into a neighbouring local aquifer; however, evaluation of this option has not progressed sufficiently to form part of the Proposal. This option may be utilised in the future (i.e. post-approval) if: • reinjection is viable and the receiving aquifer is suitable for reinjection; • the water quality of the receiving aquifer will not be detrimentally impacted; • the reinjection will not detrimentally impact the natural hydrological regime of any water dependent ecosystem; • adversely affect any other water user; • reinjection rates are sufficient to manage the surplus volumes and the reinjection is economically viable; and • all EP Act approvals and RiWI Act licences for the reinjection are obtained .

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 23

In considering the surplus water management strategy, the Proponent gave consideration to: • minimising impacts to riparian vegetation in Seven Mile Creek and Pirraburdu Creek as a result of surplus water discharge; and • minimising changes to the local hydrological regime in Seven Mile Creek and Pirraburdu Creek as a result of surplus water discharge.

2.6. Local and regional context The Proposal is located approximately 6 km south of the Paraburdoo townsite in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Figure 2-4). The climate in the Pilbara is classified as arid tropical with two distinct seasons: a hot, wet summer (October–April) and a mild, dry winter (May–September) (Astron 2018a). Monthly maximum temperatures in the Pilbara range from an average of 24.8°C in July to 40.6°C in January, while minimum temperatures range between 9.8°C in July and 25.6°C in January (BoM 2019). Annual rainfall in the Pilbara has substantial yearly variation. Tropical cyclones, many of which originate in the Timor Sea, along with local thunderstorms, produce much of the summer and early autumn rainfall. (BoM 2019).

Bioregion The Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) divides the Australian continent into 85 bioregions (Thackway & Creswell 1995). The Proposal is located on the boundary of the Pilbara and Gascoyne bioregions. The Proposal is on the boundary of the Hamersley (PIL03) subregion within the Pilbara bioregion and Ashburton (GAS01) subregion within the Gascoyne (Figure 2-5). The majority (northern portion) of the Development Envelope is within the Hamersley (PIL03) subregion and includes the mountainous range and gorges of the Hamersley Range which transitions into broad flat valleys of shales, sandstones and conglomerates with low mixed shrublands on hills to the south of the Development Envelope.

Geology The Proposal is located on the southern margin of the Hamersley Province, on the south dipping limb of the Bellary Anticline, within the Hamersley Ranges located at Paraburdoo (the Paraburdoo Range). The Development Envelope contains bedrock formations from the Fortescue Group, Hamersley Group and the Wyloo Group. Iron ore mineralisation occurs within the Dales Gorge and Joffre Members of Brockman Iron Formation. The bedrock formations have been incised by Seven Mile Creek and Pirraburdu Creek where they intersect the Paraburdoo Range. The creeks have deposited an alluvial sequence comprising clay, sand, silt, gravels. The range consists of two major east-west striking ridges, composed of the Marra Mamba Formation on the northern side and the Brockman Iron Formation on the south. A valley exists between these ridges, comprising weathered and eroded Wittenoom Dolomite, and Mount McRae/Mount Silvia Shales. The Fortescue Group forms a flat plain to the north. South of the Brockman Iron Formation, the Wyloo Formation has eroded into an alluvial filled valley which transitions into a low ridge formed of a resistive unit of the Wyloo Group.

Topography and land systems Regional topography is denominated by two main landscape features; the Hamersley Range to the north of the Development Envelope and the lower areas of flats and undulating plains. The top of the Hamersley Range plateau is a series of rounded hills and narrower ridges, reaching an elevation of 1,245 m above sea level at its highest point. The plateau forms the watershed between the Fortescue River to the north and the Ashburton River to the south. Numerous rivers and streams have dissected the plateau, forming gorges and broader scree and rubble-filled valleys (Copp 2005). The Newman Land System (Figure 2-5) makes up the greatest proportion of the Hamersley Range and is characterised by rugged plateaus, ridges and mountains supporting spinifex grassland (van Vreeswyk et al. 2004).

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 24 530,000 535,000 540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000 580,000

0 Legend 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0

5 Figure 2-5: IBRA subregions and land systems Ex isting operations 5 4 Rio T into Mine 4

, ! , 7 7 Proposed Conceptual Footprint Development Envelope Pit IBRA Subregion Waste Dump Major Creek 0 0

0 Stockpile 0 0 0 , , 5 5 4 4 4 4 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 4 4 4 4 , ,

7 k 7 e re C d n la le b Hamersley a T ek Bellary Cre 0 0

0 k 0 0 0

, e ,

5 re 5 3 C 3

4 4 , le , 7 i 7 M ix S Paraburdoo ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0

3 k 3

4 e 4 , e ,

7 r 7 C u rd u b Eastern Range ra k ir ree P C ile ! Ashburton n M ve Se 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 2 2 4 4 , , 7 7

! Channar 0 0 0 0 0 0 , ,

0 T 0 2 ¯ u 2 r

4 0 10 e 4 , e ,

7 C 7 Land Systems re Kilometres ek Map units in metres Boolgeeda Land System Kooline Land System River Land System Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 Plan: PDE0167892v2 Scale: 1:200,000 @ A4 Capricorn Land System Marandoo Land System Robe Land System Date: October 2019 [email protected]

Disclaimer: T his document has been prepared to the highest level of accuracy possible, for the Dollar Land System New man Land System Rocklea Land System 0 purposes of Rio T into’s iron ore business. Reproduction of this document in w hole or in part by 0 0 0

0 any means is strictly prohibited w ithout the ex press approval of Rio T into. Further, this document 0 , may not be referred to, quoted or relied upon for any purpose w hatsoever w ithout the w ritten , 5 Edw ard Land System Paraburdoo Land System T able Land System 5

1 approval of Rio T into. Rio T into w ill not be liable to a third party for any loss, damage, liability or 1

4 claim arising out of or incidental to a third party using or relying on the content contained in this 4 , document. Rio T into disclaims all risk and the third party assumes all risk and releases and , 7 7 indemnifies and agrees to keep indemnified Rio T into from any loss, damage, claim or liability Ethel Land System Platform Land System Wona Land System arising directly or indirectly from the use or reliance on this document.

530,000 535,000 540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000 580,000

2.6.4. Surface water and hydrology The Proposal is in the Pilbara-Gascoyne drainage division, within the Ashburton River Basin, and straddles the Six Mile Creek tributary, Seven Mile, and Turee Creek sub-catchments (Rio Tinto 2019a). A series of ephemeral tributaries intersect the Development Envelope: • Six Mile Creek west of Western Range; • Pirraburdu Creek which includes the semi-permanent pool known as Ratty Springs, west of the existing Paraburdoo mining area; • Seven Mile Creek adjacent to the existing Paraburdoo mining area; and • Turee Creek to the south-east of Eastern Range. These tributaries generally flow south to the Minilya River south branch (Astron 2018a) which ultimately flows into the Ashburton River approximately 40 km south of the Development Envelope. One major creek line named Stoney Creek occurs in the east of the Development Envelope and runs into Turee Creek south of the Development Envelope. A number of other smaller unnamed drainage lines occur in the Development Envelope, some of which contain areas of semi-permanent water, such as Doggers Gorge in the east (Astron 2018b). No Ramsar wetlands or nationally important wetlands occur within the Development Envelope (Astron 2018b). The nearest nationally important wetland is Mt. Bruce Coolibah-Lignum Flats located approximately 85 km northeast of the Development Envelope.

2.6.5. Land use The Development Envelope is located primarily on ML4SA and ML246SA; and has been operating as a major iron ore mining hub since 1972. The mining operations co-exists in some areas with the Mininer, Rocklea and Ashburton Downs pastoral leases. Most of the land within the Development Envelope is undeveloped, except for existing mining activity (exploration, operations and infrastructure) which has disturbed approximately 3,225 ha. Where the topography is favourable, the Development Envelope has also been utilised for cattle grazing. The Development Envelope does not overlap any conservation reserves.

Surrounding land uses The Pilbara region is predominantly Crown land, with freehold land generally concentrated along the coastline. Various land uses overlay Crown land including mining tenements, pastoral leases, formal conservation reserves, informal conservation areas, Aboriginal Reserves and unallocated Crown land (UCL) (Table 2-5). Approximately 62.4% of the Pilbara is grazed by livestock (EPA 2014a). Grazing has modified native vegetation communities in Western Australia’s rangelands over many decades and has also led to erosion (EPA 2014a). Mining tenements comprise approximately 91.8% of the Pilbara (Table 2-5). The regional area surrounding the Proposal is largely undeveloped except for Rio Tinto’s Channar Iron ore operation which is adjacent to and southeast of the Development Envelope. The Paraburdoo town and airport are approximately 3 km and 9 km north-east respectively, from the Development Envelope. Rio Tinto’s Turee Syncline Iron Ore Project is approximately 17 km to the northeast of the Development Envelope. Rio Tinto’s Pilbara rail line approaches the Proposal from the north and loops within the Development Envelope.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 26

Table 2-5: Land use in the Pilbara region

% of Pilbara IBRA Area type Area (km2) region

Pilbara IBRA region 178,213 100

Mining tenements 163,681 91.8

Pastoral leases 109,413 62.4

Formal Conservation Reserve 11,317 6.3

Other DBCA managed land (including un-gazetted 3,623 2.1 DBCA managed UCL)

UCL not managed by DBCA 36,597 20.4

Aboriginal Reserve 7,314 4.1 Note: the various tenures overlap each other Source: EPA (2014a)

2.6.6. Conservation areas The nearest conservation reserve is Karijini National Park located approximately 26 km north-east of the Development Envelope. The Barlee Range Nature Reserve is 126 km west of the Development Envelope.

2.6.7. Key environmental values in the Development Envelope The Development Envelope includes the Paraburdoo Ranges, ephemeral creeks and plains. There are no permanent surface water features in the Development Envelope. The creek lines and rocky range habitats provide important habitat features but are not unique within or outside of the Development Envelope. The most significant environmental values in the Development Envelope are: • The Ratty Springs area on the Pirraburdu Creek. Ratty Springs is the most significant semi- permanent water feature in the Development Envelope and is culturally important to Yinhawangka People. This area provides an important water source for fauna including MNES. • The only known Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat maternity roost in the Development Envelope occurs adjacent to Ratty Springs. • The largest population of the Threatened Aluta quadrata flora species occurs in Western Range with a second smaller population existing at Paraburdoo. • Ghost Bat caves and records exist throughout Western Range and to a lesser extent at Paraburdoo. • Sites of special significance include Garrabagarrangu (Red Ochre Quarry) which is located on the south side of the Western Range near the 36W deposit.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 27

3. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

3.1. Key stakeholders The Proponent has identified the following key stakeholders for the Proposal:

• DWER: EPA; EPA Services; Environmental Regulation; Water • DAWE; • DBCA; • DMIRS; • JTSI; • DPLH; • Yinhawangka Aboriginal Corporation (YAC) and the Yinhawangka Traditional Owners; • Shire of Ashburton; • Mininer Pastoral Station; • Rocklea Pastoral Station; and • Turee Creek Pastoral Station.

3.2. Stakeholder engagement process The Proponent has undertaken stakeholder consultation during Proposal design phases and consultation with key stakeholders will continue throughout the assessment phase of the Proposal. Activities undertaken to date include: • identification and, if possible, resolution of issues that affect stakeholders; • issuing communication to stakeholders; • establishing and maintaining relationships with relevant local groups such as Traditional Owners, pastoral leaseholders and local government; and • managing the Proponent’s database of stakeholders.

3.3. Stakeholder consultation Specific consultation with key stakeholders and response to issues are identified in Table 3-1.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 28

Table 3-1: Stakeholder consultation register

Stakeholder Date Issues / topics Proponent response / outcome

State Departments / Regulators

DWER – EPA 6 August 2019 Rio Tinto presented on the proposed Closure Strategy to be submitted to support the Rio Tinto to circulate a Draft Services, DMIRS and Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Closure Strategy to stakeholders DPLH for review.

DWER – EPA Services 30 July 2019 and Early consultation on the format and content of the proposed Closure Strategy to support Rio Tinto to develop Draft Closure the Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Strategy for stakeholder review 11 June 2019

DMIRS 16 April 2019 Rio Tinto presented on the Paraburdoo, Western Range and Eastern Range closure No response required. strategies, which have been updated as part of the Part IV proposal for the Greater DWER – EPA Services 2 April 2019 Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub. Key closure risks and strategies for current and future mining areas at Western Range, Paraburdoo and Eastern Range were presented. Information DPLH presented included proposed closure and rehabilitation strategies, geochemical characterisation and pit lake modelling outcomes.

DBCA (Parks and 23 January 2019 The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and ensure a coordinated approach to the No response required. Wildlife Services and proposed research options for Aluta quadrata being undertaken by Rio Tinto, Parks and Botanic Gardens and Wildlife Services and Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. Parks Authority) Research options discussed for Aluta quadrata included: • genetics study; • fire history study; • ecology study; and • seed germination trials.

DWER – EPA Services 23 October 2018 Pre-referral meeting EPA Services generally agreed with preliminary key factors and the Rio Tinto presented an overview of the scope of the EP Act Part IV Proposal including key approach taken to exclude the risks/factors such as: existing operations from • preliminary key environmental factors; assessment. • timing of the Proposal; • exclusion of existing operations from assessment; • potential impacts to Aluta quadrata; • impacts to NVCP exclusion zones at Eastern Range; • dewatering activities at 4EE; • exclusion of construction camp from Proposal.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 29

Stakeholder Date Issues / topics Proponent response / outcome

JTSI 23 October 2018 Discussed EP Act Part IV referral and approval. This was noted by JTSI. No response required.

DWER – EPA 11 October 2018 Rio Tinto communicated that a Closure Plans for Western Range, Paraburdoo and Eastern No response required. Services, DMIRS and Range will be submitted in 2019 to support the EP Act Part IV application for mining of the DPLH Proposal.

DWER – EPA Services 25 September 2018

DBCA (Parks and 21 September Meeting with Parks and Wildlife Services to discuss current gaps in the knowledge base No response required. Wildlife Services) 2018 of Aluta quadrata and identify areas for potential research opportunities.

DMIRS 6 September 2018 Rio Tinto presented key aspects of the 2018 Paraburdoo Closure Plan and communicated No response required. that a Closure Plan for Western Range will be submitted in 2019 to support the EP Act Part IV application for mining of the Proposal.

Commonwealth Government

DotEE (now DAWE) 18 October 2018 Rio Tinto presented an overview of the scope of the Proposal. No issues raised by DotEE. No response required.

Local Government

Shire of Ashburton 5 September 2019 Western Range & 4EE development discussed. Construction camp to be located near the Construction camp will be located (SoA) Paraburdoo operations on the mining lease. Operational workforce to continue to be on the mining lease near accommodated in Paraburdoo with a mix of residential and FIFO workers. Paraburdoo mine. Closure of Kurri Kulli Village discussed.

20 June 2019 Western Range & 4EE development discussed. No response required

7 March 2019 Western Range & 4EE development discussed, confirmed Part IV referral submitted on 5 No response required November 2018. Accommodation option favoured on mining lease. Updated SoA on project schedule. Kurra Kulli discussed, Rio Tinto confirmed closure and decommissioning.

19 June 2018 Western Range & 4EE development discussed, with focus on potential locations of Shires preference regarding construction camp. SoA reiterated preference for construction camp to be located away construction camp location from Paraburdoo town site. incorporated in camp options assessment. Closure of Kurra Kulli Village discussed.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 30

Stakeholder Date Issues / topics Proponent response / outcome

7 May 2018 Western Range & 4EE development discussed, with focus on potential locations of Shires preference regarding construction camp. SoA advised preference for construction camp to be located away construction camp location from Paraburdoo town site. incorporated in camp options assessment. Closure of Kurra Kulli Village discussed.

16 January 2018 Rio Tinto presented the Eastern Range & Channar closure studies. Western Range also No response required briefly discussed.

Indigenous Groups / Traditional Owners (TO’s)

YAC 13 August 2019 Presented overview of proposed developments at Greater Paraburdoo. Rio Tinto to further assess potential pit lake at WR. Rio Tinto confirmed 14-16W and 20W pits designed and management to avoid rockfall into Pirraburdu Creek. Mine layout avoids Gardagarli and Garrabagarrangu, and significant watercourses. Below water table pit voids at WR discussed.

19 March 2019 Presented overview of proposed developments at Greater Paraburdoo. Focus on water Rio Tinto acknowledges related issues, Management of 14-16W and 20W deposits to minimise impact on importance of management to Pirraburdu Creek. minimise impacts of 14-16W and 20W on Pirraburdu Creek.

26 November EPBC Act referral documentation for this Proposal provided to the YAC and Yinhawangka YAC provided comments on 28 2018 People for comment. November 2019 confirming the consultation referred to in the referral took place and that they encourage continued open consultation with emphasis on the protection of identified ethnographic and archaeological sites potentially impacted in the development envelope.

6 November 2018 Referral documentation for this Proposal provided to the YAC and Yinhawangka People No response received. for comment.

26-27 October Presented overview of proposed developments at Greater Paraburdoo, including Western No response required. 2018 Range, 4EE, 20W, 14-16W, 42EE & 47E. Focus on water and cultural related impacts and management, including management of Red Ochre quarry and access, visual impact of 14-16W and 20W, 4EE pit lake.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 31

Stakeholder Date Issues / topics Proponent response / outcome

12 April 2018 Western Range and 4EE development update provided. No response required.

7 March 2018 Presented overview of Greater Paraburdoo hydrology, hydrogeology and water No response required. management, and overview of Western Range and 4EE development.

6 March 2018 Eastern Range Mine Closure Plan presented. No questions or issues raised by YAC. No response required.

22 September Rio Tinto presented and overview of the proposed Western Range and 4EE development. No response required. 2017

Pastoralists

Mininer Pastoral 6 December 2018 Rio Tinto presented an overview of the Proposal with a focus on water management. Surplus water will be managed so Station Mininer Station advised they do not want surplus water coming onto the station. that water is retained within the mining lease (Development Mininer Station queried if the overland conveyor would be fenced and if the conveyor would Envelope) intersect any existing fencing. Fencing to be installed to south of Western Range development

29 October 2018 Mininer Station were advised via phone and email of imminent Part IV Referral. Information Meeting to be arranged for Rio on proposed surplus water management strategy provided. Mininer Station advised they Tinto to present information on do not want surplus water coming onto the station. surplus water management strategy.

17 May 2018 Rio Tinto advised Mininer Station of the commencement of study into the Western Range Meeting to be arranged for Rio 4EE development including the potential extent of the operation in relation to the pastoral Tinto to present information on lease. surplus water management strategy. No significant concerns raised by Mininer Station, however some questions were raised regarding potential impacts from dewatering and discharge to creeks.

Turee Creek Station 8 October 2018 Rio Tinto presented an overview of the Proposal. Water management, including ongoing Rio Tinto to continue to consult on operation of the Turee Creek borefield was discussed. potential impacts related to the Proposal.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 32

4. ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS

This section identifies the environmental factors relevant to the Proposal and outlines the overall assessment methodology presented in this document. A summary of the detailed environmental impact assessment of each preliminary key environmental factor is provided in the following sections.

4.1. Preliminary key environmental factors As outlined in the ESD, the key environmental factors considered for this Proposal are: • Flora and vegetation; • Terrestrial fauna; • Subterranean fauna; • Inland waters; and • Social surroundings. These factors are addressed separately in Section 5 to Section 9.

4.2. Environmental management The mitigation and management measures detailed in this ERD will be implemented through the life of the Proposal to ensure potential environmental impacts on values are minimised. These management measures will be implemented as part of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the Proposal, which is guided by the Proponent’s Health, Safety, Environment and Communities Policy (the Environmental Policy). The Environmental Policy is provided in the EMP is provided in Appendix 3. During the development of this ERD, environmental values within the Development Envelope were considered by Rio Tinto with reference to their conservation value at local, state and regional scales: • Tier 1 – Environmental values with statutory protection (i.e. Threatened species and communities); • Tier 2 – Environmental values with policy-based protection (i.e. Priority species and communities); and • Tier 3 – Environmental values that have locally significant value. The environmental values present within the Development Envelope and their associated Tier level informed the preliminary key environmental factors addressed by this ERD and, with reference to potential environmental impacts, were used to determine an appropriate level of management as part of the mitigation hierarchy.

4.3. Principles Table 4-1 provides a description of how the Proponent has considered and/or addressed each of the principles of environmental protection in relation to the Proposal.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 33

Table 4-1: Consideration given to environmental principles

Principle Description of principle Consideration given to principle in this Proposal The Proponent has conducted numerous biological studies to understand the environmental values within the Development Envelope and the potential risks Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack to the environment as a result of the Proposal. These biological studies have of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for informed the detailed design of the Proposal and modifications to the conceptual postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. mine layout have been made to avoid and minimise environmental impacts, In application of this precautionary principle, decisions should where practicable. 1. The precautionary be guided by: principle The Proponent has applied the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, minimise and • careful evaluation to avoid, where practicable, serious or mitigate environmental impacts. The Proponent acknowledges the value of the irreversible damage to the environment; and environment and has proposed to implement measures to minimise • an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of degradation. various options. The environmental risks associated with the Proposal have been assessed and are detailed in this ERD. The Proposal has been designed to address the EPA’s objectives for the identified environmental factors, with mitigation measures provided to reduce residual environmental impacts and offsets proposed to compensate for any unavoidable significant residual impacts. The present generation should ensure that the health, 2. The principle of The Proposal responds to the growing demand for mineral resources and diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained and intergenerational equity provides environmentally sensitive and economically sustainable means of enhanced for the benefit of future generations. meeting those demands through operations in the Pilbara. The assessment contained in this report demonstrates that the Proposal can be implemented to avoid significant impacts on the health, diversity or productivity of the environment for the benefit of future generations.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 34

Principle Description of principle Consideration given to principle in this Proposal The Proponent acknowledges the need for improved valuation, pricing and Environmental factors should be included in the valuation of incentive mechanisms and endeavours to pursue these principles when assets and services. practicable. For example: The polluter pays principles – those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance and • Detailed flora and vegetation and terrestrial fauna field surveys have been abatement. undertaken to identify and confirm the relative environmental values of the ecological attributes identified within the Development Envelope. From 3. Principles relating to The users of goods and services should pay prices based on this, environmental factors have been considered in determining the mine improved valuation, the full life-cycle costs of providing goods and services, design and location of infrastructure. pricing and incentive including the use of natural resources and assets and the • Procedures will be in place to ensure that emissions and discharges are mechanisms ultimate disposal of any waste. minimised as far as practicable. Environmental goals, having been established, should be • Potential impacts on the identified ecological attributes within the pursued in the most cost-effective way, by establishing Development Envelope has been a fundamental design consideration as incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which the mine layout has been modified to reduce impacts to rare flora and enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or important habitat for conservation significant fauna. minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses The cost of rehabilitation and closure has been incorporated into the valuation to environmental problems. of the Proposal. 4. The principle of the The Proponent has considered the relevant environmental factors and has conservation of biological Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity iteratively modified the mine and infrastructure design to avoid/minimise impacts diversity and ecological should be a fundamental consideration. to rare flora and important habitat for conservation significant fauna where integrity practicable. In developing the Proposal, the Proponent has been considerate of the principle All reasonable and practicable measures should be taken to of waste minimisation including the destination and use of removed materials. 5. The principle of waste minimise the generation of waste and its discharge into the Waste will be minimised during construction, operation and closure by adopting minimisation environment. the hierarchy of waste controls: avoid, minimise, reuse, recycle and safe disposal.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 35

5. FLORA AND VEGETATION

For the purposes of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), flora is defined as native vascular plants and vegetation is defined as groupings of different flora patterned across the landscape that occur in response to environmental conditions (EPA 2018b). This section describes the flora and vegetation that occur within the Development Envelope and provides an assessment of the potential impacts of the Proposal to conservation significant flora and vegetation, proposed mitigation measures and the predicted outcome for this key environmental factor.

5.1. EPA objective The EPA’s objective for flora and vegetation is to protect flora and vegetation so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained (EPA 2018b).

5.2. Policy and guidance The following policies and guidance are relevant to the flora and vegetation factor: • Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives (EPA 2018b); • Environmental Factor Guideline: Flora and Vegetation (EPA 2016b); • Technical Guidance: Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment (EPA 2016c); • Instructions on how to prepare an Environmental Review Document (2018a); • Instructions on how to prepare Environmental Protection Act 1986 Part IV Environmental Management Plans (EPA 2018c); • Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans (DMP & EPA 2015); • Cumulative environmental impacts of development in the Pilbara region: Advice of the Environmental Protection Authority to the Minister for Environment under Section 16(e) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EPA 2014b); • WA Environmental Offsets Policy (GoWA 2011); and • WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines (GoWA 2014). On 1 January 2019, the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2018 replaced the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and associated regulations. Threatened flora taxa listed as Specially Protected under the WC Act are now recognised as Threatened under the BC Act. Threatened ecological communities (TECs) previously endorsed by the Minister for Environment are now formally listed as TECs under the BC Act. Technical studies undertaken for this Proposal prior to 2019 will refer to the Acts in force at the time; however, the reports have been reviewed to ensure this ERD considers values consistent with the BC Act. Priority flora taxa and priority ecological communities (PECs) continue to be listed by DBCA on a non-statutory basis.

5.3. Receiving environment

5.3.1. Previous studies A number of flora and vegetation surveys have been undertaken in the Development Envelope and surrounding area. The flora and vegetation values considered in this ERD have been primarily derived from two reports (Astron 2018a, b) which summarise and amalgamate all historical survey information.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 36

A subsequent desktop and field investigation for riparian vegetation and Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems (GDEs) was undertaken by Rio Tinto using information provided in Astron (2018a, b) to characterise and define the riparian vegetation values in the Development Envelope and within 100 km of the Development Envelope (Rio Tinto 2020a). All flora and vegetation surveys have been conducted in accordance with the following guidance, where relevant: • Position Statement No. 3 (EPA 2002); • Guidance Statement No. 51 (EPA 2004); • Technical Guidance – Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment (EPA 2016c); and

• Environmental Factor Guideline - Flora and Vegetation (EPA 2016b). Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 summarise the flora and vegetation investigations undertaken for the Proposal. Key flora and vegetation studies are provided in Appendix 4.

Table 5-1: Summary of technical studies for flora and vegetation

Survey / Investigation Survey area, type and timing

Astron (2018a) Survey area: Western Range (western part of Development Envelope not covered by Astron [2018b] Greater Paraburdoo survey), 6,265 ha. Western Range Desktop Flora and Vegetation Study Type: Compilation of results from all historical field investigations conducted at Western Range, including: Astron Environmental Services (Astron 2013); and Biota Environmental Sciences (Biota 2003, 2007, 2012a, 2012b). Timing: August 2018.

Astron (2018b) Survey area: Greater Paraburdoo (eastern parts of Western Range and all of Paraburdoo and Eastern Range areas of Development Greater Paraburdoo Detailed Flora Envelope), 11,203 ha. and Vegetation Survey Type: Detailed dual-phase flora and vegetation survey. Review and compilation of results from all historical field investigations conducted at Greater Paraburdoo, including Astron (2015a, 2015b), Biota (2012a, 2012b), Eco Logical Australia (2016), Ecologia (2012), Mattiske Consulting (1998, 2011), Pilbara Flora (2011), Rio Tinto (2010, 2012, 2014). Data was also contributed from another 19 flora assessments conducted in the survey area between 2002-2016. A total of 69 sites comprising 64 quadrats and five relevés were described throughout the survey area. Timing: 20–31 July 2018, and 18–25 August 2017 (Phase 1) 7–15 August 2018 (Phase 2).

Rio Tinto (2020a) Survey area: Development Envelope and within 100 km of the Development Envelope Riparian Vegetation and Associated Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Type: Desktop and targeted field assessment. - Targeted Survey of the Greater Paraburdoo Operations Timing: Detailed field work May 2018 (supporting field work: 2009- 2019).

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 37

Survey / Investigation Survey area, type and timing

Biota (2012a) Survey area: Western Range Western Range Additional Area: Type: Desktop and field assessment. 49 quadrats established Vegetation and Flora Survey Timing: September 2011.

Biota (2012b) Survey area : Western Range Western Range Phase 2 Vegetation Type : Desktop review and two phase Level 2 field survey. Including and Flora Survey establishment of 38 quadrats and a targeted survey for conservation significant flora Timing : June, September, October 2009 and May 2011

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 38

540,000 550,000 560,000 570,000 580,000 590,000 600,000

Legend

Figure 5-1: Coverage of flora and vegetation surveys k e R io Tinto Mine e ! r C

d Developm ent Envelope n a l e l b Major Creek a T

k e e r 0 C 0 0 0

0 y 0

, r ,

0 la 0

4 l 4

4 e 4 , B , 7 7

k e re C ile M ix S

0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 , ,

0 Paraburdoo 0 3 3 4 4 , , 7 k 7 ee Cr u eek rd Cr bu rra ! Pi Mile Eastern R ange Seven

! Ch an nar 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 2 2 4 4 , , 7 7

reek Turee C 0 0 0 0 0 0 , ,

0 ¯ 0

1 0 10 1 4 4 , ,

7 Kilom etres 7 Map u nits in m etres Flora and vegetation survey areas

Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 Western R ang e Desktop Flora and Veg etation Stu d y. R eport prepared for R io Plan: PDE0169730v3 Western R ang es Level 1 Veg etation, Flora and Fau na Su rvey (Astron 2013) Scale: 1:250,000 @ A4 Tinto Iron Ore (Astron 2018a) Date: Janu ary 2020 [email protected] Disclaimer: This d oc u m ent has been prepared to the hig hest level of ac c u rac y possible, for the Western R ang e Ad d itional Area: Veg etation and Flora R eport (Biota 2012a) pu rposes of R io Tinto’s iron ore bu siness. R eprod u c tion of this d oc u m ent in whole or in part by Greater Parabu rd oo Detailed Flora and Veg etation Su rvey (Astron 2018b) any m eans is stric tly prohibited withou t the express approval of R io Tinto. Fu rther, this d oc u m ent m ay not be referred to, qu oted or relied u pon for any pu rpose whatsoever withou t the written Western R ang e Phase 2: Veg etation and Flora R eport (Biota 2012b) approval of R io Tinto. R io Tinto will not be liable to a third party for any loss, d am ag e, liability or Targ eted su rvey of Mesic R iparian Veg etation and assoc iated Grou nd water c laim arising ou t of or inc id ental to a third party u sing or relying on the c ontent c ontained in this d oc u m ent. R io Tinto d isc laim s all risk and the third party assu m es all risk and releases and Depend ent Ec osystem s of the Greater Parabu rd oo Loc ality (ELA 2019) ind em nifies and ag rees to keep ind em nified R io Tinto from any loss, d am ag e, c laim or liability 66 West (Western R ang es) R are Flora Su rvey (Biota 2003) arising d irec tly or ind irec tly from the u se or relianc e on this d oc u m ent.

540,000 550,000 560,000 570,000 580,000 590,000 600,000

5.3.2. Vegetation

IBRA regions Vegetation occurring within the region was mapped at a broad scale (1:1,000,000) during the 1970s (Beard 1979; Astron 2018b). This dataset formed the basis of several regional mapping systems, including the biogeographical region dataset (IBRA) for Western Australian physiographic regions (DotEE 2017). The IBRA regions (Figure 2-5) represent a landscape-based approach to classifying the land surface, including attributes of climate, geomorphology, landform, lithology, and characteristic flora and fauna. The Development Envelope occurs at the boundary of the Pilbara and Gascoyne bioregions, of which 5% to 15% is represented in the national reserve system (DotEE 2017). The Development Envelope occurs within the Hamersley subregion of the Pilbara bioregion and the Ashburton subregion of the Gascoyne bioregion. These subregions are described as: • Hamersley subregion of the Pilbara bioregion (Hamersley PIL3): dissected bold plateaux and ranges of flat lying, moderately folded sandstone and quartzite with vegetation described as mulga low woodland over tussock grasses occurring on fine textured soils in valley floors, with scattered snappy gum (Eucalyptus leucophloia) over Triodia brizoides on skeletal soils of the ranges. • Ashburton subregion of the Gascoyne bioregion (Ashburton GAS1): Mountainous range country divided by broad flat valleys of shales, sandstones and conglomerates with vegetation described a mulga or snakewood low woodlands over hardpans, with low mixed shrublands on hills and areas supporting large areas of Triodia. The Hamersley subregion covers an area of approximately 6.2 million hectares and has significant mineral resources associated with the ranges. The Ashburton subregion, which is not as rich in mineral resources, encompasses an area of approximately four million hectares. The Pilbara bioregion is largely undeveloped, with natural characteristics such as stony mantles, and extensive level plains with a tall shrub stratum that protect it from inappropriate land use practices (van Vreeswyk et al. 2004). As a result, extensive areas of the Pilbara remain much as they were arrival of European settlers and vegetation in these areas is ranked as being in good to excellent condition.

Land system The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Developments (DPIRD) (previously known as the Department of Agriculture and Food), has comprehensively described and mapped the biophysical resources of the Pilbara region including soil and vegetation condition, as part of the rangeland resource surveys (Astron 2018b). As part of this process an inventory of land system units, the Pilbara Regional Inventory was established based on landform, soil, vegetation, drainage characteristics and condition. According to this mapping, 11 land systems occur within the Development Envelope (Table 5-2 and Figure 2-5) with greater than 50% of the Development Envelope mapped as Newman land system.

Table 5-2: Land systems and major soil type

Total area (ha) Percentage (%) of Total area (ha) Land system within Development the Development within bioregion Envelope Envelope

PILBARA bioregion

Newman - rugged jaspilite plateaux, 1,994,339 9,476.7 54.4 ridges and mountains with hard spinifex.

Platform - dissected slopes and raised 236,390 878.4 5.0 plains supporting shrubby hard spinifex grasslands.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 40

Total area (ha) Percentage (%) of Total area (ha) Land system within Development the Development within bioregion Envelope Envelope

Boolgeeda - stony lower slopes and 961,847 787.1 4.5 plains below hill systems supporting hard and soft spinifex grasslands and mulga shrublands.

Capricorn - rugged sandstone hills, 698,396 558.4 3.2 ridges, stony foot slopes and interfluves supporting low acacia shrublands or hard spinifex grasslands with scattered shrubs.

River - active flood plains, major rivers 481,994 550.9 3.2 and banks supporting grassy eucalypt woodlands, tussock grasslands and soft spinifex grasslands.

Marandoo - basalt hills and restricted 176,317 521.3 3.0 stony plains supporting grassy mulga shrublands.

Rocklea - basalt hills, plateaux, lower 2,880,288 1,202.8 6.9 slopes and minor stony plains supporting hard spinifex and occasionally soft spinifex grasslands with scattered shrubs.

Ethel - cobble plains with sparse mulga 2,886 150.9 0.9 and other acacia shrublands.

Paraburdoo - basalt derived stony gilgai 130,774 62.8 0.4 plains and stony plains supporting snakewood and mulga shrublands with spinifex, chenopods and tussock grasses.

Table - low calcrete plateaux, mesas and 20,653 0.3 <0.1 lower plains supporting mulga and cassia shrublands and minor spinifex grasslands.

GASCOYNE bioregion

Boolgeeda - stony lower slopes and 37,022 472.4 2.7 plains below hill systems supporting hard and soft spinifex grasslands and mulga shrublands.

Ethel -cobble plains with sparse mulga 113,657 421.5 2.4 and other acacia shrublands.

Newman - rugged jaspilite plateaux, 6,021 867.0 5.0 ridges and mountains with hard spinifex.

Dollar - stony plains supporting mulga 28,827 88.9 0.5 and snakewood shrublands with some chenopod low shrubs.

Table - low calcrete plateaux, mesas and 138,971 1,139.1 6.5 lower plains supporting mulga and cassia shrublands and minor spinifex grasslands.

River - active flood plains, major rivers 73,008 79.4 0.5 and banks supporting grassy eucalypt woodlands, tussock grasslands and soft spinifex grasslands.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 41

Total area (ha) Percentage (%) of Total area (ha) Land system within Development the Development within bioregion Envelope Envelope

Paraburdoo - basalt derived stony gilgai 14,076 142.3 0.8 plains and stony plains supporting snakewood and mulga shrublands with spinifex, chenopods and tussock grasses.

Rocklea - basalt hills, plateaux, lower 7,110 23.1 0.1 slopes and minor stony plains supporting hard spinifex and occasionally soft spinifex grasslands with scattered shrubs. 1BIoregion areas sourced from Astron (2018a, b)

Vegetation associations Four pre-European vegetation association units (82, 181, 567 and 163) are associated with vegetation within the Development Envelope (Figure 5-2). Table 5-3 summarises the current and pre-European extent of these four vegetation associations in the Pilbara and Gascoyne bioregions, and within the Development Envelope. All pre-European vegetation associations have more than 99% of their pre-European extent remaining across the Pilbara and Gascoyne bioregions.

Table 5-3: Occurrences of regional vegetation associations within the Development Envelope

Percentage (%) Pre- Extent in Pre-European of pre- European Vegetation Development Current extent extent European extent (%) association Envelope (ha) (ha) extent with formal (ha) remaining (%) protection1

Vegetation Association 82: Hummock grasslands, low tree steppe; snappy gum over Triodia wiseana

Pilbara bioregion 8,630.1 2,563,583.2 2,550,888.1 99.5 11.5

Gascoyne bioregion - - - - -

Hamersley subregion 8,630.1 2,177,573.9 2,165,224.2 99.4 13.5

Ashburton subregion - - - - -

Vegetation association 181: Shrublands; mulga and snakewood scrub

Pilbara bioregion 2,901.2 65,090.5 63,204.5 97.1 7.6

Gascoyne bioregion 2,618.8 1,632,078.5 1,631,913.8 100.0 16.8

Hamersley subregion 2,901.2 65,090.5 63,204.5 97.1 7.6

Ashburton subregion 2,618.8 1,520,570.9 1,520,558.4 100.0 15.3

Vegetation association 567: Hummock grasslands, shrub steppe; mulga and kanji over soft spinifex and Triodia basedowii

Pilbara bioregion 2,559.3 776,824.0 774,213.0 99.7 25.4

Gascoyne bioregion 29.4 682.9 682.9 100.0 -

Hamersley subregion 2,559.3 776,824.0 774,213.0 99.7 25.4

Ashburton subregion 29.4 682.9 682.9 100.0 -

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 42

Vegetation association 163: Shrublands; Eremophila and Cassia dwarf scrub

Pilbara bioregion 98.5 235.6 231.2 98.1 -

Gascoyne bioregion 586.2 640,581.3 640,515.8 100.0 -

Hamersley subregion 98.5 235.6 231.2 98.1 -

Ashburton subregion 586.2 388,752.8 388,689.5 100.0 - 1 DBCA managed land (proportion of current extent) Remaining extents sourced from Government of Western Australia (2019)

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 43

540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000

Legend 0 0

0 Figure 5-2: Regional vegetation associations 0 0 Rio T into Mine 0 , ! , 5 5 4 4 4 4 , ,

7 Development Envelope 7

IBRA Subregion

Major Creek Regional vegetation associations (Beard 1970)

Ashburton Ashburton Valley - 163

0 Ashburton Valley - 181 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0

4 Hamersley - 567 4 4 4 , , 7 7 Hamersley - 181

Hamersley - 82

Hamersley

0 k 0 e 0 e 0

0 r 0 , C Bellary Creek ,

5 5 e 3 il 3 4 4 , M , 7 ix 7 S

P irr ab ur du C re ek ! Paraburdoo 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 3 3 4 4 , , 7 7 Ashburton

k ree Eastern Range C ile n M ve ! Se 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 2 2 4 4 , , 7 7 ¯ 0 5

Kilometres Map units in metres

Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 Plan: PDE0168784v2 Scale: 1:150,000 @ A4 0 0

0 Date: October 2019 [email protected] 0 0 0

, k , Disclaimer: T his document has been prepared to the highest level of accuracy possible, for the ree 0 C 0 purposes of Rio T into’s iron ore business. Reproduction of this document in w hole or in part by ee 2 Tur 2

4 any means is strictly prohibited w ithout the ex press approval of Rio T into. Further, this document 4 , may not be referred to, quoted or relied upon for any purpose w hatsoever w ithout the w ritten , 7 7 approval of Rio T into. Rio T into w ill not be liable to a third party for any loss, damage, liability or claim arising out of or incidental to a third party using or relying on the content contained in this document. Rio T into disclaims all risk and the third party assumes all risk and releases and indemnifies and agrees to k eep indemnified Rio T into from any loss, damage, claim or liability arising directly or indirectly from the use or reliance on this document.

540,000 545,000 550,000 555,000 560,000 565,000 570,000 575,000

Local vegetation mapping Vegetation within the Development Envelope is consistent with similar landforms in the broader Hamersley and Gascoyne subregions, and comprises remnant native vegetation with some highly disturbed and cleared areas (Astron 2018b). A total of 28 vegetation units encompassing 13,875 ha were recorded within the Development Envelope (Astron 2018a, b). The balance of the Development Envelope has been cleared. Dominant vegetation types in the Development Envelope include the following: • AanAprAteTe: Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. pruinocarpa tall open shrubland over A. tetragonophylla scattered shrubs over Triodia epactia hummock grassland covering 2,729.8 ha. • AteAsyERcTe: Acacia tetragonophylla, A. synchronicia scattered tall shrubs over Eremophila cuneifolia scattered shrubs over Triodia epactia hummock grassland covering 1,662.9 ha. • AprGbERsppTe: Acacia pruinocarpa, Grevillea berryana tall open shrubland over Eremophila fraseri subsp. fraseri, E. canaliculata, E. cuneifolia scattered low shrubs over Triodia epactia hummock grassland covering 1,328.4 ha. Vegetation types and their extents within the Development Envelope are outlined in Table 5-4 and presented in Figure 5-3.

Vegetation significance Vegetation units have been defined as regionally significant on the basis that they contain or form part of TECs or PECs; however, no TECs or PECs occur within the Development Envelope, and hence vegetation within the Development Envelope have been classified as having local conservation significance. Vegetation of local conservation significance was scaled based on the following criteria: • High local significance: associated with TECs or PECs (none occur within Development Envelope). • Moderate local significance: corresponds with a subregional ‘ecosystem at risk’; associated with local/major drainage systems supporting potential riparian vegetation/GDEs, has a role as a refuge and/or provides an important function required to maintain ecological integrity of a significant ecosystem. • Low to moderate: likely to be restricted in distribution and potentially endemic to the area. • Low significance: not locally or regionally restricted. Cleared areas were determined to have negligible local conservation significance.

Threatened and Priority ecological communities and vegetation of regional significance None of the vegetation units mapped within the Development Envelope represent TECs listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act or State BC Act, or PECs listed by DBCA and; therefore, no vegetation units have been rated as regionally significant or of high local significance.

Ecosystems at risk and vegetation of moderate local significance Five vegetation units within the Development Envelope were identified to be of moderate local conservation significance: D1, D3, D6, D7, and D8, (Figure 5-3). The Biodiversity Audit for Western Australia 2002 (DCLM 2002) reviewed the nature conservation issues relevant to each of Western Australia’s 53 biogeographical subregions. A number of ecological communities were identified in the Pilbara subregion in the audit as ‘ecosystems at risk’, but which have not been given a formal TEC or PEC status. All vegetation types identified as potentially corresponding

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 45

with ecosystems at risk or associated with riparian vegetation have been assigned a moderate local significance. In the Hamersley subregion part of the Development Envelope, ‘ecosystems at risk’ include (Astron 2018a, b):

• ‘Lower-slope mulga’; and • ‘All major ephemeral watercourses’. In the Ashburton subregion part of the Development Envelope, ‘ecosystems at risk’ include (Astron 2018a, b):

• ‘Wetland systems of the Ashburton and Lyons drainage’; and • ‘Mulga creekline alluvial plains of Ashburton’. The D3 vegetation unit may correspond with the Ashburton subregion ‘Ecosystem at risk’ ‘Mulga creekline community, alluvial plains of Ashburton‘; however, is widely distributed and generally characterised by minor drainage lines. Vegetation unit D1 was also identified by Astron (2018a) to correspond with the Ashburton subregion ‘ecosystem at risk’ ‘Mulga creekline community, alluvial plains of Ashburton’. Vegetation unit D8, which represents the larger drainage lines within the Development Envelope, is defined by presence of woodlands of the facultative phreatophytic species Eucalyptus victrix and is also associated with another facultative phreatophyte, Eucalyptus camaldulensis. Despite this vegetation being partially degraded through weed invasion, the D8 unit, together with D1 and D3, may represent an ‘ecosystem at risk’ within the broad ‘Wetland systems of the Ashburton and Lyons drainage’ and ’major ephemeral watercourses/wetland systems‘ categories of the Pilbara subregion and, in the case of D8 only, a potential GDE (Astron 2018a). The D7 vegetation unit occurs on major drainage lines that supported the potential Ground Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) species Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. victrix and Sesbania formosa and; therefore, considered by Astron (2018b) to have conservation significance at a local scale. The D6 vegetation unit occurs on the deeper incised gullies and gorges in the Eastern Range and Doggers Gorge sections of the Development Envelope (Figure 5-3). This habitat supports several conservation significant flora taxa including Eremophila sp. Hamersley Range (K. Walker KW 136) (Priority 3 [P3]), Hibiscus campanulatus (P1), Grevillea saxicola (P3), Sida sp. Barlee Range (S. van Leeuwen 1642) (P3) and ‘Solanum sp. (indet.)’ (Astron 2018b). These priority flora species are described in Section 5.3.3). The D6 vegetation unit may act as a refuge for fire sensitive species and other species that prefer rocky substrate, or areas containing a moderate amount of moisture (mesic) habitats (Astron 2018a). Due to the potential that this vegetation may act as a refuge for fire sensitive species the D6 vegetation unit has moderate local conservation significance (Table 5-4).

Vegetation of low to moderate local significance Vegetation units P3, H6 and H7 were mapped within the Development Envelope (Astron 2018a). These vegetation units were considered by Astron (2018a) as not likely to occur elsewhere in the local region and may be locally restricted or endemic to the local area (Astron 2018a). These units do not correspond to any described vegetation type of conservation significance. Valleys and lower slopes north of the Eastern Range operations in the Development Envelope contain occurrences of the P8 vegetation unit (Figure 5-3). This unit does not support conservation significant flora or resemble any described TEC or PEC; however, the presence of Acacia xiphophylla (snakewood) on slopes and the understorey assemblage of low shrubs dominated by Frankenia spp. and chenopods, particularly Tecticornia disarticulata, was considered unusual by Astron (2018b). The P8 vegetation unit occurs across a relatively small range within the north-eastern border of the Development Envelope (Astron 2018a). Therefore, the P8 vegetation unit has been assigned a low to moderate local significance.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 46

All other vegetation units recorded in the Development Envelope represent vegetation expected on similar landforms in the broader Hamersley and Ashburton subregions and are not considered by Astron (2018b) to be locally restricted or of local conservation significance. The vegetation units and their local significance is outlined in Table 5-4 and presented in Figure 5-4.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 47

Table 5-4: Vegetation types within the Development Envelope

Extent in Development Vegetation code ID Vegetation type Conservation significance Envelope (DE)

Units Area (ha) %DE

AanAprAteTe H1 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. pruinocarpa tall open shrubland over A. Low local significance 2,730 15.7 tetragonophylla scattered shrubs over Triodia epactia hummock grassland.

AprGbERsppTe H2 Acacia pruinocarpa, Grevillea berryana tall open shrubland over Low local significance 1,328 7.6 Eremophila fraseri subsp. fraseri, E. canaliculata, E. cuneifolia scattered low shrubs over Triodia epactia hummock grassland.

DpERcrTe H3 Dodonaea pachyneura, Eremophila cryptothrix tall shrubland over Low local significance 205 1.2 Triodia epactia hummock grassland.

AteAsyERcTe H4 Acacia tetragonophylla, A. synchronicia scattered tall shrubs over Low local significance 1,663 9.5 Eremophila cuneifolia scattered shrubs over Triodia epactia hummock grassland.

AteERfTw H5 Acacia tetragonophylla scattered tall shrubs over Eremophila fraseri Low local significance 61 0.4 subsp. fraseri scattered shrubs over Triodia wiseana hummock grassland.

AanSaoERsppARc H8 Acacia aneura sens. lat. tall open scrub over Senna artemisioides Low local significance 45 0.3 subsp. oligophylla, Eremophila spp. open heath over Aristida contorta open bunch grassland.

ArAanERpoERIp H11 Acacia rhodophloia, A. aneura sens. lat. tall open shrubland over Low local significance 156 0.9 Eremophila phyllopoda subsp. obliqua scattered shrubs over Eriachne pulchella open bunch grassland.

EllAprGbTe H12 Eucalyptus leucophloia subsp. leucophloia scattered low trees over Low local significance 848 4.9 Acacia pruinocarpa, Grevillea berryana scattered tall shrubs over Triodia epactia hummock grassland.

AanAxAteERcSspp P1 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. xiphophylla tall open shrubland over A. Low local significance 3,003 17.2 tetragonophylla open shrubland over Eremophila cuneifolia, Senna spp. scattered low shrubs.

AanAteSspp P2 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. tetragonophylla tall open shrubland over Low local significance 879 5.0 Senna spp. scattered low shrubs.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 48

Extent in Development Vegetation code ID Vegetation type Conservation significance Envelope (DE)

Units Area (ha) %DE

AanAxAteERcTa P4 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. xiphophylla tall open shrubland over A. Low local significance 68 0.4 tetragonophylla, Eremophila cuneifolia shrubland over Triodia angusta hummock grassland.

AxSsTdFhMg P8 Acacia xiphophylla tall open shrubland over Senna stricta open Low to Moderate local 48 0.3 shrubland over Tecticornia disarticulata, Frankenia aff. hispidula, significance Maireana georgei low open shrubland. Presence of unusual vegetation assemblage in small areas within the Development Envelope.

AanAwTe D1 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. wanyu tall shrubland over Triodia epactia Moderate local 225 1.3 open hummock grassland. significance. May correspond with the Ashburton subregion ‘ecosystem at risk’ ’Mulga creekline community, alluvial plains of Ashburton’.

AciAanAwTe D3 Acacia citrinoviridis, A. aneura sens. lat., A. wanyu tall shrubland over Moderate local 650 3.7 Triodia epactia open hummock grassland. significance. May correspond with the Ashburton subregion ‘ecosystem at risk’ ’Mulga creekline community’, ‘alluvial plains of Ashburton’.

AciCEsppTe D5 Acacia citrinoviridis low woodland over *Cenchrus spp. open tussock to Low local significance. 164 0.9 closed tussock grassland with Triodia epactia scattered to very open hummock grassland.

CfAciAanTe D6 Corymbia ferriticola scattered low trees over Acacia citrinoviridis, A. Moderate local 74 0.4 aneura sens. lat. tall shrubland over Triodia epactia open hummock significance. grassland. May represent an ‘ecosystem at risk’ and potential refuge from fire.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 49

Extent in Development Vegetation code ID Vegetation type Conservation significance Envelope (DE)

Units Area (ha) %DE

EcEvAamMgCYPv D7 Eucalyptus camaldulensis, E. victrix open forest over Acacia Moderate local 78 0.4 ampliceps, Melaleuca glomerata tall shrubland over Cyperus vaginatus significance. open sedgeland. Supports potential riparian vegetation/potential GDEs on local drainage system.

EvAcMgCEspp D8 Eucalyptus victrix woodland over Acacia coriacea subsp. pendens, Moderate local 275 1.6 Melaleuca glomerata tall shrubland over *Cenchrus spp. open tussock significance. grassland. May represent an ‘ecosystem at risk’ within the ’Wetland systems of the Ashburton and Lyons drainage‘ and ’Major ephemeral watercourses/wetland systems‘ categories and potential riparian vegetation/GDE on local drainage system.

AciAanCEspp D9 Acacia citrinoviridis, A. aneura sens. lat. tall shrubland over *Cenchrus Low local significance. 156 0.9 species tussock grassland.

AanAxTe D10 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A xiphophylla tall shrubland over mixed open Low local significance. 161 0.9 shrubland over Triodia epactia open hummock grassland.

AciTErTe D13 Acacia citrinoviridis tall shrubland over Tephrosia rosea var. Fortescue Low local significance. 25 0.1 creeks (M.I.H. Brooker 2186) low open shrubland over Triodia epactia open hummock grassland.

AciAscCEspp D14 Acacia citrinoviridis, A. sclerosperma subsp. sclerosperma tall open Low local significance. 30 0.2 shrubland over *Cenchrus spp. open tussock grassland.

AanAteERfTeTw H7 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. tetragonophylla tall open shrubland over Low to Moderate local 369 2.1 Eremophila fraseri subsp. fraseri scattered shrubs over Triodia epactia, significance. T. wiseana open hummock grassland.

AanAteSsppTw H6 Acacia aneura sens. lat. low open woodland over A. tetragonophylla tall Low to Moderate local 181 1.0 open shrubland over Senna spp. scattered shrubs over Triodia wiseana significance. open hummock to hummock grassland.

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 50

Extent in Development Vegetation code ID Vegetation type Conservation significance Envelope (DE)

Units Area (ha) %DE

AanAteTe P3 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. tetragonophylla tall shrubland over Triodia Low to Moderate local 406 2.3 epactia open hummock grassland. significance.

AciAanAwTw D4 Acacia citrinoviridis, A. aneura sens. lat. low open woodland to low Low local significance. 14 0.1 woodland over A. wanyu tall open shrubland over Triodia wiseana very open hummock grassland.

AanAxTa D2 Acacia aneura sens. lat., A. xiphophylla tall open scrub over Triodia Low local significance. 3 <0.1 angusta open hummock grassland.

CEspp P9 Mixed Acacia spp. scattered tall shrubs over *Cenchrus ciliaris and Low local significance. 30 0.2 *Cenchrus setiger hummock grassland.

Subtotal of Native Vegetation 13,876 79.6

CL Cleared. Negligible local significance. 3546 20.3

Grand total 17,422 100.0 Note: Vegetation id’s and descriptions from Astron (2018a, b)

Greater Paraburdoo Iron Ore Hub Proposal Assessment No: 2189 EPBC 2018/8341 Environmental Review Document 51

540,000 550,000 560,000 570,000

Legend Figure 5-3: Vegetation types within the Development Proposed Conceptual Footprint Envelope - Overview ! Rio Tin to Min e Pit Develop men t En velop e

Major Creek Waste Dump Stockp ile Existin g op eration s

Map 1 k ee 0 Cr 0 0 nd 0 0 a 0 , lel , 0 ab 0

4 T 4 4 4 , , 7 7

Bellary Creek Map 2 k e re C ile M ix S

! Map 3 0 0

0 Paraburdoo 0 0 0 , , 0 0 3 3 4 4 , , 7 7 ek re C ek u re rd C bu ile Eastern R ange a M irr n P ve Se !

¯ ! 0 5 0 0 0 0

0 Kilometres 0 , ,

0 Map un its in metres 0 2 2 4 4 , k , 7 Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zon e 50 e 7 e Plan: PDE0168763v4 r Scale: 1:170,000 @ A4 C

Date: Jan uary 2020 [email protected] e e r Disclaimer: This documen t has b een p rep ared to the highest level of accuracy p ossib le, for the u p urp oses of Rio Tin to’s iron ore b usin ess. Rep roduction of this documen t in w hole or in p art b y T an y mean s is strictly p rohib ited w ithout the exp ress ap p roval of Rio Tin to. Further, this documen t may n ot b e referred to, quoted or relied up on for an y p urp ose w hatsoever w ithout the w ritten ap p roval of Rio Tin to. Rio Tin to w ill n ot b e liab le to a third p arty for an y loss, damage, liab ility or claim arisin g out of or in ciden tal to a third p arty usin g or relyin g on the con ten t con tain ed in this documen t. Rio Tin to disclaims all risk an d the third p arty assumes all risk an d releases an d in demn ifies an d agrees to keep in demn ified Rio Tin to from an y loss, damage, claim or liab ility arisin g directly or in directly from the use or relian ce on this documen t.

540,000 550,000 560,000 570,000 535,000 537,500 540,000 542,500 545,000 547,500 550,000 0 0 0 0 5 5 , , 2 2

4 Legend 4 4 4 , , 7 ¯ 7 Develo pment Envelo pe 0 2.5 Kilo metres Majo r Creek Map units in metres

Proposed Conceptual Footprint Drawn: A.D. Proj: GDA 1994 MGA Zo ne 50 Plan: PDE0168763v4 Scale: 1:60,000 @ A4 Pit Date: February 2020 [email protected] Disclaimer: This do c ument has been prepared to the highest level o f ac c urac y po ssible, fo r the purpo ses o f Rio Tinto ’s iro n o re business. Repro duc tio n o f this do c ument in w ho le o r in part by Waste Dump any means is stric tly pro hibited w itho ut the express appro val o f Rio Tinto . Further, this do c ument may no t be referred to , q uo ted o r relied upo n fo r any purpo se w hatso ever w itho ut the w ritten appro val o f Rio Tinto . Rio Tinto w ill no t be liable to a third party fo r any lo ss, damage, liability o r c laim arising o ut o f o r inc idental to a third party using o r relying o n the c o ntent c o ntained in this Sto c kpile do c ument. Rio Tinto disc laims all risk and the third party assumes all risk and releases and indemnifies and agrees to keep indemnified Rio Tinto fro m any lo ss, damage, c laim o r liability arising direc tly o r indirec tly fro m the use o r relianc e o n this do c ument. 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 0 0 4 4 4 4 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 5 5 , , 7 7 3 3 4 4 , , 7 7

k e re C ile M ix S 0 0 0 0 0 0 , , 5 5 3 3 4 4 , , 7 7 0 0 0 0 5 5 , , 2 2 3 3 4 4 , , 7 7

Figure 5-3: Vegetation types within the Development Envelope - Map 1

535,000 537,500 540,000 542,500 545,000 547,500 550,000