Rose Dam North WORKS APPROVAL APPLICATION

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval

PADDINGTON GOLD PTY LTD

SEPTEMBER 2020

Prepared for:

Department of Water and Environmental Regulation

Prepared by:

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval

Table of Contents

1.0 PREMISES DETAILS ...... 5

1.1 Occupier of Premises ...... 5 1.2 General Company Description ...... 5 1.3 DWER Environmental Operating Licences ...... 6 1.4 Name and Location of Premises ...... 6 1.4.1 Premises Name ...... 6 1.4.2 Tenements...... 6 1.4.3 Location ...... 6

2.0 PRESCRIBED PREMISES CATEGORY ...... 7 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY ...... 7

3.1 Existing Activities ...... 7 3.2 Proposal Description ...... 7 3.2.1 Discharging water from Rose Dam North Pits ...... 7

3.3 Maps and Plans ...... 9

4.0 OTHER APPROVALS ...... 13

4.1 Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 13 4.2 Other Decision Making Authorities ...... 13 4.3 Other Legislation and Guidance Material ...... 13

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 14

5.1 Climate ...... 14 5.1.1 Temperature ...... 14 5.1.2 Rainfall ...... 14 5.1.3 Winds ...... 14 5.1.4 Humidity ...... 14

5.2 Geology ...... 14 5.2.1 Regional Geology ...... 14 5.2.2 Local Geology ...... 15

5.3 Landforms ...... 16 5.4 Hydrology ...... 16 5.4.1 Surface Hydrology ...... 16 5.4.2 Groundwater Flow Direction ...... 17 5.4.3 Hydrogeology ...... 18

5.5 Vegetation and Flora ...... 18 5.5.1 Vegetation Types ...... 21 5.5.2 Vegetation Condition ...... 24 5.5.3 Conservation Significant Vegetation Communities ...... 25 5.5.4 Conservation Significance Flora ...... 25 5.5.5 Weeds ...... 25

5.6 Fauna ...... 25 5.6.1 Fauna Habitat ...... 25

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval

5.6.2 Conservation Significant Fauna ...... 26

5.7 Aboriginal heritage ...... 30 5.8 European heritage ...... 30 5.9 Sensitive Receptors ...... 30

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FROM EMISSIONS ...... 31

6.1 Risk Identification ...... 31 6.2 Potential emissions: ...... 31 6.3 Risk Assessment ...... 31 6.4 Risk Management ...... 32

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES, STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENT CRITERIA ...... 34

7.1 Objectives and Standards ...... 34

8.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ...... 35

8.1 Commissioning ...... 35 8.2 Clearing ...... 35 8.3 Monitoring ...... 36 8.4 Rehabilitation ...... 36 8.5 Contingencies ...... 36 8.5.1 Hypersaline spill ...... 36 8.5.2 Hydrocarbon Spill ...... 37 8.5.3 Dewatering ...... 37

8.6 Records ...... 37 8.7 Management Responsibilities ...... 38 8.7.1 Chief Operations Officer ...... 38 8.7.2 Open Pit Manager and Superintendent...... 38 8.7.3 Environmental and Community Superintendent ...... 38 8.7.4 Operators ...... 38

8.8 Competence, Training and Awareness ...... 38 8.9 Communication ...... 39

9.0 CONSULTATION ...... 39 10.0 COMMITMENTS ...... 40 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 41 11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………...31

TABLES Table 1 - Prescribed Premises Category Details ...... 7 Table 2 - Water capacity, volumes and freeboard limitations of Rose East and Rose Dam South pits...... 8 Table 3 - Groundwater Parameters of Rose Pits - 2020...... 18 Table 4 - Pre-European Vegetation Associations within the Application Area...... 19 Table 5 - Summary of Vegetation Types within Survey Area (Botanica Consulting, 2020)...... 23

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval

Table 6 – Vegetation Condition within Survey Area ...... 24 Table 7 - Likelihood of Occurrence – Fauna Species of Conservation Significance ... 27 Table 8 - Risk identification, Analysis and Management...... 32 Table 9 - Environmental Performance Objectives and Standards...... 34 Table 10 - Estimated Maximum Cost...... 35 Table 11 - Consultation Register...... 39 Table 12 - Summary of Commitments...... 40

FIGURES Figure 1 - Licence Tenement Area...... 10 Figure 2 - Proposed Prescribed Premises Boundary...... 11 Figure 3 - Potential Prescribed Activities...... 12 Figure 4 - Regional Hydrology...... 17 Figure 5 - Pre-European Vegetation Associations within application area...... 20 Figure 6 - Vegetation Types mapped by Botanica Consulting in 2020...... 22 Figure 7 - Vegetation Condition within Survey area...... 24

APPENDICES Appendix 1 – AQ2 Dewatering Report Appendix 2 – Groundwater Well License GWL 151865(12) Appendix 3 – Flora/Fauna Survey Appendix 4 – Department of Aboriginal Affairs Heritage Enquiry System Results Appendix 5 – Paddington Risk Rating Matrix Appendix 6 – Dust Suppression Procedure Appendix 7 – Dewatering Pipeline Procedure Appendix 8 – Commissioning Phase Appendix 9 – Environment and Community Policy

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval

1.0 PREMISES DETAILS 1.1 Occupier of Premises Name of Occupier: Paddington Gold Pty Ltd

Contact Details of Occupier Paddington Gold Pty Ltd

Australian Business Number (ABN)

1.2 General Company Description Paddington Gold Pty Ltd (‘Paddington’) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Norton Gold Fields Pty Ltd. The Paddington Mill is located 33km north-northwest of Kalgoorlie- Boulder, has a planned capacity of more than 170,000 ounces of gold annually from 3.7 million tonne of ore, and is one of the larger gold mining and processing operations in the region.

Norton’s Paddington Operations’ current projects include:  Bullant Underground, located approximately 65km north-east of Kalgoorlie- Boulder (8512/2010/2);  Rose Dam South, open pit, located in the Mount Pleasant complex 33km north- west of Kalgoorlie-Boulder (L8327/2008/2); and  Golden Cities Project, involving expansion of the Federal, Jakarta and Mulgarrie Mining areas (L9242/2020/1); and  A number of other ancillary sources such as low grade stockpiles and third party mining operations.

All of the ore produced from Norton’s Paddington Operations is processed through the Paddington Mill. Tailings from the Paddington Mill are deposited into the adjacent Paddington In-pit Tailings Facility.

The Paddington Mill is operated under the Environmental Protection (Gold Extraction Operations) Exemption Order of 1993.

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval

1.3 DWER Environmental Operating Licences Norton Gold Fields previously held License 8327/2008/2 issued 24 February 2014. This license originally issued on 27 February 2009 enabled dewatering from Quarters open pit and the associated Homestead underground decline into Rose East open pit (also referred to as Rose pit). A number of amendments to this license have since been approved and include:  Amendment to include a screening plant within Quarters pit approved on 22 September 2011;  Amendment to include discharge from Violet pit into Rose East pit approved 7 November 2012;  Amendment to include discharge from Golden Flag pit into Rose East pit approved on 26 April 2013; and  Amendment to include Violet pit as a backup discharge point to Rose East pit for Golden Flag and Homestead discharge approved 1 August 2013.  Amendment to include discharge from Golden Flag pit into Rose East pit approved on 10 December 2015; and  Amendment to include discharge from Quarters and Tuart pits into Rose East pit, and increased throughput capacity of the crushing and screening plant, approved May 2016.  Amendment to include dewatering discharge from Rose Dam South pit into Rose East pit, Approved 7 May 2020.

The scope of this Works Approval requires the construction of a dewatering pipeline from Rose Dam North pits to Rose Dam South pit. As Rose Dam South pit is licenced to dewater into Rose East pit, and all three pits are located on the Roe Paleochannel, DWER has advised that the Rose Dam North Works Approval Application should be followed by an Amendment Application onto Licence 8327/2008/2.

1.4 Name and Location of Premises 1.4.1 Premises Name Rose Dam North Dewatering Project – Mt Pleasant project area

1.4.2 Tenements Rose Dam North Works Approval tenements include M24/182, M24/229, M24/838 and M24/451.

1.4.3 Location The premises is located in the Mount Pleasant region which is located approximately 28km north-west of Kalgoorlie. This project area is within a heavily impacted historical mining area called Mount Pleasant with over 60 open pits within a 6km radius of the site.

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval

2.0 PRESCRIBED PREMISES CATEGORY Table 1 - Prescribed Premises Category Details Category Production or Nominated Rate of New/ Activity Number Design Capacity Throughput Existing

Mine Dewatering: premises on which More than water is extracted 1,600,000KL per 6 500,000KL per New and discharged into annum annum the environment to allow mining of ore.

Rose Dam South pit is partially owned by Norton Gold Fields Pty Ltd; the northern end of the pit is located on Rose Dam Resources NL’s tenement M25/451. Rose Dam South began operations in March 2020, following the approval of the Rose Dam South Mining Proposal (REG ID: 84741) which included the cutback and extension of Rose Dam Resource’s RTM pit.

The existing Rose Dam North pit was mined in 2005 as a joint venture project between Rose Dam Resources NL and Credo Gold Mine. The proposed Rose Dam North pits include a cutback of the existing Rose Dam North Pit, as well as the development of a sub-pit that lies less than 100 metres southwest. Norton Gold Fields Pty Ltd has a Right to Mine agreement with Rose Dam Resources NL to operate on tenement M24/451.

Rose Dam North pits are anticipated to be mined in two stages. Stage 1 will involve the cutback of the existing pit which will occur over 8 months, while Stage 2 involves the mining of an adjacent southern pit over a period of 4 months. Both pits will be dewatered into Rose Dam South pit, with an anticipated discharge rate of 41L/s for Stage 1 and 21L/s for Stage 2 (AQ2 2020).

It is to be noted that the nominated production design capacity takes into account that while the Rose Dam South pit will not be in operation during the Rose Dam North dewatering phase, the Rose Dam North pits may require flexibility to dewater between Rose East and Rose Dam South pits (AQ2, 2020).

The AQ2 dewatering report can be found in Appendix 1.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY 3.1 Existing Activities Norton Gold Fields will be submitting the “Rose Dam North Mining Proposal” and “Rose Dam North Native Vegetation Clearing Permit” to DMIRS alongside this Works Approval.

3.2 Proposal Description 3.2.1 Discharging water from Rose Dam North Pits Due to the current continual updates of the mining plan schedule, Norton proposes an approach to dewatering that allows for multiple discharge locations. Pipeline infrastructure will be constructed in order to minimise cost and environmental impact 7

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval through unnecessary clearing. Having the capacity for both dewatering and discharge from a connected pipeline to Rose Dam South, Rose East, and Rose Dam North pits will ensure flexibility as the Rose Dam North pit projects are mined.

Norton proposes the following discharge locations:  Rose Dam North pits will dewater into Rose Dam South pit;  Rose Dam South pit may dewater into Rose East pit;  Rose Dam North pits may dewater into Rose East pit;  Rose Dam North pit (1) may dewater into Rose Dam North pit (2); and  Rose Dam North pit (2) may dewater into Rose Dam North pit (1).

Rose Dam South pit is located approximately 1,000m to the south-west. The pit has a total volumetric capacity of 2,629,269KL as of September 2020, allowing for a nominal 6m freeboard (Table 2). The total volumetric capacity is expected to increase as the operation continues.

It is considered that the Rose Dam South pit will have sufficient storage for the Rose Dam North dewatering Project as the remaining capacity to freeboard leaves room for 900,000KL when combined with the nominated production capacity ( Table 2 ). This is consolidated by the fact that the nominated production capacity does not take evaporation or groundwater outflow into account, and the total freeboard capacity (Table 2 ) will expand past its current volume as operations continue.

Though it is unlikely that the dewatering of Rose Dam North will breach Rose Dam South pit’s freeboard capacity, any excess water will be diverted to Rose East pit or between the Rose Dam North pits. Discharge from Rose Dam North may be dewatered into Rose East via Rose Dam South pit, or a pipeline will directly hook in from the Rose Dam North pipeline into the Rose East network. Rose East pit currently has a remaining capacity of 572,603KL until the freeboard level is exceeded (Table 2). A standpipe located the western side of the pit in currently in operation. It is anticipated that Rose East pit’s capacity will not surpass the nominal 6m freeboard limit with the addition of excess water from the Rose Dam South and Rose Dam North pits (Table 2).

Table 2 - Water capacity, volumes and freeboard limitations of Rose East and Rose Dam South pits.

Total Capacity (to Remaining capacity Existing pits Current volume – m3 6m freeboard) – m3 to 6m freeboard – m3 Rose East 2,692,537KL 2,119,934KL 572,603KL Rose Dam South 2,629,269KL 138,978KL 2,490,291KL

Standing water levels and discharge volumes will be measured in Rose East, Rose Dam South and Rose Dam North pits monthly to monitor abstraction and dewatering volumes. These figures are currently, and will continue, to be reviewed regularly by Norton’s Environmental Department to ensure adequacy.

The Pipeline may be moved to optimal positions within the pits as mining commences and progresses, and multiple pipelines may be used to dewater. Pipeline used for the construction of any new dewatering pipeline will be between 110 and 315 NB single

Norton Gold Fields Limited – Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval weld pipeline, depending on resources available and operational requirements. Pipeline may be moved to optimal positions within the pits as mining commences and progresses. The pipeline will be placed in an earthen v-drain bund with sufficient capacity to contain spillage in the event of a pipeline failure. Scour pits will be constructed along the pipeline route at strategic locations and low points, to provide sufficient capacity to contain discharge that may occur between inspection periods in the event of a rupture, or discharges during maintenance activities. Air release valves will be positioned at relevant high points.

The following general principles will be followed to ensure compliance to license conditions and to ensure Paddington maintain a high standard of environmental practices during dewatering activities:

 Service and maintenance of pumps, breathers, isolation values and flow meters;  Bund & sump maintenance and upgrades when required;  12 hourly pipeline inspections;  Site training and induction of all personnel working in the area; and  Dust suppression used on haul roads and as applicable access tracks.

Standard dewatering pipeline used at Paddington has been previously constructed of PE100 PN16 HDPE piping that meets:

 AS/NZS 2033:2008: Installation of polyethylene pipe systems;  AS/NZS 4129:2008 Fittings for polyethylene (PE) pipes for pressure applications;  AS/NZS 4130:2009 Polyethylene (PE) pipes for pressure applications; and  AS/NZS 4131:2010 Polyethylene (PE) compounds for pressure pipes and fittings.

Groundwater Licence: GWL 151865(12) is retained for abstraction operations. This is included in Appendix 2.

3.3 Maps and Plans Figures 1 to 3 provide maps of the tenements, the proposed prescribed boundary, and the potential pipeline routes for the Rose Dam North Dewatering Project. Multiple pipeline routes have been designed to allow for changes to operational requirements.

Figure 1 - Licence Tenement Area.

Page 10

Figure 2 - Proposed Prescribed Premises Boundary.

Page 11

Figure 3 - Potential Prescribed Activities.

4.0 OTHER APPROVALS 4.1 Environmental Impact Assessment This discharge of mine dewater is deemed a low risk and an Environmental Impact Assessment or referral to Office of Environmental Protection Authority is not required.

4.2 Other Decision Making Authorities Norton Gold Fields is developing the “Rose Dam North Mining Proposal” in alignment with DMIRS Mining Proposal Guidelines 2006 and anticipates this to be submitted in September 2020 for assessment.

In addition, Norton intends to submit a Clearing Permit application with DMIRS alongside the Mining Proposal. This Clearing Permit will cover any required clearing for the proposed Rose Dam North mining operation. The pipeline will be strategically placed on existing tracks and through the disturbed operational area. A Clearing Permit for the Rose Dam South area (CPS8756/1) was granted on 3 January 2020.

Any clearing required on tenements M24/182, M24/229, M24/838 and M24/451 that is not covered under the above Clearing Permits will be managed in accordance with Schedule 1, Item 2, Subclause 2 of the Environmental Protection (Clearing of the Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004. See Section 8.2 for additional detail.

4.3 Other Legislation and Guidance Material Paddington will comply with the provisions in applicable Acts and Regulations which include the following, but may not be restricted to:

 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972;  Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016;  Conservation and Land Management Act 1984;  Environmental Protection Act 1986;  Environmental Protection Regulations 1987;  Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;  Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004;  Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001;  Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharge) Regulations 2004;  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth);  Explosives and Dangerous Goods Act 1961;  Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990;  Land Administration Act 1997;  Land Drainage Act 1925;  Local Government Act 1995;  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960;  Mining Act 1978 and Regulations 1981;  Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994, Mines Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995;  Native Title Act 1973 (Commonwealth);  Occupation Safety and Health Act 1984; and

 Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 particularly licence to Take Water GWL 151865(12). 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 5.1 Climate 5.1.1 Temperature Mean annual maximum temperature is 25.2 oC and mean annual minimum is 11.6 oC. The coldest month is July and diurnal temperature variations are commonly high throughout the year.

5.1.2 Rainfall The area is arid and the annual average rainfall at Kalgoorlie-Boulder is 268.4mm. Most of the rain falls between February and July, and this amount varies greatly both seasonally and annually.

5.1.3 Winds The average wind speeds at Kalgoorlie-Boulder vary throughout the year from 11.8 – 17.2 km/h in the morning to 13.7 – 17.8 km/h in the afternoon.

5.1.4 Humidity Humidity levels vary considerably both daily and yearly. The mean monthly 9.00am relative humidity varies from a low of 44% in December to a high of 75% in June. The mean monthly 3.00pm relative humidity varies from a low of 24% in December to a high of 49% in June.

5.2 Geology 5.2.1 Regional Geology The Mount Pleasant gold camp forms part of the Mount Pleasant Dome within the Ora Banda Domain, which is one of the six tectonostratigraphic domains of the Archaean Kalgoorlie Terrain. The Ora Banda domain comprises the full Kalgoorlie stratigraphical suite outlined by Swagger et al. (1990) including mafic-ultramafic volcanics, felsic volcaniclastics and epiclastic sedimentary rocks. Late stage Archaean deformation resulted in upright-open folds (D2), ductile shear zones (D3) and a brittle ductile fault network (D4).

The major feature of the Mount Pleasant gold camp is the Mount Pleasant Dome, a shallow, southwest-plunging anticline. The Mount Pleasant gold deposits are hosted within the upper mafic stratigraphical units (Bent Tree and Victorious Basalt units). Each basalt unit is defined by internal volcanic textures including coarse-grained, massive and pillowed basalt varieties.

Two major faults control gold mineralisation within the gold camp. The Black Flag and Royal Standard faults are steeply-dipping north-east striking (020 degrees) structures that change orientation to 045 degrees around the gold camp and accompanied by a zone of dilational vein emplacement. The Black Flag fault is interpreted to be an early ductile structure overprinted by a series of brittle failure events, resulting is

multigenerational hydrothermal vein breccias. Several mineralised vein orientations have been described within the Mount Pleasant Gold camp including: 020 degrees, 040 degrees, 060 degrees, 080 degrees, 115 degrees and 150 degrees which have been interpreted to be accommodation structures associated with the changing orientation and reactivation of the Black Flag fault.

5.2.2 Local Geology The Rose Dam (North) deposit is entirely covered with a 10-50m thick layer of Tertiary and Recent sediments, underlain by Bent Tree basalt. The deepest parts of the cover sequence are associated with quartz sands of the Roe Palaeochannel, up to 1000m wide. The old river valley has subsequently filled with clay and ferruginous detritus derives from adjacent high relief areas to the north and west.

The Rose Dam (North) deposit is described as comprising a sub-horizontal blanket of supergene gold mineralisation hosted by intercalated basalts (dominant) and dolerites of the Bent Tree Basalt Formation.

The Rose Dam Project area is characterised by Tertiary palaeo-alluvial sediments within a palaeochannel, overlying the basement Archaean volcano-sedimentary suite. The younger palaeochannel sediments form part of the Roe Palaeodrainage system, emanating from the Lady Bountiful and core Mt Pleasant areas and generally meandering eastwards. At the base of the palaeochannel is the Woolubar Formation comprising quartz sands, these are overlain by mottled, plastic clays of the Perkollili Formation.

Basement geology comprises northerly trending, east dipping stratigraphy of the Bent Tree Basalt and Victorious Basalt units, with a series of linear north-south elongate feldspar porphyry intrusives. Basement rocks have been incised by the Tertiary aged and sediment infilled paleochannel. The paleochannel sediments include basal sands and gravels, overlain by clays and clayey sands and silts.

Gold mineralisation is associated with the palaeochannel system and is believed to be palaeoplacer in origin, lying 30 – 40 metres below surface in a flat lying blanket of secondary remobilized mineralization sitting within weathered basalt immediately below the base of the palaeochannel sands and gravels of the Woolubar Formation.

Numerous areas within the Roe Palaeodrainaige system have already been mined at both Lady Bountiful and Mt Pleasant, these include pits immediately along strike of the Rose Dam North Project within the same channel – Rose Dam (North), Rose Dam South, Rose East, Rose West and Violet. All these pits have the same characteristics in that they exploit mineralisation in mafic lithologies immediately below the palaeochannel sequence and mined material is limited to the palaeochannel sequence and weathered mafics.

5.3 Landforms The application area lies within the Kalgoorlie Province, which consists of undulating plains (with some sandplains, hills and salt lakes) on granitic rocks and greenstone of the central-eastern portion of the Yilgarn Craton (Tille, 2006).

The Kalgoorlie Province is further divided into seven soil-landscape zones, with the project located within the Kambalda Zone (265). This zone is characterised by flat to undulating plains (with hills, ranges and some salt lakes and stony plains) on greenstone and granitic rocks of the Yilgarn Craton. Soils include calcareous loamy earths and red loamy earths with salt lake soils and some red-brown hardpan shallow loams and red sandy duplexes (Tille, 2006)

Vegetation includes red Mallee blackbutt- salmon gum-gimlet woodlands with mulga and halophytic shrublands (and some spinifex grasslands). (Tille, 2006). The Kambalda Zone is further divided into soil-landscape systems, with the project area located within the following (Botanica Consulting 2020):

• BB5 - rocky ranges and hills of greenstones-basic igneous rocks, and • Mx40 - Flat to undulating valley plains and pediments; some rock outcrop.

5.4 Hydrology 5.4.1 Surface Hydrology Drainage lines in the region are ephemeral with runoff resulting from significant rainfall events. Flows from the region generally discharge to Black Flag Lake or White Flag Lake south of the Project area (AQ2 2020).

The Project Site is located within a sub-catchment of Black Flag Lake catchment (Figure 4 ). Black Flag Lake is approximately 3.5 km downstream of the Project site. The mine site area generally drains towards the south, with the mine catchments upstream of the mine representing a small portion of the total catchment for Black Flag and White Flag Lakes (AQ2 2020).

The Black Flag Lake catchment is a sub-catchment of the larger White Flag Lake catchment. In events rarer than the 10% AEP (10 yr ARI), Black Flag Lake is estimated to overtop and discharge in a south-westerly direction to White Flag Lake. Both lakes are seasonal/intermittent hypersaline Lakes (AQ2 2020).

Surface water flow as a result of significant rainfall events is relatively fresh compared to the groundwater of the area. Black Flag and White Flag Lakes are hypersaline lakes (AQ2 2020).

Figure 4 - Regional Hydrology.

5.4.2 Groundwater Flow Direction Regional groundwater flow is generally to the east towards major groundwater discharge zones at/near Lake Yindarlgooda.

5.4.3 Hydrogeology Basement geology in the Rose Dam area comprises northerly trending, east dipping volcanics of the Archean aged Bent Tree Basalt and Victorious Basalt, with a series of linear feldspar porphyry intrusives on the northern and eastern margin of the mine area. These basement rocks have been incised by a Tertiary aged and sediment infilled paleochannel, which is a tributary paleochannel to the regional Roe Paleodrainage System. The paleochannel sediments include basal sands and gravels, overlain by clays and clayey sands and silts.

Mineralisation at Rose Dam North is hosted in the palaeodrainage system, together with a flat lying blanket of secondary remobilized mineralization sitting within weathered basalt at the base of the palaeochannel sands and gravels. Most groundwater in the region is of saline or hypersaline quality (AQ2, 2020).

The Rose Dam area’s groundwater characteristics are considered the least saline within the Roe Palaeochannel. Groundwater in the Rose Dam South area is saline to hypersaline with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ranging from 59.9 to 68.5ppt (Table 3 ). The major ionic composition of the groundwater is salts of sodium and chloride with minor levels of sulphate, magnesium and calcium present. Most other ions are by comparison in low total concentrations. Table 3 presents a range of the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), pH and Electrical Conductivity (EC) of Rose East, Rose Dam South and Rose Dam North pits.

Table 3 - Groundwater Parameters of Rose Pits - 2020. pH (pH Total Dissolved Electrical Pit Name Year Units) Solids (ppt) Conductivity (mS/cm) Rose East 2020 7.5 59.9 88.1 Rose Dam North 2020 7.7 68.5 100.8 Rose Dam South 2020 7.6 62.3 91.6

5.5 Vegetation and Flora The Pre-European vegetation association dataset (DPIRD, 2018) indicates that the area surveyed by Botanica (2020) is located predominately within the Kununulling 468 vegetation association, covering 696.7 ha (96.6% of the survey area). Additionally, there are small areas of Coolgardie 125 (12.2 ha, 1.7%) and Coolgardie 540 (12.1 ha, 1.7%) occurring in the southern portion of the survey area. The vegetation associations of those areas are described in Table 4 and indicated in Figure 5 . Disturbance is intended to occur primarily within the Kununulling 468 association.

Table 4 - Pre-European Vegetation Associations within the Application Area.

Area (ha) % of Total Vegetation of Vegetation Floristic Description Association Application Association Area Area Wheatbelt; York gum, salmon gum etc. Kununulling Eucalyptus loxophleba , E. salmonophloia . 692.170 ha 0.37 % 468 Goldfields; gimlet, redwood etc. E. salubris , E. oleosa . Riverine; rivergum E. camaldulensis . Coolgardie Salt lake, lagoon, clay pan 12.234 ha 0.09 % 125 Mulga, other wattle, Casuarina, Atriplex spp. Coolgardie Maireana spp. with Acacia aneura , A. 11.869 ha 0.02 % 540 papyrocarpa , Allocasuarina cristata

Figure 5 - Pre-European Vegetation Associations within application area.

5.5.1 Vegetation Types Three vegetation communities were identified within the survey area by Botanica (2020). These vegetation types are broadly described as Eucalyptus low open woodland. A map showing the vegetation types present within the survey area is provided in Figure 6 , with Table 5 providing a description of each vegetation community.

Figure 6 - Vegetation Types mapped by Botanica Consulting in 2020.

Page 22

Table 5 - Summary of Vegetation Types within Survey Area (Botanica Consulting, 2020). Broad Floristic Vegetation Area Area Formation Vegetation Description (NVIS V) Landform Community (ha) (%) (NVISIII) Low woodland of Eucalyptus salmonophloia over open low scrub of Acacia Undulating CLP-EW1 kalgoorliensis and dwarf scrub of Atriplex vesicaria / Maireana pyramidata / Tecticornia 329.0 45.6 plains disarticulata

Eucalyptus Low woodland of Eucalyptus salmonophloia over open low scrub of Acacia CLP-EW2 low open kalgoorliensis and dwarf scrub of Atriplex vesicaria / Maireana pyramidata / Tecticornia Low rises 208.0 28.8 woodland disarticulata Low woodland of Eucalyptus salmonophloia over open low scrub of Acacia Drainage DD-EW1 kalgoorliensis and dwarf scrub of Atriplex vesicaria/ Maireana sedifolia/ Maireana 144.3 20.0 Channels pyramidata/ Tecticornia disarticulata in drainage depression Mining Cleared Vegetation 39.7 5.5 Areas Total 721.1 100.0

Page 23

5.5.2 Vegetation Condition Botanica Consulting (2020) used the vegetation condition rating scale adapted from Keighery, 1994 and Trudgen, 1988. Vegetation condition was rated as Good or Completely Degraded as detailed in Table 6 and shown in Figure 7.

The areas of existing disturbance are those associated with the original Rose Dam project or the Rose Dam South Project area that is currently in operation.

Table 6 – Vegetation Condition within Survey Area Vegetation Area Area Condition Description (ha) (%) Rating Depicts more obvious signs of damage caused by human activity since European settlement, including some obvious Good 681.4 94.5 impact on the vegetation structure such as that caused by low levels of grazing and/or slightly aggressive weeds. Completely Cleared areas associated with the mining pit and associated 39.7 5.5 Degraded infrastructure. Total 721.1 100

Figure 7 - Vegetation Condition within Survey area.

5.5.3 Conservation Significant Vegetation Communities No conservation significant vegetation, including Threatened or Priority Vegetation Communities were identified within the survey area (Botanica Consulting, 2020).

5.5.4 Conservation Significance Flora Assessment of the NatureMap and Protected Matters searches and previous relevant literature identified 30 significant flora species recorded within a 40 km radius of the survey area. These consist of four Threatened, eight Priority 1, four Priority 2, ten Priority 3 and four Priority 4 taxa (Botanica 2020). These taxa were assessed for distribution and known habitat to determine their likelihood of occurrence within the survey area. The assessment did not identify any significant flora with a high likelihood of occurrence in the survey area. There were 10 taxa assessed as possibly occurring in the survey area, consisting of six Priority 1, three Priority 3 and one Priority 4 taxa ( Table 7 ).

The field assessment identified no conservation significant flora within the survey area.

The Flora Survey is available in Appendix 3 .

5.5.5 Weeds The desktop assessment identified 69 introduced flora species as occurring within the vicinity of the survey area. Five species are listed as Weeds of National Significant (WoNS) and seven introduced flora species are listed as a Declared Pest on the Western Australian Organism List (WAOL) under the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management (BAM) Act 2007.

Botanica Consulting (2020) did not record any introduced flora species within the survey area.

5.6 Fauna Paddington engaged Botanica to conduct a Fauna survey which covers the area encapsulated by the application area and where disturbance is proposed. The survey was conducted in May and June of 2020. This report can be found in Appendix 3.

5.6.1 Fauna Habitat Botanica Consulting (2020) describe the habitat type across the Rose North survey area as “Low Eucalyptus Open Woodland” and does not represent conservation significant habitat.

5.6.2 Conservation Significant Fauna Botanica Consulting (2020) identified eight fauna species of conservation significance as previously being recorded within the general area, consisting of seven Threatened species and one Priority 1 species.

In addition, numerous migratory birds were listed with shorebirds assessed collectively due to their similar habitat requirements. Habitat and distribution data was used to determine the likelihood of occurrence within the survey area ( Table 7 ). The assessment identified one significant fauna species as potentially occurring in the survey area: Malleefowl ( Leipoa ocellata ) (VU).

Table 7 - Likelihood of Occurrence – Fauna Species of Conservation Significance Conservation Status DBCA Species EPBC BC Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence Priorit Act Act y Malleefowl VU VU - Scrublands and woodlands dominated by mallee and wattle Possibly occurs however habitat (Leipoa species (DAWE, 2020b). appears very marginal/or ocellata) unsuitable for breeding. Supported by lack of observations during survey. Occasional transients only. Carnaby's EN EN - Carnaby's Cockatoo is endemic to, and widespread in, the Would Not Occur. No Cockatoo south-west of Western Australia. It occurs from the wheatbelt, documented records in the (Calyptorhynch in areas that receive between 300 and 750 mm of rainfall region. us latirostris ) annually, across to wetter regions in the extreme south-west, including the Swan Coastal Plain and the southern coast. Its range extends from Cape Arid in the south-east to Kalbarri in the north, and inland to Hatter Hill, Gibb Rock, Narembeen, Noongar, Wongan Hills, Nugadong, near Perenjori, Wilroy and Nabawa. Chuditch, VU VU - Previously occurred throughout arid and semi-arid Australia, Unlikely to Occur. No nearby Western Quoll but is now restricted to south-west Western Australia. (DAWE, records. (Dasyurus 2020b). geoffroii ) Bilby (Macrotis VU VU - In Western Australia, it is mainly restricted to the Gibson Desert, Would Not Occur. No lagotis ) Little Sandy Desert, Great Sandy Desert and parts of the Pilbara documented records in the and Southern Kimberley. region. Numbat EN EN - Previously widespread in arid and semi-arid Australia, the Would Not Occur. No (Myrmecobius species is now restricted to two isolated wild populations in documented records in the fasciatus ) south-west Western Australia and a number of translocations to region. predator proof locations.

Conservation Status DBCA Species EPBC BC Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence Priorit Act Act y Night Parrot EN CR - Most habitat records are of Triodia (Spinifex) grasslands and/or Unlikely to Occur. (Pezoporus chenopod shrublands in the arid and semi-arid zones, or Habitat unlikely to be present. occidentalis ) Astrebla spp. (Mitchell grass), shrubby samphire and chenopod associations, scattered trees and shrubs, Acacia aneura (Mulga) woodland, treeless areas and bare gibber are associated with sightings of the species. Roosting and nesting sites are consistently reported as within clumps of dense vegetation, primarily old and large Spinifex (Triodia) clumps, but sometimes other vegetation types (DAWE, 2020b) Migratory MI IA - Prefers muddy edges of shallow fresh or brackish wetlands, with Would Not Occur. Shorebirds inundated or emergent sedges, grass, saltmarsh or other low No Suitable Habitat. (Various species) vegetation. This includes lagoons, swamps, lakes and pools near the coast, and dams, waterholes, soaks, bore drains and bore swamps, saltpans and hypersaline salt lakes inland (DAWE, 2020b). Grey Wagtail MI IA - Running water in disused quarries, sandy, rocky streams in Would Not Occur. (Motacilla escarpments and rainforest, sewerage ponds, ploughed fields No documented records in the cinerea ) and airfields (Morecombe 2004). region. Inland - - P1 Acacia shrubland in the eastern goldfields and wheatbelt of Unlikely to occur. Only known Hairstreak/Deser WA, favouring young shrubs of the Senna food plant up to 1.5m from one location near t Blue Butterfly high and old mature trees of the Acacia food plant up to 4m Kalgoorlie (Lake Douglas-40km (Jalmenus high, growing in shallow gullies and gentle slopes (Braby, 2016). south-east of the survey area). aridus ) The larvae feed on the leaves and flowers of Senna nemophila Suitable habitat unlikely to be and Acacia tetragonophylla. The caterpillars are attended by present. the ant species Froggattella kirbii. (ALA, 2020). Arid Bronze CR CR - Restricted to mallee vegetation on sandy soil, often near flood Unlikely to occur. Only known to Azure Butterfly plains, in which nests of the associated ant are established at be extant at two locations within (Ogyris the base of eucalypts (DotEE, 2015). DBCA advice indicates the Wheatbelt Region and is the host ant (Camponotus terebrans) is known to favour presumed extinct at another 28

Conservation Status DBCA Species EPBC BC Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence Priorit Act Act y subterrestris smooth bark Eucalyptus species, such as Eucalyptus location within the Goldfields petrina ) salmonophloia and Eucalyptus salubris, however the host ant is Region (Lake Douglas-40km sporadically distributed across southern Australia and south-east of the survey area). floristically diverse habitats are needed to sustain high densities Survey area has been subject to of the host ant (DotEE, 2015). previous mining/ and is unlikely to provide floristically diverse habitat. The survey areas has been subject to soil disturbance which adversely affects the host ant (DotEE, 2015).

5.7 Aboriginal heritage An Aboriginal Heritage survey was conducted in May 2019 by R. & E. O’Connor Pty. Ltd with and on behalf of the local native title claimants; the Central West Goldfields People, Members of the Sambo families, which include the former Kaparn Native Title Claimant Group; Kelamaia Kabu(d)n People and Champion family; Muduwongga native title claimants, Strickland and Nudding families; the Donaldson family group (“DF”) and the Marlinyu Ghoorlie native title claimant group (“MG”) (O’Connor, 2019). An additional survey was conducted in September 2019 to analyse the project area which had been extended from the previous surveys.

It was established during both surveys that there are no sacred, ritual or ceremonial Aboriginal Heritage sites were located within the Rose Dam South project area. It was recommended by O’Connor and the relevant aboriginal groups (2019) that Aboriginal Heritage considerations should not be deemed an impediment to exploration proceeding in the Rose Dam South Project Area.

Parker and Corsini (1998) conducted a Site Identification Initiative within Rose Dam for Plutonic Operation Ltd’s Credo Joint Venture. They did not locate any sites of archaeological or ethnographic significance during the survey.

A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Enquiry System was conducted within tenements M24/229 and M24/451 via the Department of Indigenous Affairs. No Registered Aboriginal Sites or Other Heritage sites were observed in the area.

The results of the search are available in Appendix 4 .

5.8 European heritage There are no sites of European Heritage within the Rose Dam North project area.

5.9 Sensitive Receptors The nearest residential community is Ora Banda, located 26km north-east of the proposed Rose Dam South pit. The city of Kalgoorlie Boulder, a large city community is 30km to the south-east.

Freshwater recreational Rowles Lagoon is the nearest sensitive receptor located approximately 35km to the north-west of the project.

Dewatering activities are not expected to have an effect on either receptor.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FROM EMISSIONS 6.1 Risk Identification From the risk identification process, four potential emissions were identified associated with the dewatering into any of the open pits. The likelihood of an event happening where the emissions affect the environment is detailed in Section 6.4.

6.2 Potential emissions:  Hyper-saline water (spill into dewatering system, breach of pipeline, overtopping of any pit);  Hydrocarbon spill(spill from water pump);  Noise (from water pump and pipeline inspection vehicles); and  Dust (from discharge points and pipeline inspection vehicles).

6.3 Risk Assessment To identify the risks associated with discharging, each component of the process flow chart was assessed to identify any risk that may occur within each component. Risks that were identified are summarised below.

Hypersaline spill occurring has potential and is considered a high risk without management measures and a moderate risk after management measures are put in place. The consequences would be a loss of vegetation and/or habitat from contaminating the soil and water.

Hydrocarbon contamination is possible but considered a low risk. The consequences would be water and soil contamination which would lead to vegetation deaths and habitat decline. Only a small amount of fuel will be stored within the day tanks of the dewatering pump, therefore a hydrocarbon contamination will not be sizeable.

Noise impacts are unlikely and not expected. The consequence of residential disturbance would not occur as there are no residents within the immediate vicinity. There is also risk of impact on local fauna populations. It is highlighted that neither of these are likely to be greater than noise impacts from mining operations (excavators, dump trucks, dozers, graders, service trucks, drill rigs and rock breakers).

Dust accumulation is possible and considered a low risk. Again, the impact from discharge points and vehicle movements is not likely to be greater than the mining operations.

6.4 Risk Management Table 8 - Risk identification, Analysis and Management. Residual Risk Risk Identification Risk Analysis Risk Management Analysis Issue Issue Impact Impact Control Causes Causes Potential Measures Measures Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Risk Ranking Ranking Risk Risk Ranking Ranking Risk Consequence Consequence Consequence Event/Incident Event/Incident Management/

Hypersaline Release of Soil, surface water Pipeline failure. 3 B High 12 hourly pipeline inspections. 2 C Moderate water hypersaline water contamination. into the Vegetation Lack of Pipeline maintenance. environment. deaths. appropriate containment Sufficient containment bunds. facilities. Hypersaline Exceed the water Soil, surface water Lack of inspections. 3 C Moderate Dewatering pipeline procedure. 3 D Low - water - Water holding capacity contamination. Moderate holding of Rose East pit. Vegetation Lack of water Monthly water volume capacity of deaths. volume monitoring. monitoring. Rose East pit Large rainfall Monthly surveying of water level event. in pits.

Installation of markers at 6m below crest level.

Develop groundwater management plan should water levels get within 6m of the pit crest.

Hydrocarbons Release of Soil, surface water Lack of 2 B Moderate Appropriately designed and 1 C Low hydrocarbons into contamination. appropriate maintained service truck. the environment. containment Vegetation facilities. Waste management plan. Release of deaths. hydrocarbons into Lack of fuel/oils Hydrocarbon management and dewatering storage and spill procedure. network. handling procedures. Collection of waste oil and grease. Lack of adherence to existing fuel/oil Hydrocarbon spill kits. storage and handling Toolbox presentations to procedures. employees. Noise – pumps & Noise – impact on Disturbance to Inappropriate 2 D Low If required, place noise barrier 2 E Low engines local fauna. habitats. positioning of pump. around pump.

Dust Dust accumulation Vegetation decline. Heavy use of 2 C Moderate Use appropriate dust suppression 2 D Low on vegetation. vehicles on track to techniques on the track. Nuisance. check pipeline. Daily observations on dust within work area and additional measures implemented if required.

Dust is noted by daily visual observations and annual visual audits of road corridors, bunding, v-drains and spoon drains. Visible dust will be reported as a hazard to the appropriate shift supervisor, who will contact an on-site water cart driver The water truck will be used throughout the work area. Refer to Appendix 5 for Paddington’s Risk Rating Matrix.

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES, STANDARDS AND MEASUREMENT CRITERIA 7.1 Objectives and Standards Table 9 - Environmental Performance Objectives and Standards. Environmental Performance Standards Measurement Criteria Objectives - Pipeline inspection carried out on 12 hourly basis - Mine Dewatering Procedure - Hypersaline water Environmental - Pipeline logbook and inspection sheets emissions: ensure all Protection Act - Isolation and breather valves hypersaline water is Regulations 1986 - Monthly surveys of water level in pits - contained within the Mine Dewatering - When water level approaches 6m from pipeline bund, open Procedure the surface of any pit, implement pits and scour pits development of groundwater management plan to ensure water levels remain less than 6m below surface at nearest natural vegetation - Groundwater Abstraction Licence 151865(12) - Groundwater Dewatering: ensure Operating Strategy - Flow meters installed and measured groundwater - Water and Irrigation monthly abstraction is not Regulations 1914 - Annual Groundwater Monitoring exceeded - Environmental Summary Protection Act Regulations 1986 - Mine Dewatering Procedure - Small quantities stored on active machinery Hydrocarbon - Waste Management - System in place to immediately deal with emissions: ensure Plan a hydrocarbon spill hydrocarbons do not - Groundwater - Hydrocarbon spill kit located nearby leak into the Operating Strategy - Annual water quality monitoring environment - Hydrocarbons not stored in fuel tanks to be bunded Noise emissions: ensure noise is kept at - Environmental a suitable level to Protection (Noise) - Fauna observations in the area, in avoid fauna Regulations 1997 particular that travel patterns are not disturbance and - Wildlife Protection Act changing residential 1950 communities. Dust accumulation: - Dust Suppression ensure dust is Procedure - Follow Dust Suppression Procedure - managed so it does Environmental - Monitor dust in the area not affect vegetation Protection Act and the public. Regulations 1986

Paddington’s Dust Suppression Procedure and Dewatering Pipeline Procedure are attached as Appendix 6 and Appendix 7, respectively.

8.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 8.1 Commissioning The pipeline will be constructed by Paddington staff once approvals are in place. The v-drain and scour dams will be constructed by use of a grader and/or excavator if the existing pipeline corridor is not utilised. Maintenance staff will install flow metres, breather and carry out welding of the pipeline. Estimated costs are shown below in Table 10 .

Table 10 - Estimated Maximum Cost. Activity Estimated Cost HDPE polypipe $165,600 Hire Pump (12 months) $72,800 Flow metre, breather, etc $6,000 Pipeline installation Labour $180,000 Construction labour $8,700 TOTAL $433,100

Norton proposes to undertake a commissioning phase once pipelines are constructed. Details of this proposal are outlined in Appendix 8.

8.2 Clearing Under 5 ha of clearing will be required to construct the pipeline – the pipeline will be placed on existing v-drains and on disturbed areas specified in the upcoming Mining Proposal. All required clearing will be managed under the 10ha per year clearing exemption under Schedule 1, Item 2, Subclause 2 of the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004, CPS8756/1 (granted 3 January 2020), and the pending Rose Dam North clearing permit application. Management strategies for clearing will include:

 The areas to be cleared will be well-defined so that over-clearing will be avoided;  Dust suppression will be implemented where required during clearing activities;  All employees will be inducted to ensure disturbances are confined to areas identified in the field;  Clearing operators will be supervised;  Protecting all vegetation outside of the clearing profile;  Rehabilitating disturbed areas no longer required and progressively rehabilitating completed areas as soon as practicable;

 Prior to any development being commenced, vegetation and topsoil will be cleared and stockpiled separately for future use;  Topsoil stockpiles will not exceed 2m in height; and  Only use local native plant species for seeding.

8.3 Monitoring  Monitoring of the pipeline occurs every twelve hours;  The pipeline flow meter will be monitored on a monthly basis;  Monthly water level survey of Rose Dam South and Rose East pits;  The water quality will be monitored annually and will include pH, EC, TDS and heavy metals analysis.  Noise will be monitored on as required basis – given it is a work area triggered by OHS standards; and  Dust observations will be carried out regularly.

8.4 Rehabilitation The pipeline will be rehabilitated and revegetated with local species once the pipeline is no longer required in accordance with Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) requirements.

Rehabilitation is guided by the following principles:  Ensure that vegetation clearing is kept to a minimum;  Collect and correctly stockpile vegetative material and available topsoil for later use at selected sites;  Strip topsoil for immediate re-use on prepared surfaces where possible;  Progressively rehabilitate completed areas as soon as practicable;  Only use local native plant species for seeding; and  Undertake decommissioning and closure of the site to industry leading practice principles and to statutory requirements.

To assist with ongoing review of the rehabilitation and environmental management at the Rose Dam North project, Norton will submit an Annual Environmental Report (AER) to DMIRS in March each year.

8.5 Contingencies 8.5.1 Hypersaline spill In an event of a hypersaline spill, bunding will assist to contain the spill and the isolation valves will be turned on by the pipeline inspector. Repairs will be carried out on the pipeline and any bunding that may have been damaged will be reconstructed to standard by the service crew. Earthmoving equipment will be used by the service crew to remove contaminated soil. Soil sampling will be carried out by the Environment Department to assess the extent of the contamination. Reports provided

in accordance with Section 72 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . Rehabilitation of the affected area will be carried out by Environmental Department if required.

8.5.2 Hydrocarbon Spill In an event of a hydrocarbon spill the source will be stopped immediately and the spill will be contained with additional bunding from the spill kit that will be in the vicinity. All personnel are responsible for containing a spill. Any contaminated soil will be removed and disposed of appropriately by the service crew. Soil and water sampling will be carried out by the Environment Department to assess the extent of the contamination. Reports provided in accordance with Section 72 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . Rehabilitation of the affected area will be carried out by Environmental Department if required.

Norton Gold Field’s Waste Management Plan and Hydrocarbon Procedure specifies that:

 Oil rags and drums will be disposed in specific solid-only hydrocarbon waste bins.  Oil filters will be drained and place in specific oil filter bins. Liquid Hydrocarbons will be pumped to waste oil tanks around site.  Oily water collected in sumps/bunds will be vacuumed by appropriate contractor and disposed of.  All hydrocarbon bins will be collected by a waste oil disposal contractor.  Small hydrocarbon spills will be cleaned with a hydrocarbon spill kit; larger spills require the spill material to be moved and treated on one of Norton's licenced bioremediation pads.

8.5.3 Dewatering To ensure the pit volume is not exceeded, monthly water flow metre readings of Rose Dam South and Rose East pits will be collected by the pipeline service crew. In addition, surveyors will measure the water levels in Rose East and Rose Dam South pits on a monthly basis to ensure the water holding capacity is not exceeded. The Environment Department will check this data on a monthly basis and examine any inconsistencies or unusual readings.

When dewatering volumes exceed the allowed amount, relevant authorities will be notified by the Environmental Department and pumping volumes will be reduced to prevent exceedance of the allowed limit.

8.6 Records The records that are maintained at Paddington to ensure systems, practices and procedures are in place are listed below:

 Groundwater well licence reports;  Groundwater Operating Procedure;  Pipeline inspection log book;  Flow meter log book;  Groundwater monitoring database;  Environmental Incident report form;  Environmental Incident log book; and  Shift logs.

8.7 Management Responsibilities Management responsibilities are detailed below to ensure the Environmental Management System (EMS) is established, implemented and maintained throughout the operation, these are in line with Paddington’s Environment and Community Policy, attached as Appendix 9.

8.7.1 Chief Operations Officer  Provides resources to implement maintain and improve the EMS; and  Appoints and supports the HSE Manager who is responsible for the EMS.

8.7.2 Open Pit Manager and Superintendent  Ensures that sufficient personnel and resources have been engaged to implement the plans and procedures within the EMS as applicable to the Rose Dam North operation.

8.7.3 Environmental and Community Superintendent  Ensures that the EMS is established, implemented, reviewed and maintained throughout the year in accordance with progress and changes that occur; and

8.7.4 Operators  Carries out relevant requirements of the EMS such as the plans and procedures to aim for a minimal incident operation;  Reports all environmental incidents and opportunities for improvement on the current practices; and  Report and record all carried out inspections.

8.8 Competence, Training and Awareness  All of the workforce, both Paddington staff and contractors, are given a wide ranging safety, occupational health and environmental management induction on arrival at the site;

 Pipeline inspectors are trained on the Dewatering Pipeline Procedure to ensure inspectors have a full understanding of their responsibilities;  Water cart operators are trained on the Dust Suppression Procedure (attached as Appendix 6) to ensure minimum impact on the vegetation; and  Continuous staff training will involve environmental input at “tool-box” meetings and specific environmental courses as required. 8.9 Communication Daily meeting with Department Managers are held to ensure communications are effectively passed through the system. In addition all policies and procedures are available to all personnel through the Environmental Department. Weekly meetings are conducted with the Technical Services Department to discuss any matter that may need addressing.

9.0 CONSULTATION Table 11 - Consultation Register. Organisation/ Contact Initial Topic Discussed Outcome Individual Person Contact

Phone call to Fiona Sharpe at Department of DWER office to Advised appropriate Water and Fiona discuss Rose Dam 8/8/2020 application required Environment Sharpe North dewatering for licence Regulation project application process

10.0 COMMITMENTS Norton’s Paddington Operations has made a number of specific commitments within this works approval and the previous licence application. See page numbers to reference back to relevant page/s:

Table 12 - Summary of Commitments. Page Issue Commitment Number - Monthly water volumes will be undertaken during dewatering Water Monitoring 36 - Annual water quality will be undertaken during dewatering - 12 hour pipeline monitoring will occur while dewatering - V-drain and pipeline bunding is maintained Hypersaline Spill - Monthly water level monitoring within Rose Dam 36 Control South pit and Rose East pit - Report all incidents internally and externally as required by Section 72 of EP Act - The pipeline will be rehabilitated and revegetated with local species once the pipeline is no longer Rehabilitation 36 required in accordance with Department of Mines and Petroleum requirements - Hydrocarbons not within fuel tanks for engines will be stored in bunded areas - Hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon contaminated Hydrocarbons 36 material will be collected and sent offsite for treatment and disposal - Spill kits will be available near each machine - Dust generating activities will be monitored to ensure that vegetation and workers are not impacted - Dust generating equipment will be assessed and a range of measures implemented including water Dust carts, restricting access, increased wind breaks, 33 change to nozzle parameters - Any action being implemented will be reviewed to ensure that it is (a) effective and (b) not having other adverse impacts - Operations will adhere to Environmental Protection Noise 33 (Noise) Regulations 1997

These commitments will ensure the project is managed in an environmentally sound manner, consistent with the statutory requirements, the company’s objectives and conditions imposed by DWER.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Reports, (2020). Accessed 03/09/2020. https://espatial.dplh.wa.gov.au/AHIS/index.html?viewer=AHIS

AQ2 (2020), Dewatering Requirements for Rose Dam North Pit. Memo prepared for Norton Gold Fields Pty Limited, June 2020.

Botanica Consulting (2020). Rose Dam North Reconnaissance Flora/Vegetation and Fauna Survey. Prepared for Norton Gold Fields Pty Ltd. August 2020. Version 1.

O’Connor, RE (2019), Aboriginal Heritage Surveys of Rose Dam South, Tuart, Racetrack and Royal Standard/Golden Funnel Project Areas . Report commissioned for Norton Gold Fields Pty Ltd, June 2019.

Parker, RT and Corsini, SJ (1998), Site Identification Initiative at Plutonic Operations Limited’s Credo Joint Venture. Prepared for Plutonic Resources Pty Ltd on bhalf of Australia Interaction Consultants, March 1998.

PARLIAMENT, OWA (2007), Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 . Western Australia: Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Swager, CP Witt, WK Griffin, TJ Wyche, S Ahmat, AL Hunter, M and McGoldrick, PJ (1990), Geology of the late Archaean Kalgoorlie terrane - an explanatory note : Western Australia Geological Survey, Report 48, p26.

Tille, P J. (2006), Soil-landscapes of Western Australia's rangelands and arid interior. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Perth. Report 313.

Memo

To Company Norton Gold Fields – Paddington Operations

From Job No. 234-E2

Date 29th June 2020 Doc No. 007a

Subject Dewatering Requirements for Rose Dam North Pit

Hi Jess,

We are pleased to present our assessment of dewatering requirements related to the proposed cutback and deepening of the existing Rose Dam North pit and proposed new adjacent pit. The dewatering assessment is required to confirm dewatering requirements (for internal Norton water management purposes) and confirm that total dewatering from all of the Rose Dam pits can be accommodated within current GWL abstraction limits.

This brief report includes a description of the integrated pit water balance and groundwater flow modelling approach used, the results of pit inflow predictions, an outline of the recommended dewatering strategy and discussion of the likely environmental impacts of dewatering.

1. SUMMARY OF KEY OUTCOMES The key outcomes of this assessment are:

 Historical pumping of the Rose Dam open pits has shown a strong hydraulic linkage between those pits which have been mined into the same palaeochannel aquifer system.

 Future dewatering rates at the Rose Dam North pits are dependent on the dewatering/mining activities at adjacent pits, specifically the RTM and RDS pits.

 If the RTM/RDS pits are being pumped at the same time as Rose Dam North is dewatered, the dewatering rates out of Rose Dam North will be lower (as dewatering of RTM/RDS will intercept groundwater throughflow from the south). If RTM/RDS have been mined out and water levels have recovered, the flooded pits will act as a recharge boundary.

 Modelled dewatering rates from Rose Dam North are:

o around 41L/s for Stage 1 and 21L/s for Stage 2, if RTM/RDS are flooded

o around 17L/s for Stage 1 and 8L/s for Stage 2, if RTM/RDS are also being dewatered  In the earlier (2019) assessment of inflow into the RTM/RDS pits, dewatering rates were predicted to be 35-40L/s for those two pits.

 Dewatering of the Rose Dam North pits will have little to no impact on the local environment, other than drawdown in the local, hypersaline aquifers.

2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Mining Norton Gold Fields are currently pumping the existing RTM Pit in preparation for cut-back mining. The October 2019 mine plan was to pump the RTM pit dry with 3 months, followed by a 4-month mining programme to extend and deepen (by 6m) the RTM Pit. This was then to be followed by

F:\234\Task E - Rose Pits\3.C&R\Reports\007a.docx 1

mining of the adjacent RDS Pit. However, the mine plan was changed and the RDS pit is currently being mined first, with the pit being extended in the future to include the RTM pit. Mining is expected to take around year. Water is currently being pumped from the two RTM pits is to be discharged into Rose East Pit with Violet Pit to be used as a contingency - the Rose East and Violet pits are already identified as dewatering discharge points on Licence L8327/2008/2.

Thereafter, it is planned to re-mine the Rose Dam North pit (to an extended depth of 65m below surface – Stage 1), together with an adjacent shallow (60m deep – Stage 2) sub-pit, with water being discharged to the RTM?RDS pit.

Figure 1 (attached) shows the location of the various pits.

2.2 Hydrogeology 2.2.1 Geology Basement geology in the Rose Dam area comprises northerly trending, east dipping volcanics of the Archean aged Bent Tree Basalt and Victorious Basalt, with a series of linear feldspar porphyry intrusives on the northern and eastern margin of the mine area. These basement rocks have been incised by a Tertiary aged and sediment infilled paleochannel, which is a tributary paleochannel to the regional Roe Paleodrainage System. The paleochannel sediments include basal sands and gravels, overlain by clays and clayey sands and silts.

2.2.2 Conceptual Hydrogeological Model The conceptual hydrogeological model for the Rose Dam North Pits is as follows:

 Significant aquifer associated with the Rose Dam paleochannel system.

 Secondary aquifer associated with weathered (transition zone) basalts at the base of the paleochannel.

 Minor aquifers (to aquicludes) associated with the basement rocks surrounding and underlaying the main aquifers.

 Little to no local rainfall recharge and hypersaline groundwater quality.

 Regional groundwater flow is generally to the east towards major groundwater discharge zones at/near Lake Yindargooda. Pre-mining groundwater flow within the paleochannel aquifer would have been from the west and southwest and to the northeast and then east. However, groundwater flows have been (and will continue to be) influenced by mining and dewatering.

Given the proximity of the Rose Dm North, RTM, RDS and Rose East Pits to one another and the conceptual hydrogeological model, there will be significant hydraulic connection between the pits (along the paleochannel) and dewatering activities at one pit is likely to impact water levels at the other pits.

2.2.3 Recent Aquifer Response to Pumping During 2019 the Rose Dam pit (RTM) was pumped initially to the Mill, but from November 2019 onwards, water was pumped to the Rose East open pit, as the quality was more saline than initial expected. There was minor pumping during January 2020 and no pumping from February to April 2020. Pumping resumed on 23 May 2020, from the Rose Dam South pit, to Rose East. Pumping rates are shown in Table 1.

F:\234\Task E - Rose Pits\3.C&R\Reports\007a.docx 2

Table 1: RTM Dewatering Rates

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Pumping Rate 27 29 22 22 1 0 2 0 0 123 (L/s)

During the period of limited pumping (Dec 2019 – April 2020), the following water level changes were observed (Figure 2):

 Rose Dam North pit – water levels declined by 2.5m from September 2019 to the end March 2020, likely in response to the earlier 2019 pumping.

 RTM pit – water levels recovered 15.88m from January to 23 May when little to no pumping occurred. Since pumping started in May 2020, water levels have dropped 2.04m.

 Rose East – no data are available for those periods when there was pumping to this pit (from RTM). However, pit water levels are currently marginally lower than in mid-2019.

Figure 2: Water Level Response to Pumping

Although the data set is not complete, the recorded changes in water levels at the different pits confirms hydraulic connection between all of these pits, excavated into the same palaeochannel aquifer system.

3. GROUNDWATER (MINE INFLOW) MODELLING 3.1 General Modelling Approach An analytical pit inflow modelling approach was adopted for this assessment – this is the same approach as AQ2’s earlier evaluation of dewatering of the RTM/RDS pits (AQ2, 2019). The model used is a simple analytical groundwater flow model based on the Dupuit-Forcheimer and Theim Equations for groundwater flow to a large diameter well. Key steps in the model are as follows:

F:\234\Task E - Rose Pits\3.C&R\Reports\007a.docx 3

 The mine, or various sections of the mine, is represented by a large diameter well (or series of large diameter “equivalent wells”) of similar base area and depth at various time steps, representing various stages of mine development.

 Average aquifer parameters are applied to the equivalent well(s).

 The model is used to calculate the pumping rate required to maintain pumping water levels in each equivalent well at or below the base of each well (mine base) at the end of each time step. This is the analogue equivalent of groundwater inflow to a dewatered mine.

The model makes a number of other simplifying assumptions, including lumped (bulk average) aquifer parameters and radial flow from an aquifer of infinite areal extent. As such, it cannot be considered as an exact model, however, the model does allow for good approximations of bulk mine inflows.

It is noted that this analytical modelling approach has been applied to numerous gold mines (open pit and underground) throughout Australia and internationally, and has been found to provide reliable predictions of bulk mine inflows, based on corroboration with numerical models and historical performance. However, there are always inherent constraints to any modelling (due to limited aquifer distribution data) and it is generally considered that predicted dewatering requirements should be considered (at best) to be at 75% confidence level. That is, actual dewatering requirements could be plus or minus 25%.

3.2 Specific Modelling Approach The RDS/RTM model developed in 2019 was calibrated against available 2019 pumping data from the RTM Pit lake. It had been hoped that the existing model could be validated by ongoing pumping and water level declines during 2020 (and recalibrated as required), but the limited pumping from December 2019 to April 2020, has meant this was not possible. As a result, the following phased approach to the modelling was adopted:

 Develop the Rose Dam North model based on the previously calibrated RTM model.

 Phase 1 – Prediction of mine inflows to the Stage 1 Rose Dam North Pit, once the pit lake has been pumped dry.

 Phase 2 – Prediction of mine inflows to the Stage 2 Rose Dam North pits, assuming that the Stage 1 pit is no longer pumped.

In all cases, the aquifer system was assumed to be unconfined. In practice, the aquifer system will be semi-confined, semi-unconfined and unconfined at various depths. However, our experience shows that adopting an unconfined aquifer model produces the most reliable predictions.

As outlined in Section 1.2.2 and 1.2.3, the existing flooded Rose Dam North, RTM and Rose East Pits are all in hydraulic connection. As a result, the channel can almost be considered as a “bathtub” where pumping from different locations results in dewatering of the same bathtub. Dewatering of the Rose Dam North pit, will be influenced by the water levels in the other pits and by the location of discharge points. For example, any concurrent pumping of Rose Dam North together with RTM/RDS, will reduce pumping rates necessary (over the long term) from Rose Dam North.

To cover various possibilities, two scenarios were predicted (as outlined in Section 3.4 below).

3.3 Model Setup for Rose Dam North The pit inflow model used for the 2019 RTM modelling, was set-up to for the expected conditions at Rose Dam North, namely:

 Stage 1 – 790m long x 345m wide x 65m depth

 Stage 2 – 355m long x 255m wide x 55m depth

F:\234\Task E - Rose Pits\3.C&R\Reports\007a.docx 4

Key features of the model set up are:

 The water levels in the pit, as of 28 March 2020, are 330.94mRL (i.e. 34m below surface).

 The model extends from the average natural surface (365mRL) down to the currently planned depths of the final pit (290mRL), which is also the base of the permeable aquifer zone.

 The equivalent well radius for both stages has been set as the width of the base of the palaeochannel below the water table, where dewatering will be required, of approximately 70m radius.

 While the bulk of the pit inflows will come from the paleochannel aquifer, a bulk aquifer is assumed, with radial flow to the pits.

 The flooded RTM and RDS Pits will act as recharge boundaries and will be simulated as constant head recharge sources, thus limiting the radius of influence of pumping to 980m in the southerly half of the model.

 The bulk aquifer permeability was set at 3m/d and an unconfined aquifer storativity (specific yield) set at 1%, based on the 2019 calibrated model. These bulk aquifer parameters average a situation where there is a highly permeable basal sand and overlying clays, cut into the bedrock. In practice, the permeability of the main aquifer (the basal palaeochannel sands) is likely to be up to an order of magnitude higher and the permeability of the footwall and hanging wall basement rocks is likely to be up to two orders of magnitude lower. However, the calibrated bulk parameters are suitable for prediction of future mine inflows. Similarly, the 1% specific yield is a bulk value, for values that could vary from 10% in the palaeochannel sands to 0.01% in fresh bedrock.

 Dewatering for the Stage 1 pit will be for a 8 month period and 4 months for Stage 2.

3.4 Predicted Inflows Inflows have been predicted for two different scenarios:

 Scenario 1: A case where the RTM/RDS pits have been mined out and the pits have recovered (i.e. full of water) – in this case the RTM/RDS pits act as a recharge boundary.

 Scenario 2: A case where the RTM and RDS pits are being actively mined, thus capturing inflow from the south that would have been flowing to the Rose Dam North dewatering.

3.4.1 Predicted – Stage 1 Rose Dam North Pit The model was run to predict inflows to the base of the new pit, once the pit lake had been pumped out. The predicted groundwater inflows (Appendix A for model data) are:

 Scenario 1 - 29L/s, with steady-state inflow from the flooded pits to the south and transient inflow from the open palaeochannel to the north-east.

 Scenario 2 – 12L/s, with very low inflow from the aquifer to the south (due to active dewatering of those pits) and transient inflow from the open palaeochannel to the north- east.

3.4.2 Predicted Inflows – Stage 2 Rose Dam Pit Once Stage 1 has been mined to full depth, the smaller Stage 2 pit will be mined – it is assumed that all dewatering of the Stage 1 pit will stop at the end of mining. The predicted groundwater inflows (Appendix A for model data) are:

 Scenario 1 - 21L/s, with steady-state inflow from the flooded pits to the south and transient inflow from the open palaeochannel to the north-east.

 Scenario 2 – 8L/s, with very low inflow from the aquifer to the south (due to active dewatering of those pits) and transient inflow from the open palaeochannel to the north-east.

F:\234\Task E - Rose Pits\3.C&R\Reports\007a.docx 5

These flows are similar to the larger Stage 1 pit, as the aquifer zone providing inflow to two pits is the same.

3.5 Cumulative Palaeochannel Dewatering Volumes It is clear that the pits along the palaeochannel are all in hydraulic connection. The modelling has shown that the inflows into the pits are influenced by mining/dewatering activities at the other pits. For example, pumping rates out of the Rose Dam North pit will be reduced, if active dewatering is taking place from the RTM/RDS pits.

Dewatering rates for the Rose Dam North pit (when no pumping is taking place from RTM/RDS) will be similar to those modelled previously for the dewatering of the RTM/RDS pit (35 – 40L/s, AQ2, 2019). This is not unexpected, as the pits will all have been developed into the same aquifer system. As a result, if both RTM/RDS and Rose Dam North were to be pumped at the same time, the cumulative dewatering rate from both pits would only increase by 8-12L/s.

The total volume of water that would be pumped from the Rose Dam North open pits over their life, would include current storage in the pit (465,155kL) and groundwater inflow (with the rate and volume dependant on whether RTM/RDS is also being dewatered at the same time). Based on a 1 year mine plan (for both Stages), the volume of water pumped would be:

 Scenario 1: Zero pumping from RTM//RDS, while at Rose Dam North there would be 465,155kL of storage removal and 1,067,904kL of inflow dewatering over the 12-month mining period.

 Scenario 2: 1,244,160kL pumping from RTM//RDS, while at Rose Dam North there would be 465,155kL of storage removal and 451,008L of inflow dewatering over the 12-month mining period.

Key assumptions in the water balance are that the Rose Dam North pit lake will be pumped (at whatever rate necessary) to empty the pit in 3 months, cutback mining will commence as soon as the pit lake is pumped dry and will take 8 months to complete, followed by Stage 2 mining which takes a further 4 months to complete.

Table 2: Pumping Rates (kL) Over the 12-month Mine Life

RTM/RDS RDN Storage RDN Inflow 12-month

dewatering removal pumping Total

Scenario 1 0 465,155 1,067,904 1,533,059

Scenario 2 1,244,160 465,155 451,008 2,160,323

The major difference between these two scenarios is the low pumping rate necessary to dewater the Stage 2 pit (21L/s), in comparison the 40L/s necessary to keep the larger RDS/RTM pits dry. Clearly if RTM/RDS is not being dewatered and the water from Rose Dam North is being pumped to the RDS pit, the lower rate (1,533,059kL/annum) applies.

4. DEWATERING STRATEGY Given that the main aquifer is a paleochannel, it would be possible to achieve some advanced dewatering using perimeter dewatering bores. However, this would require field investigations (drilling and test pumping) to confirm and install such a dewatering system and there would be considerable time delays associated with DWER licensing and with the bore testing and installation programme.

However, even with ex-pit bores, there will still be residual groundwater inflows (not intercepted by dewatering bores) and there will also be some rainfall runoff to the pits. As such a sump pumping system with significant capacity will be required anyway.

F:\234\Task E - Rose Pits\3.C&R\Reports\007a.docx 6

Paddington Operations have extensive experience in the successful dewatering of pits using sump pumps and it recommended that this be adopted for Rose Dam North Pit dewatering.

5. IMPACTS OF DEWATERING PUMPING There will be no negative impacts on local groundwater or the environment, as:

 The principal impact of dewatering will the propagation of groundwater level drawdowns away from the pit. These will tend to be elongated along the main palaeochannel aquifer.

 Drawdowns will not impact on any other groundwater users. The most notable impact could be a lowering of pit lake levels in nearby pits.

 The groundwater is hypersaline and does not support any groundwater dependent flora or fauna.

We trust this brief report is enough for your immediate needs. If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards

Attached: -Figure 1 -Appendix A

Author: JLJ (29/06/2020) Reviewed: JWH (29/06/2020)

F:\234\Task E - Rose Pits\3.C&R\Reports\007a.docx 7 Rose Dam North

Paleochannel Aquifer

RTM

RDS

Rose East

Violet

Location Plan - Rose Dam Pits FIGURE 1 F:\234\Task E - Rose Pits\3.C&R\Reports|007a Figure1.pdf

Appendix A

Model Data

ROSE DAM NORTH - STAGE 1

Pit Design ParametersStage 1 Pit (Main) Length (max) 790 m RL Width (max) 345 m Surface 362 RL - 365 RL Mine Bottom 300 RL Depth (Max) 65 m RL Batter angle 50 - 60 deg 365 Berm width 6.0 m Berm Interval 10 m - 15 m 330

Aquifer base at (mRL) 2905 Ho (m) 35 Sy 0.01 300 Maximum r0 (m) 980

Transient Steady State 295 k (m/d) = 2.8 2.8 ho (m) = 35 35 hw (m) = 5 5 rw (m) = 70 70 t (days) = 240 240 Sy= 0.010 0.010 ro (m) = 2300 980 Q (kL/d) = 3023 4000 Q (L/s) = 35.0 46.3 Total Inflow L/s 41 ROSE DAM NORTH - STAGE 2

Pit Design Parameters Stage 2 Pit Length (max) 355 m Width (max) 255 m Surface 362 RL - 365 RL RL Mine Bottom 305 RL Depth (Max) 60 m Batter angle 50 - 60 deg Berm width 6.0 m RL Berm Interval 10 m - 15 m 355

330

Aquifer base at (mRL) 305 Ho (m) 30 Sy 0.01 Maximum r0 (m) 780 305

Transient Steady State k (m/d) = 2.8 2.8 300 ho (m) = 25 25 hw (m) = 5 5 rw (m) = 70 70 t (days) = 360 360 Sy= 0.010 0.010 ro (m) = 2381 780 Q (kL/d) = 1497 2190 Q (L/s) = 17 25 Total Inflow L/s 21

Page 1 of 6 File No: RF6423- 02~2 Instrument No. GWL151865(12)

LICENCE TO TAKE WATER Granted by the Minister under section 5C of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914

Licensee(s) Paddington Gold Pty Limited

Description of Water Goldfields Annual Water 2,800,000kL Resource Palaeochannel - Fractured Rock Entitlement

Location of Water Source L24/144 L24/164 L24/19 L24/63 M16/58 M24/101 M24/102 M24/155 M24/165 M24/166 M24/182 M24/223 M24/227 M24/236 M24/265 M24/304 M24/393 M24/451 M24/79 M24/838 M26/445

Authorised Activities Taking of water for Location of Activity Dewatering for mining purposes L24/196

L24/34

L26/247

M16/106

M16/48

M16/58

M16/86

M24/101

M24/102

M24/155

M24/165

M24/180

M24/181

M24/182

This Licence is granted subject to the Rights in Water and Irrigation Regulations 2000. Page 2 of 6 File No: RF6423- 02~2 Instrument No. GWL151865(12)

LICENCE TO TAKE WATER Granted by the Minister under section 5C of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914

M24/183

M24/20

M24/223

M24/227

M24/236

M24/265

M24/266

M24/304

M24/393

M24/446

M24/447

M24/451

M24/708

M24/79

M24/796

M24/81

M24/82

M24/838

M26/446

M26/629

Dust Suppression for mining purposes L24/196

L24/34

L26/247

M16/106

M16/48

M16/58

M16/86

M24/101

M24/102

This Licence is granted subject to the Rights in Water and Irrigation Regulations 2000. Page 3 of 6 File No: RF6423- 02~2 Instrument No. GWL151865(12)

LICENCE TO TAKE WATER Granted by the Minister under section 5C of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914

M24/155

M24/165

M24/180

M24/181

M24/182

M24/183

M24/20

M24/223

M24/227

M24/236

M24/265

M24/266

M24/304

M24/393

M24/446

M24/447

M24/451

M24/708

M24/79

M24/796

M24/81

M24/82

M24/838

M26/446

M26/629

Earthwork and construction purposes L24/196

L24/34

L26/247

M16/106

This Licence is granted subject to the Rights in Water and Irrigation Regulations 2000. Page 4 of 6 File No: RF6423- 02~2 Instrument No. GWL151865(12)

LICENCE TO TAKE WATER Granted by the Minister under section 5C of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914

M16/48

M16/58

M16/86

M24/101

M24/102

M24/155

M24/165

M24/180

M24/181

M24/182

M24/183

M24/20

M24/223

M24/227

M24/236

M24/265

M24/266

M24/304

M24/393

M24/446

M24/447

M24/451

M24/708

M24/79

M24/796

M24/81

M24/82

M24/838

M26/446

This Licence is granted subject to the Rights in Water and Irrigation Regulations 2000. Page 5 of 6 File No: RF6423- 02~2 Instrument No. GWL151865(12)

LICENCE TO TAKE WATER Granted by the Minister under section 5C of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914

M26/629

Mineral ore processing and other L24/196 mining purposes L24/34

L26/247

M16/106

M16/48

M16/58

M16/86

M24/101

M24/102

M24/155

M24/165

M24/180

M24/181

M24/182

M24/183

M24/20

M24/223

M24/227

M24/236

M24/265

M24/266

M24/304

M24/393

M24/446

M24/447

M24/451

M24/708

M24/79

This Licence is granted subject to the Rights in Water and Irrigation Regulations 2000. Page 6 of 6 File No: RF6423- 02~2 Instrument No. GWL151865(12)

LICENCE TO TAKE WATER Granted by the Minister under section 5C of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914

M24/796

M24/81

M24/82

M24/838

M26/446

M26/629

Duration of Licence From 6 August 2020 to 10 October 2026

This Licence is subject to the following terms, conditions and restrictions:

1. The annual water year for water taken under this licence is defined as 1 January to 31 December.

2. The licensee shall comply with the commitments of the operating strategy Norton Gold Fields Limited - Paddington Operations Groundwater Operating Strategy, as prepared by licensee and approved by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation on 19/05/2020 including any modifications to the commitments as approved during the term of the licence.

3. All monitoring and reporting shall be carried out in accordance with Operational Policy 5.12 'Hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence'.

4. Every 12 Months the licensee shall provide to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation a Groundwater Monitoring Summary for the preceding water year. The first report is due 31/03/2021.

5. Every 3 Years the licensee shall provide to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation a Groundwater Monitoring Review. The first report is due 31/03/2022. A Groundwater Monitoring Summary need not be submitted in a year in which a Groundwater Monitoring Review is due. End of terms, conditions and restrictions

This Licence is granted subject to the Rights in Water and Irrigation Regulations 2000.

Rose Dam North Reconnaissance Flora/ Vegetation and Fauna Survey Prepared for Norton Gold Fields Pty Ltd

August 2020 Version 1

Prepared by: Botanica Consulting Pty Ltd

Disclaimer This document and its contents are to be treated as confidential and are published in accordance with and subject to an agreement between Botanica Consulting (BC) and the client for whom it has been prepared and is restricted to those issues that have been raised by the client in its engagement of BC. Neither this document nor its contents may be referred to or quoted in any manner (report or other document) nor reproduced in part or whole by electronic, mechanical or chemical means, including photocopying, recording or any information storage system, without the express written approval of the client and/or BC.

This document and its contents have been prepared utilising the standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by Environmental Scientists in the preparation of such documents. All material presented in this document is published in good faith and is believed to be accurate at the time of writing. Any person or organisation who relies on or uses the document and its contents for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by BC and the client without primarily obtaining the prior written consent of BC, does so entirely at their own risk. BC denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be endured as a consequence of relying on this document and its contents for any purpose other than that agreed with the client.

Quality Assurance An internal quality review process has been implemented to each project task undertaken by BC. Each document and its contents are carefully reviewed by core members of the Consultancy team and signed off at Director Level prior to issue to the client. Draft documents are submitted to the client for comment and acceptance prior to final production.

Document Job Number: 2020/91

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Approved by:

Contents Page No. Executive Summary 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Objectives 1 2 Regional Biophysical Environment 3 2.1 Regional Environment 3 2.2 Land Use 3 2.3 Soils and Landscape Systems 4 2.4 Regional Vegetation 6 2.5 Conservation Values 7 2.6 Climate 8 2.7 Hydrology 9 3 Survey Methodology 11 3.1 Desktop Assessment 11 3.2 Field Assessment 12 3.2.1 Flora Assessment 12 3.2.2 Fauna Assessment 12 3.2.3 Scientific licences 13 3.3 Survey limitations and constraints 13 4 Results 15 4.1 Desktop Assessment 15 4.1.1 Flora 15 4.1.2 Vegetation 18 4.1.3 Fauna 20 4.1.4 Conservation Areas 23 4.2 Field Assessment 25 4.2.1 Flora 25 4.2.2 Vegetation Communities 25 4.2.3 Vegetation Condition 29 4.2.4 Significant Vegetation 31 4.2.5 Fauna Habitat 31 4.2.6 Significant Fauna 34 4.3 Matters of National Environmental Significance 34 4.3.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 34 4.4 Matters of State Environmental Significance 35 4.4.1 Environmental Protection Act WA 1986 35 4.4.2 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 35 4.5 Native Vegetation Clearing Principles 36 5 Bibliography 38 Appendix 1: Conservation Ratings BC Act and EPBC Act 40 Appendix 2: Significant Flora Likelihood Assessment 44 Appendix 3: Vegetation Condition Rating 46 Appendix 4: List of species identified within each vegetation type 47

Tables Table 2-1: Soil Landscape Systems within the survey area ...... 4 Table 2-2: Potential terrestrial GDE’s ...... 9 Table 3-1: Scientific Licences of Botanica Staff coordinating the flora survey ...... 13 Table 3-2: Limitations and constraints associated with the survey ...... 14 Table 4-1: Potentially occurring Declared Plants ...... 15 Table 4-2: Pre-European Vegetation Associations within the survey area ...... 18 Table 4-3: Likelihood of Occurrence – Fauna Species of Conservation Significance ...... 21 Table 4-4: Vegetation Community Descriptions and Extent ...... 26 Table 4-5: Vegetation Condition within the survey area ...... 29 Table 4-6: Main Terrestrial Fauna Habitats within the survey area ...... 32 Table 4-7: Assessment of development within the survey area against native vegetation clearing principles ...... 36

Graphs Graph 2-1: Average and recent rainfall and average temperature data of Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport (#12038)(BoM, 2020) ...... 8

Figures Figure 1-1: Regional map of the survey area...... 2 Figure 2-1: Map of Soil Landscape Systems within the survey area ...... 5 Figure 2-2: Surface Hydrology of the survey area ...... 10 Figure 4-1: DBCA records of significant flora...... 17 Figure 4-2: Pre-European Vegetation Associations within the survey area ...... 19 Figure 4-3: Conservation Areas ...... 24 Figure 4-4: Vegetation communities ...... 28 Figure 4-5: Vegetation Condition within the survey area ...... 30 Figure 4-6: Main Terrestrial Fauna Habitats within the survey area ...... 33

Glossary Acronym Description BAM Act Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007, WA Government. BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, WA Government. Botanica Botanica Consulting Pty Ltd. BoM Bureau of Meteorology. DAFWA Department of Agriculture and Food (now DPIRD), WA Government. Department of the Agriculture, Water and Environment (formerly known as DAWE DotEE), Australian Government. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (formerly DPaW), DBCA WA Government. DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (now DBCA), WA Government. DER Department of Environment Regulation (now DWER), WA Government. Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (formerly DMP), WA DMIRS Government Department of the Environment and Energy (now known as DAWE), DotEE Australian Government. DoW Department of Water (now DWER), WA Government. DPaW Department of Parks and Wildlife (now DBCA), WA Government. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, WA DPIRD Government Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (formerly EPA, DER and DWER DoW), WA Government EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986, WA Government. Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004, EP Regulations WA Government. EPA Environmental Protection Authority, WA Government. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Australian EPBC Act Government. ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area. Ha Hectare (10,000 square meters). IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources – IUCN commonly known as the World Conservation Union. JAMBA Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement 1981. Km Kilometer (1,000 meters). NVIS National Vegetation Information System. PEC Priority Ecological Community. TEC Threatened Ecological Community. WA Western Australia. WAHERB Western Australian Herbarium. WAM Western Australian Museum, WA Government.

Executive Summary Botanica Consulting (Botanica) was commissioned by Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd (Norton) to undertake a reconnaissance flora/ vegetation and fauna survey of the Rose Dam North Project (referred to as the ‘survey area’) The survey area occupies 721.1 ha and is located approximately 30 km north-west of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Western Australia. The survey area is located within mining tenements M 24/451, M 24/165, M 24/229 and M 24/182 and within the Black Flag Station Pastoral Lease (DP27467). The survey is required to inform a Native Vegetation Clearing Permit (NVCP) application and mining proposal with regards to the development of the Rose Dam North Project. The survey was conducted on the 29th May and 21st June 2020, with the area traversed on foot and 4WD by two Botanica staff members.

Prior to the field survey, a desktop assessment was undertaken to identify significant flora, fauna and ecological communities potentially occurring within the survey area.

The survey area lies within the Eastern Goldfields (COO3) subregion of the Coolgardie Bioregion. Vegetation consists of Mallees, Acacia thickets and shrub-heaths on sandplains, with diverse Eucalyptus woodlands occurring around salt lakes, on ranges, and in valleys.

The desktop assessment identified 30 significant flora species recorded within a 40 km radius of the survey area. These consist of four Threatened, eight Priority 1, four Priority 2, ten Priority 3 and four Priority 4 taxa. The assessment did not identify any significant flora with a high likelihood of occurrence in the survey area. There were 10 taxa assessed as possibly occurring in the survey area, consisting of six Priority 1, three Priority 3 and one Priority 4 taxa.

The desktop assessment identified eight fauna species of conservation significance as previously being recorded in the general area, consisting of six Threatened species, one Priority 1 species and migratory bird species.

The Protected Matters search did not identify any Threatened Ecological Communities recorded within 40 km of the survey area. Analysis of the Priority Ecological Communities within the Eastern Goldfields subregion did not identify any significant vegetation assemblages as likely or possibly occurring within the survey area. Two significant fauna species were assessed as potentially occurring in the survey area: Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) (VU) and the Inland Hairstreak Butterfly (Jalmenus aridus) (P1).

There are no proposed or vested Conservation Reserve located within the survey area.

There are no DBCA managed or interest land located within the survey area.

There are no Environmentally Sensitive Areas located within the survey area.

There are no Nationally Important or RAMSAR wetlands located within the survey area.

The closest significant environmental feature is the Bullock Holes Timber Reserve, which is DBCA-managed land located approximately 41 km east of the survey area.

The field survey identified 93 flora taxa within the survey area, representing 40 genera across 22 families. The most diverse genera were Eremophila (13 species) followed by Acacia (10

species) and Eucalyptus and Maireana (nine species). No introduced flora species were recorded within the survey area.

No Threatened or Priority flora species were recorded within the survey area.

No significant vegetation, including Threatened and Priority Ecological Communities, was identified within the survey area.

No evidence of significant fauna species were observed during the survey, including no evidence of Malleefowl nesting mounds or other activity.

Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

1 Introduction 1.1 Project Description Botanica Consulting (Botanica) was commissioned by Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. (Norton) to undertake a reconnaissance flora/ vegetation and fauna survey of the Rose Dam North Project (referred to as the ‘survey area’). The survey area occupies 721.1 ha and is located approximately 30 km north-west of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Western Australia (Figure 1-1Figure 1-1). The survey area is located within mining tenements M 24/451, M 24/165, M 24/229 and M 24/182 and within the Black Flag Station Pastoral Lease (DP27467). The survey was conducted on the 29th May and 21st June 2020, with the area traversed on foot and 4WD by two Botanica staff members. The survey is required to inform a Native Vegetation Clearing Permit (NVCP) application and mining proposal with regards to the development of the Rose Dam North Project.

1.2 Objectives The flora assessment was conducted in accordance with the requirements of a reconnaissance flora survey as defined in Technical Guidance - Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment – December 2016 (EPA, 2016a). The objectives of the assessment were to: • gather background information on flora and vegetation in the target area (literature review, database and map-based searches); • identify significant flora, vegetation and ecological communities and assess the potential sensitivity to impact; • conduct a field survey to verify / ground truth the desktop assessment findings; • undertake floristic community mapping to a scale appropriate for the bioregion and described according to the National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) structure and floristics; • undertake vegetation condition mapping; • assess the project area’s plant species diversity, density, composition, structure and weed cover, using NVIS classification system for vegetation description; • assess Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and indicate whether potential impacts on MNES as protected under the EPBC Act are likely to require referral of the project to the Commonwealth DAWE; and • determine the State legislative context of environmental aspects required for the assessment.

The fauna assessment was conducted in accordance with the requirements for a Level 1 terrestrial fauna survey as defined in Technical Guidance - Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment – December 2016 (EPA, 2016b). The objectives of the assessment were to: • Gather background information on fauna in the survey area (literature review, database and map-based searches); • Delineate and characterise the faunal assemblages and fauna habitats present in the survey area; and • Assess the likelihood of significant fauna occurring within the survey area.

Botanica Consulting 1 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 1-1: Regional map of the survey area

Botanica Consulting 2 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey 2 Regional Biophysical Environment 2.1 Regional Environment The survey area lies within the Eastern Goldfields (COO3) subregion of the Coolgardie Bioregion, as defined by the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA).However, as the survey site is located less than 1 km from the boundary of the Eastern Murchison subregion of the Murchison Bioregion, the characteristics of both subregions are described below.

The Eastern Goldfields subregion (5,102,428 ha) lies on the Yilgarn Craton's Eastern Goldfields Terrain, which is described as gently undulating plains with a subdued relief, interrupted in the west with low hills and ridges of Archaean greenstones and in the east by a horst of Proterozoic basic granulite. The underlying geology is of gneisses and granites eroded into a flat plane covered with tertiary soils and with scattered exposures of bedrock. Calcareous earths are the dominant soil group and cover much of the plains and greenstone areas. A series of large playa lakes in the western half are the remnants of an ancient major drainage line. (Cowan 2001a). The vegetation consists of Mallees, Acacia thickets and shrub-heaths on sandplains, with diverse Eucalyptus woodlands occurring around salt lakes, on ranges, and in valleys. Salt lake support dwarf shrublands of samphire. Woodlands and Dodonaea shrubland occur on basic granulites of the Fraser Range, and the area is rich in endemic Acacias (Cowan, 2001a).

The Eastern Murchison subregion (7,847,966 ha) comprises the northern parts of the craton’s Southern Cross and Eastern Goldfields Terrains and is characterised by internal drainage and extensive areas of elevated red desert sandplains with minimal dune development. Salt Lake systems are associated with the occluded paleodrainage system. Broad plains of red-brown soils and breakaways complexes as well as red sandplains are widespread. Vegetation is dominated by Mulga woodlands and is often rich in ephemerals, hummock grasslands, saltbush shrublands and Halosarcia shrublands (Cowan, 2001b).

2.2 Land Use The dominant land uses of the Eastern Goldfields subregion includes Unallocated Crown Land (UCL) and Crown reserves and pastoral grazing, with conservation areas and mining leases also present (Cowan, 2001a). The survey area is located within the Black Flag Station Pastoral Lease (DP27467).

The dominant land uses of the Eastern Murchison subregion include grazing native pastures (85.47%), unallocated crown reserves (11.34%), conservation (1.4%) and mining (1.79%) (Cowan, 2001b).

Botanica Consulting 3 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

2.3 Soils and Landscape Systems The survey area lies within the Kalgoorlie Province, located in the southern Goldfields between Paynes Find, Menzies, Southern Cross and Balladonia. The landscape consists of undulating plains (with some sandplains, hills and salt lakes) on the granitic rocks and greenstone of the Yilgarn Craton. Soils range from calcareous loamy earths and red loamy earths with some salt lake soils to red deep sands, yellow sandy earths, shallow loams and loamy duplexes. Vegetation communities are predominately Eucalypt woodlands with some acacia-casuarina thickets, mulga shrublands, halophytic shrublands and spinifex grasslands. The Kalgoorlie Province is further divided into six soil-landscape zones, with the survey area located within the Kambalda Zone (265). This zone is located in the south-eastern Goldfields between Menzies, Norseman and the Fraser Range and contains flat to undulating plains (with hills, ranges and some salt lakes and stony plains) on greenstone and granitic rocks of the Yilgarn Craton. Soils consist of calcareous loamy earths and red loamy earths with salt lakes soils and some redbrown hardpan shallow loams and red sandy duplexes. Vegetation includes red mallee, blackbutt-salmon gum-gimlet woodlands with mulga and halophytic shrublands and some spinifex grasslands (Tille, 2006). The Kambalda Zone is further divided into soil landscape systems, with the survey area located within two soil landscape systems, as shown in Table 2-1Table 2-1 and Figure 2-1Figure 2-1, in accordance with soil landscape system mapping data (Government of Western Australia, 2019). Table 2-1: Soil Landscape Systems within the survey area

Soil Landscape Extent within Description System survey area

Flat to undulating valley plains and pediments; some Mx40 197.0 ha (27.5%) rock outcrop Rocky ranges and hills of greenstones-basic igneous BB5 523.1 ha (72.5%) rocks

Botanica Consulting 4 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 2-1: Map of Soil Landscape Systems within the survey area

Botanica Consulting 5 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

2.4 Regional Vegetation The vegetation of the Kalgoorlie Province is described by Tille (2006) as woodlands of redwood (Eucalyptus transcontinentalis), red mallee (E. oleosa), Dundas blackbutt (E. dundasii), merrit (E. flocktoniae) and salmon gum (E. salmonophloia), found on undulating plains over granite. There are also some hummock grasslands with red mallee over spinifex (Triodia scariosa) and thickets of Acacia, Casuarina and Melaleuca spp. Plains on greenstone have woodlands of York gum (E. loxophleba), salmon gum and gimlet (E. salubris). The valley plains have woodlands of salmon gum, red mallee, Goldfields blackbutt (E. lesouefii), gimlet, York gum and morrel (E. longicornis). These sometimes have an understorey of saltbush (Atriplex spp.), pearl bluebush (Maireana sedifolia), sago bluebush (M. pyramidata) and Eremophila spp. There are areas of spinifex grasslands with red mallee, mallees (e.g. E. youngiana) and marble gum (E. gongylocarpa). Low woodlands of mulga (Acacia aneura) and black sheoak (Casuarina cristata) over bluebush and saltbush are also present. Apart from the bare salt lake surfaces, saline valley floors have shrublands of samphire (Halosarcia spp.) and Frankenia spp. in lower areas, shrublands of saltbush and bluebush on red deep sandy duplexes, and woodlands of salmon gum, merrit, red mallee, gimlet and York gum. Acacia neurophylla, A. beauverdiana and A. resinimarginea thickets grow on gently sloping uplands on granite, with thickets of acacia, casuarina and melaleuca. There are also scrub-heaths and York gum-salmon gum-gimlet woodlands on these uplands. The hilly terrain on greenstone supports woodlands of salmon gum, Goldfields blackbutt, coral gum (E. torquata), York gum, gimlet, morrel, Dundas blackbutt and black sheoak. Thickets of granite wattle (Acacia quadrimarginea) are also present. The stony plains support scattered woodlands of Goldfields blackbutt, gimlet and salmon gum, along with shrublands of saltbush and bluebush. Sandplains in the west have acacia (A. coolgardiensis, A. ramulosa, A. aneura, A. burkittii and A. tetragonophylla) shrublands, commonly with patchy native pine (Callitris glaucophylla C. preissii) and mallees (E. leptopoda, E. longicornis and E. loxophleba). Native box (Bursaria occidentalis), Melaleuca uncinata and Hakea recurva may also be present. Hard spinifex (T. basedowii) grasslands with mulga, marble gum and mallees (e.g. E. kingsmillii) are found on sandplains to the east. The sandy-surfaced plains support acacia, casuarina and melaleuca thickets; woodlands of York gum, cypress pine (Callitris columellaris), salmon gum, gimlet and mulga; and shrublands of bowgada (A. ramulosa).

Botanica Consulting 6 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

2.5 Conservation Values The Eastern Goldfields subregion contains 16 vegetation associations, predominately open Eucalyptus woodlands, that have at least 85 per cent of their total extent in the bioregion (Cowan 2001a). The subregion is considered a centre of endemism for Eucalypts in the Goldfields Woodlands region, and is also noted for the diversity of Acacia spp. and ephemeral flora communities of the tertiary sandplain shrublands and the valley floors of woodland areas.

The Eastern Goldfields subregion contains one wetland of national importance; Rowles Lagoon System, located approximately 40 km east of the survey area. In addition, there are seven wetlands of subregional importance (Cowan, 2001a). Other significant assemblages in the region include plant assemblages of the Fraser Range and the Woodline Hills.

No ecosystems are listed as threatened under WA State legislation occur within the Murchison Bioregion, but 18 communities and vegetation associations are thought to be at risk for a variety of reasons. Grazing from livestock, goats and rabbits and impacts from mining are the main threatening processes in the region, with changed fire regimes, erosion and sedimentation also causing significant impacts.

There are 32 flora species of conservation significance within the Eastern Goldfields subregion, including seven Threatened species, and four fauna species of conservation significance: Dasyurus geoffroii (Chuditch), Leipoa ocellata (Malleefowl), Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon) and Morelia spilota imbricata (Carpet Python).

Botanica Consulting 7 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

2.6 Climate The climate of the Eastern Goldfields subregion is characterised as arid to semi-arid with 200- 300 mm of rainfall, sometimes in summer but usually in winter (Cowan 2001a), while the Eastern Murchison is described as an arid climate with mainly winter rainfall and annual rainfall of approximately 200 mm (Beard, 1990; Cowan, 2001b). Rainfall data for the Kalgoorlie airport weather station (#12038) located approximately 32km south of the survey area is shown in Graph 2-1Graph 2-1(BoM, 2020). Mean monthly rainfall ranges from 31.6 mm in February to 13.7 mm in September, with a mean annual rainfall of 266.1 mm. The survey was conducted in June 2020, with the preceding months (March-May) being characterised by below-average rainfall after significant, above-average rainfall received in February. Although climate conditions are not considered optimal for the presence of flowering material and ephemeral species, this is unlikely to be a major survey constraint due to the significant February rainfall. Climate Data: Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport 70 40

60 35 30

50 C) 0 25 40 20 30 15 Rainfall (mm) 20 10 Temperature ( 10 5 0 0 Jul '19 Aug Sep '19Oct '19 Nov Dec Jan '20Feb '20 Mar Apr '20 May Jun '20 '19 '19 '19 '20 '20

Average (1939-2019) 2019/20 Mean Maximum Temperature Mean Minimum Temperature

Graph 2-1: Average and recent rainfall and average temperature data of Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport (#12038) (BoM, 2020)

Botanica Consulting 8 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

2.7 Hydrology According to the Geoscience Australia database (2015), there are no permanent or non- perennial inland waters within the survey area. No permanent drainage lines occur within the survey area however multiple non-perennial drainage lines intersect the survey area. Drainage lines occurring within the survey area are illustrated in Figure 2-2Figure 2-2. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE) includes biological assemblages of species such as wetlands or woodlands that use groundwater either opportunistically or as their primary water source. For the purposes of this report, a GDE is defined as any vegetation community that derives part of its water budget from groundwater and must be assumed to have some degree of groundwater dependency. According to the BoM Atlas of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (BoM, 2020b) database, there is one high-potential terrestrial GDE located on the southern boundary of the survey area, described below in Table 2-2Table 2-2 and spatially in Figure 2-2Figure 2-2. Table 2-2: Potential terrestrial GDE’s

Region Landscape Geomorphology Description Potential Undulating plains with some sandplains, ferruginous breakaways; ridges of Salt Bare areas; salt Low Lying metamorphic rocks and granitic hills and High Lakes lakes rises; calcretes, large salt lakes and dunes along valleys.

Botanica Consulting 9 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 2-2: Surface Hydrology of the survey area

Botanica Consulting 10 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

3 Survey Methodology 3.1 Desktop Assessment Prior to the field assessment a literature review was undertaken of previous flora and fauna assessments conducted within the local region. Documents reviewed included: • Botanica Consulting (2020a): Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey Ora Banda Region, unpublished report prepared on behalf of Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. • Botanica Consulting (2020b). Mulgarrie Project Reconnaissance Flora/ Vegetation and Fauna Survey. Unpublished report prepared for Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd., February 2020

In addition to the literature review, searches of the following databases were undertaken to aid in the compilation of a list of significant flora within the survey area: • DBCA NatureMap database (DBCA, 2020); and • EPBC Protected Matters search tool (DAWE, 2020a).

The NatureMap species search and EPBC Protected Matters search were conducted with a 40 km buffer from the survey area.

It should be noted that these lists are based on observations from a broader area than the assessment area (40 km radius) and therefore may include taxa not present. The databases also often include very old records that may be incorrect or in some cases the taxa in question have become locally or regionally extinct. Information from these sources should therefore be taken as indicative only and local knowledge and information also needs to be taken into consideration when determining what actual species may be present within the specific area being investigated.

The conservation significance of flora and fauna taxa was assessed using data from the following sources: • Environment Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999. Administered by the Australian Government (DAWE); • Biodiversity Conservation (BC) Act 2016. Administered by the WA Government (DBCA); • Red List produced by the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (also known as the IUCN Red List – the acronym derived from its former name of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). The Red List has no legislative power in Australia but is used as a framework for State and Commonwealth categories and criteria; and • Priority Flora/ Fauna list. A non-legislative list maintained by DBCA for management purposes (fauna list released January 2019; flora list released December 2018).

The EPBC Act also requires the compilation of a list of migratory species that are recognized under international treaties including the: • Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement 1981 (JAMBA)1; • China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement 1998 (CAMBA); • Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement 2007 (ROKAMBA); and

1 Most but not all species listed under JAMBA are also specially protected under Specially Protected Species of the BC Act.

Botanica Consulting 11 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

• Bonn Convention 1979 (The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals).

Most but not all migratory bird species listed in the annexes to these bilateral agreements are protected in Australia as Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) under the EPBC Act. Descriptions of conservation significant species and communities are provided in Appendix 1.

3.2 Field Assessment Botanica conducted a reconnaissance flora/ vegetation and fauna survey covering an area of 721.1 ha. The survey was conducted on the 29th May 2020 and 21st June 2020, with the area traversed on foot and 4WD by two Botanica staff members; Jim Williams (Director/Principal Botanist, Diploma of Horticulture) and Matthew Newlands (Environmental Technician).

3.2.1 Flora Assessment Prior to the commencement of field work, aerial photography was inspected and obvious differences in the vegetation assemblages were identified. The different vegetation communities identified were then inspected during the field survey to assess their validity. A handheld GPS unit was used to record the coordinates of the boundaries between existing vegetation communities. At each sample point, the following information was recorded: • GPS location; • Photograph of vegetation; • Dominant taxa for each stratum; • All vascular taxa (including annual taxa); • Landform classification; • Vegetation condition rating; • Collection and documentation of unknown plant specimens; and • GPS location, photograph and collection of flora of conservation significance if encountered.

Unknown specimens collected during the survey were identified with the aid of samples housed at the BC Herbarium and Western Australian Herbarium. Vegetation was classified in accordance with NVIS classifications.

3.2.2 Fauna Assessment Vegetation and landform units identified during the flora assessment have been used to define broad fauna habitat types across the site. This information has been supplemented with observations made during the fauna assessment.

The main aim of the fauna habitat assessment was to determine if it was likely that any species of conservation significance would be utilizing the areas that maybe impacted on as a consequence of development at the site. The habitat information obtained was also used to aid in finalizing the overall potential fauna list.

As part of the desktop literature review, available information on the habitat requirements of the species of conservation significance listed as possibly occurring in the area was researched. During the field survey, the habitats within the study area were assessed and specific elements

Botanica Consulting 12 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey identified, if present, to determine the likelihood of listed threatened species utilizing the area and its significance to them.

Opportunistic observations of fauna species were made during all field survey work which involved a series of transects across the study area during the day including observations of bird species with binoculars. Secondary evidence of a species presence such as tracks, scats, skeletal remains, foraging evidence or calls were also noted if observed/heard.

3.2.3 Scientific licences Table 3-1: Scientific Licences of Botanica Staff coordinating the flora survey

Licensed staff Permit Number Valid Until FB62000108 (Licence to flora for scientific Jim Williams 27/05/2022 purposes)

3.3 Survey limitations and constraints It is important to note that flora surveys will entail limitations notwithstanding careful planning and design. Potential limitations are listed in Table 3-2Table 3-2

Botanica Consulting 13 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

The conclusions presented in this report are based upon field data and environmental assessments and/or testing carried out over a limited period of time and are therefore merely indicative of the environmental condition of the site at the time of the field assessments. Also, it should be recognised that site conditions can change with time. Information not available at the time of this assessment which may subsequently become available may alter the conclusions presented.

Some species are reported as potentially occurring based on there being suitable habitat (quality and extent) within the survey area or immediately adjacent. The habitat requirements and ecology of many of the species known to occur in the wider area are however often not well understood or documented. It can therefore be difficult to exclude species from the potential list based on a lack of a specific habitats or microhabitats within the survey area. As a consequence of this limitation, the potential species list produced is most likely an overestimation of those species that actually utilise the survey area for some purpose.

In recognition of survey limitations, a precautionary approach has been adopted for this assessment. Any flora and fauna species that would possibly occur within the survey area (or immediately adjacent), as identified through ecological databases, publications, discussions with local experts/residents and the habitat knowledge of the author, has been listed as having the potential to occur.

Botanica Consulting 14 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Table 3-2: Limitations and constraints associated with the survey

Potential Impact Variable Details on Survey The survey was conducted via 4WD and on foot. Numerous Access problems Not a constraint tracks were located within the survey area, providing ease of access. The BC personnel that conducted the survey were regarded as suitably qualified and experienced. Competency/ Not a constraint Coordinating Botanist/ Zoologist: Jim Williams Experience Data Interpretation: Jim Williams, Kelby Jennings and Lauren Pick.

Fieldwork was undertaken within EPA’s recommended primary survey time period (i.e., 6-8 weeks post wet season Timing of survey, Not a constraint (March – June) for the Eremaean Province and was weather & season conducted following cyclonic rainfall received in February 2020. The area has been disturbed from exploration and cattle Area disturbance Not a constraint grazing; however, vegetation was mostly intact and comprised of native vegetation. Survey intensity was appropriate for the size/significance of the area with a reconnaissance survey completed to Survey Effort/ Extent Not a constraint identify vegetation types/fauna habitats and conservation significant species/communities. Threatened flora database searches provided by the DBCA were used to identify any potential locations of Threatened/Priority taxa.

Availability of BoM, DWER, DPIRD, DBCA and DAWE databases were contextual reviewed to obtain appropriate regional desktop information at a Not a constraint information on the biophysical environment of the local regional and local region. scale

Previous Flora/ Fauna surveys within the local area have been assessed for pertinent information and environmental context of the regional area. In the opinion of Botanica, the survey area was covered sufficiently in order to identify vegetation assemblages. Few annual species were present during the survey and many of the plants were not in flower. It is estimated that approximately 85% of the flora within the survey area were able to be fully identified.

Completeness Minor constraint The vegetation types for this study were based on visual descriptions of locations in the field. The distribution of these vegetation communities/ fauna habitats outside the study area is not known, however vegetation types identified were categorised via comparison to vegetation distributions throughout WA specified in the NVIS Major Vegetation Groups (DotEE, 2017b).

Botanica Consulting 15 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4 Results 4.1 Desktop Assessment 4.1.1 Flora The NatureMap database search identified 602 vascular flora species as occurring within 40 km of the survey area, including 69 introduced (weed) species. Significant genera were Eucalyptus (34 species), Acacia (32 species) and Eremophila (31 species).

4.1.1.1 Introduced Flora Results of the NatureMap search identified 69 introduced flora (weed) species as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the survey area. Five species are listed as a Weed of National Significance (WoNS) (Table 4-1Table 4-1). In addition, seven introduced flora species are listed as a Declared Pest on the Western Australian Organism List (WAOL) under the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management (BAM) Act 2007. Table 4-1: Potentially occurring Declared Plants

Legal Control Keeping Weed of National Scientific name Declared areas Status categories category Significance

Declared Cylindropuntia fulgida C3 Pest - Restricted Whole of State Yes (Engelm.) F.M.Knuth Management s22(2)

Declared Cylindropuntia imbricata C3 Pest - Restricted Whole of State Yes (Haw.) F.M.Knuth Management s22(2) Declared Cylindropuntia kleiniae C3 Pest - Restricted Whole of State Yes (DC.) F.M.Knuth Management s22(2) Declared No Control Pest - Echium plantagineum L. Exempt Category, Whole of No s22(2) State Declared C3 Pest - Opuntia elata Salm-Dyck Restricted Whole of State Yes Management s22(2) Declared Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) C3 Pest - Exempt Whole of State Yes Mill. Management s22(2) Declared Coolgardie (S), C3 Pest - Xanthium spinosum L. Exempt Kalgoorlie/Boulder No Management s22(2) (C)

Botanica Consulting 16 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4.1.1.2 Significant Flora The assessment of the NatureMap (DBCA, 2020) and Protected Matters searches (DAWE, 2020a) and previous relevant literature identified 30 significant flora species recorded within a 40 km radius of the survey area. These consist of four Threatened, eight Priority 1, four Priority 2, ten Priority 3 and four Priority 4 taxa (Appendix 2). These taxa were assessed for distribution and known habitat to determine their likelihood of occurrence within the survey area. The assessment did not identify any significant flora with a high likelihood of occurrence in the survey area. There were 10 taxa assessed as possibly occurring in the survey area, consisting of six Priority 1, three Priority 3 and one Priority 4 taxa (Appendix 2). The locations of the DBCA database records are illustrated spatially in Figure 4-1Figure 4-1.

4.1.1.3 Significant Ecological Communities The Protected Matters search (DAWE, 2020a) did not identify any Threatened Ecological Communities recorded within 40 km of the survey area. Analysis of the Priority Ecological Communities within the Goldfields region (DBCA, 2017) did not identify any significant vegetation assemblages as likely or possibly occurring within the survey area.

Botanica Consulting 17 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 4-1: DBCA records of significant flora

Botanica Consulting 18 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4.1.2 Vegetation The Pre-European vegetation association dataset (DPIRD, 2018) indicates that the survey area is located predominately within the Kununulling 468 vegetation association, covering 696.7 ha (96.6% of the survey area. Additionally, there are small areas of Coolgardie 125 (12.2 ha, 1.7%) and Coolgardie 540 (12.1 ha, 1.7%) occurring in the southern portion of the survey area. The extent of these vegetation associations within the survey area is displayed spatially in Figure 4-2Figure 4-2, and association descriptions and their remaining extent, as specified in the 2018 Statewide Vegetation Statistics (DBCA, 2018) is provided in Table 4-2Table 4-2. Areas retaining less than 30% of their pre-European vegetation extent generally experience exponentially accelerated species loss, while areas with less than 10% are considered “endangered” (EPA, 2000). Although only a small portion of each vegetation association is protected within DBCA managed lands, both associations retain over 90% of their pre-European extent. Development within the survey area will not significantly reduce the extent of pre-European vegetation of these associations.

Table 4-2: Pre-European Vegetation Associations within the survey area

Pre- % in Extent Current European Vegetation DBCA within Extent extent Floristic Description Association managed survey (ha) remaining lands area (%) Wheatbelt; York gum, salmon gum etc. Eucalyptus loxophleba, E. Kununulling 697.7 ha 583,903 98.6 4.11 salmonophloia. Goldfields; gimlet, 468 (96.6%) redwood etc. E. salubris, E. oleosa. Riverine; rivergum E. camaldulensis.

Coolgardie 12.2 ha 3,146,487 90.27 5.41 Salt lake, lagoon, clay pan 125 (1.7%)

Mulga, other wattle, Casuarina, Coolgardie Atriplex spp. Maireana spp. with 12.1 ha 200,159 98.88 27.79 540 Acacia aneura, A. papyrocarpa, (1.7%) Allocasuarina cristata

Botanica Consulting 19 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 4-2: Pre-European Vegetation Associations within the survey area

Botanica Consulting 20 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey 4.1.3 Fauna According to the results of the NatureMap search (DBCA, 2020), a total of 145 vertebrate fauna taxa have been recorded within a 40 km radius of the survey area, consisting of 145 bird, 31 mammal, 75 reptile, five amphibian and 1 fish taxa. This total includes nine introduced (feral) species.

4.1.3.1 Significant Fauna The desktop assessment identified eight fauna species of conservation significance as previously being recorded in the general area, consisting of seven Threatened species and one Priority 1 species. In addition, numerous migratory birds were listed with shorebirds assessed collectively due to their similar habitat requirements. Habitat and distribution data was used to determine the likelihood of occurrence within the survey area (Table 4-3Table 4-3). The assessment identified two significant fauna species as potentially occurring in the survey area: Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) (VU) and the Inland Hairstreak Butterfly (Jalmenus aridus) (P1).

The rankings and criteria used were: • Would Not Occur: There is no suitable habitat for the species in the survey area and/or there is no documented record of the species in the general area since records have been kept and/or the species is generally accepted as being locally/regionally extinct (supported by a lack of recent records).

o Locally Extinct: Populations no longer occur within a small part of the species natural range, in this case within 10 or 20km of the survey area. Populations do however persist outside of this area.

o Regionally Extinct: Populations no longer occur in a large part of the species natural range, in this case within the goldfields region. Populations do however persist outside of this area.

• Unlikely to Occur: The survey area is outside of the currently documented distribution for the species in question, or no suitable habitat (type, quality and extent) was identified as being present during the field assessment. Individuals of some species may occur occasionally as vagrants/transients especially if suitable habitat is located nearby but the site itself would not support a population or part population of the species

• Possibly Occurs: Survey area is within the known distribution of the species in question and habitat of at least marginal quality was identified as likely to be present during the field survey and literature review, supported in some cases by recent records being documented in literature from within or near the survey area. In some cases, while a species may be classified as possibly being present at times, habitat may be marginal (e.g. poor quality, fragmented, limited in extent) and therefore the frequency of occurrence and/or population levels may be low.

• Known to Occur: The species in question has been positively identified as being present (for sedentary species) or as using the survey area as habitat for some other purpose (for non- sedentary/mobile species) during field surveys within or near the survey area. This information may have been obtained by direct observation of individuals or by way of secondary evidence (e.g. tracks, foraging debris, scats). In some cases, while a species may be classified as known to occur, habitat may be marginal (e.g. poor quality, fragmented, limited in extent) and therefore the frequency of occurrence and/or population levels may be low.

Botanica Consulting 21 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Table 4-3: Likelihood of Occurrence – Fauna Species of Conservation Significance

Conservation Status Species Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence EPBC BC DBCA Act Act Priority Possibly occurs however habitat appears very marginal/or Malleefowl unsuitable for breeding VU VU - Scrublands and woodlands dominated by mallee and wattle species (DAWE, 2020b). Leipoa ocellata supported by lack of observations during survey. Occasional transients only. Carnaby's Cockatoo is endemic to, and widespread in, the south-west of Western Carnaby's Cockatoo Australia. It occurs from the wheatbelt, in areas that receive between 300 and 750 mm Would Not Occur. No Calyptorhynchus of rainfall annually, across to wetter regions in the extreme south-west, including the EN EN - documented records in the latirostris Swan Coastal Plain and the southern coast. Its range extends from Cape Arid in the region. south-east to Kalbarri in the north, and inland to Hatter Hill, Gibb Rock, Narembeen, Noongar, Wongan Hills, Nugadong, near Perenjori, Wilroy and Nabawa. Chuditch, Western Previously occurred throughout arid and semi-arid Australia, but is now restricted to Unlikely to Occur. No nearby Quoll VU VU - south-west Western Australia. (DAWE, 2020b). records. Dasyurus geoffroii Would Not Occur. No Bilby In Western Australia, it is mainly restricted to the Gibson Desert, Little Sandy Desert, VU VU - documented records in the Macrotis lagotis Great Sandy Desert and parts of the Pilbara and Southern Kimberley. region. Numbat Previously widespread in arid and semi-arid Australia, the species is now restricted to Would Not Occur. No Myrmecobius fasciatus EN EN - two isolated wild populations in south-west Western Australia and a number of documented records in the translocations to predator proof locations. region. Most habitat records are of Triodia (Spinifex) grasslands and/or chenopod shrublands in the arid and semi-arid zones, or Astrebla spp. (Mitchell grass), shrubby samphire and chenopod associations, scattered trees and shrubs, Acacia aneura (Mulga) Night Parrot Unlikely to Occur. Habitat EN CR - woodland, treeless areas and bare gibber are associated with sightings of the species. Pezoporus occidentalis unlikely to be present. Roosting and nesting sites are consistently reported as within clumps of dense vegetation, primarily old and large Spinifex (Triodia) clumps, but sometimes other vegetation types (DAWE, 2020b). Prefers muddy edges of shallow fresh or brackish wetlands, with inundated or Migratory Shorebirds emergent sedges, grass, saltmarsh or other low vegetation. This includes lagoons, Would Not Occur. No Suitable MI IA - (Various species) swamps, lakes and pools near the coast, and dams, waterholes, soaks, bore drains Habitat. and bore swamps, saltpans and hypersaline salt lakes inland (DAWE, 2020b). Would Not Occur. No Grey Wagtail Running water in disused quarries, sandy, rocky streams in escarpments and MI IA - documented records in the Motacilla cinerea rainforest, sewerage ponds, ploughed fields and airfields (Morecombe 2004). region.

Botanica Consulting 22 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Conservation Status Species Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence EPBC BC DBCA Act Act Priority Acacia shrubland in the eastern goldfields and wheatbelt of WA, favouring young Unlikely to occur. Only known Inland shrubs of the Senna food plant up to 1.5m high and old mature trees of the Acacia from one location near Hairstreak/Desert Blue food plant up to 4m high, growing in shallow gullies and gentle slopes (Braby, 2016). Kalgoorlie (Lake Douglas-40km - - P1 Butterfly The larvae feed on the leaves and flowers of Senna nemophila and Acacia south-east of the survey area). Jalmenus aridus tetragonophylla. The caterpillars are attended by the ant species Froggattella kirbii. Suitable habitat unlikely to be (ALA, 2020). present. Unlikely to occur. Only known to be extant at two locations within the Wheatbelt Region and is presumed extinct at another Restricted to mallee vegetation on sandy soil, often near flood plains, in which nests location within the Goldfields of the associated ant are established at the base of eucalypts (DotEE, 2015). DBCA Arid Bronze Azure Region (Lake Douglas-40km advice indicates the host ant (Camponotus terebrans) is known to favour smooth bark Butterfly south-east of the survey area). CR CR - Eucalyptus species, such as Eucalyptus salmonophloia and Eucalyptus salubris, Ogyris subterrestris Survey area has been subject to however the host ant is sporadically distributed across southern Australia and petrina previous mining/ and is unlikely floristically diverse habitats are needed to sustain high densities of the host ant to provide floristically diverse (DotEE, 2015). habitat. The survey areas has been subject to soil disturbance which adversely affects the host ant (DotEE, 2015).

Botanica Consulting 23 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4.1.4 Conservation Areas There are no proposed or vested Conservation Reserve located within the survey area.

There are no DBCA managed or interest land located within the survey area.

There are no Environmentally Sensitive Areas located within the survey area.

There are no Nationally Important or RAMSAR wetlands located within the survey area.

The closest significant environmental feature is the Bullock Holes Timber Reserve, which is DBCA-managed land located approximately 41 km east of the survey area. There is also an area of DBCA interest, currently gazetted as UCL, located approximately 28 km west of the survey area. A map showing areas of proposed and vested Conservation Reserves and ESA’s in relation to the survey area is provided in Figure 4-3Figure 4-3.

Botanica Consulting 24 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 4-3: Conservation Areas Botanica Consulting 25 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4.2 Field Assessment

4.2.1 Flora The field survey identified 93 flora taxa within the survey area, representing 40 genera across 22 families. The most diverse genera were Eremophila (13 species) followed by Acacia (10 species) and Eucalyptus and Maireana (nine species).

4.2.1.1 Introduced Flora No introduced flora species were recorded within the survey area.

4.2.1.2 Significant Flora According to the EPA Environmental Factor Guideline for Flora and Vegetation (EPA, 2016a) significant flora includes: • flora being identified as threatened or priority species; • locally endemic flora or flora associated with a restricted habitat type (e.g. surface water or groundwater dependent ecosystems); • new species or anomalous features that indicate a potential new species; • flora representative of the range of a species (particularly, at the extremes of range, recently discovered range extensions, or isolated outliers of the main range); • unusual species, including restricted subspecies, varieties or naturally occurring hybrids; and • flora with relictual status, being representative of taxonomic groups that no longer occur widely in the broader landscape.

No Threatened or Priority flora species were recorded within the survey area.

4.2.2 Vegetation Communities A total of three vegetation communities were identified within the survey area. Vegetation community description and extent are listed below in Table 4-4 and illustrated spatially in Figure 4-4Figure 4-4. Vegetation community descriptions and extents were determined from field survey results, aerial imagery interpretation and extrapolation of the communities identified in Botanica (2020). Floristic species composition for each vegetation community is listed in Appendix 4.

Botanica Consulting 26 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey Table 4-4: Vegetation Community Descriptions and Extent Broad Vegetation Floristic Area Area Vegetation Description (NVIS V) Landform Image Community Formation (ha) (%) (NVIS III)

Low woodland of Eucalyptus Eucalyptus salmonophloia over open low scrub of low Acacia kalgoorliensis and dwarf scrub of Undulating CLP-EW1 329.0 45.6 open Atriplex vesicaria/ Maireana Plains woodland pyramidata/ Tecticornia disarticulata

Low woodland of Eucalyptus Eucalyptus clelandiorum/ E. oleosa over low scrub low CLP-EW2 of Acacia hemiteles/ Eremophila Low rises. 208.0 28.8 open scoparia and dwarf scrub of Maireana woodland sedifolia

Botanica Consulting 27 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey Broad Vegetation Floristic Area Area Vegetation Description (NVIS V) Landform Image Community Formation (ha) (%) (NVIS III)

Low woodland of Eucalyptus salmonophloia over open low scrub of Eucalyptus Acacia kalgoorliensis and dwarf scrub of low Drainage DD-EW1 Atriplex vesicaria/ Maireana sedifolia/ 144.3 20.0 open Channels Maireana pyramidata/ Tecticornia woodland. disarticulata in drainage depression

Mining Disturbed - - 39.7 5.5 Activities

Total 721.1 100.0

Botanica Consulting 28 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 4-4: Vegetation communities Botanica Consulting 29 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4.2.3 Vegetation Condition Based on the vegetation condition rating scale adapted from Keighery (1994) and Trudgen, (1988), native vegetation within the survey area was rated as ‘good’ (Table 4-5Table 4-5; Figure 4-5Figure 4-5). ‘Good’ condition depicts more obvious signs of damage caused by human activity since European settlement, including some obvious impact on the vegetation structure such as that caused by low levels of grazing and/or slightly aggressive weeds.

Cleared areas associated with the mining pit and associated infrastructure were rated as ‘completely degraded’. Table 4-5: Vegetation Condition within the survey area Condition Rating Area (ha) % Good 681.4 94.5 Completely Degraded 39.7 5.5 Total 721.1 100.0

Botanica Consulting 30 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 4-5: Vegetation Condition within the survey area

Botanica Consulting 31 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4.2.4 Significant Vegetation According to the EPA Environmental Factor Guideline for Flora and Vegetation (EPA, 2016b) significant vegetation includes: • vegetation being identified as threatened or priority ecological communities; • vegetation with restricted distribution; • vegetation subject to a high degree of historical impact from threatening processes; • vegetation which provides a role as a refuge; and • vegetation providing an important function required to maintain ecological integrity of a significant ecosystem.

No significant vegetation, including Threatened and Priority Ecological Communities, was identified within the survey area.

4.2.5 Fauna Habitat The broad scale terrestrial fauna habitats within the survey area presented below are based on vegetation and associated landforms identified during the flora and vegetation assessment. The extent of the identified fauna habitats and a summary description of each are provided in below. The extent of fauna habitat within the survey area is shown spatially in Figure 4-6Figure 4-6.

Botanica Consulting 32 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Table 4-6: Main Terrestrial Fauna Habitats within the survey area

Fauna Habitat Example Image Description

Low Open Eucalyptus Woodland

Approximate area: 681.4 ha (94.5%)

Clearing for Mine Infrastructure

Approximate area: 39.7 ha (5.5%)

Total: 721.2 ha

Botanica Consulting 33 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Figure 4-6: Main Terrestrial Fauna Habitats within the survey area

Botanica Consulting 34 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4.2.6 Significant Fauna According to the EPA Environmental Factor Guideline for Terrestrial Fauna (EPA, 2016d) significant fauna includes: • Fauna being identified as a threatened or priority species; • Fauna species with restricted distribution; • Fauna subject to a high degree of historical impact from threatening processes; and • Fauna providing an important function required to maintain the ecological integrity of a significant ecosystem.

No evidence of significant fauna species were observed during the survey, including no evidence of Malleefowl nesting mounds or other activity.

The current status of some species on site and/or in the general area is difficult to determine, however, based on the habitats present and, in some cases, direct observations or recent nearby records, the following species of conservation significance can be regarded as possibly utilising the survey area for some purpose at times, these being:

• Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata – Vulnerable (EPBC Act and BC Act) This species is occasionally recorded in the general area though most nearby records are over 10 years old and habitat appears very marginal/or unsuitable for breeding, however occasional transients could potentially occur. No evidence of malleefowl activity (inactive or active mounds, tracks, feathers or bird observations etc.) were observed within the survey area. Significant impact unlikely.

It should be noted that while habitats onsite for one or more of the species listed above are considered possibly suitable, some or all may be marginal in extent/quality and therefore the fauna species considered as possibly occurring may in fact only visit the area for short periods as infrequent vagrants.

4.3 Matters of National Environmental Significance 4.3.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The EPBC Act protects matters of national environmental significance, and is used by the Commonwealth DAWE to list threatened taxa and ecological communities into categories based on the criteria set out in the Act (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html). The Act provides a national environmental assessment and approval system for proposed developments and enforces strict penalties for unauthorised actions that may affect matters of national environmental significance. Matters of national environmental significance as defined by the Commonwealth EPBC Act include: • Nationally threatened flora species; • World heritage properties; • National heritage places; • Wetlands of international importance (often called ‘Ramsar’ wetlands after the international treaty under which such wetlands are listed); • Nationally threatened ecological communities; • Commonwealth marine area; • The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and • Nuclear actions (including uranium mining) a water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development.

Botanica Consulting 35 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

No matters of national environmental significance as defined by the Commonwealth EPBC Act were identified within the survey area.

4.4 Matters of State Environmental Significance 4.4.1 Environmental Protection Act WA 1986 The EP Act provides for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution and environmental harm, for the conservation, preservation, protection, enhancement and management of the environment. The Act is administered by The Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER), which is the State Government’s environmental regulatory agency.

Under Section 51C of the EP Act and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations (Regulations) WA 2004 any clearing of native vegetation in Western Australia that is not eligible for exemption under Schedule 6 of the EP Act 1986 or under the Regulations 2004 requires a clearing permit from the DWER or DMIRS. Under Section 51A of the EP Act 1986 native vegetation includes aquatic and terrestrial vegetation indigenous to Western Australia, and intentionally planted vegetation declared by regulation to be native vegetation, but not vegetation planted in a plantation or planted with commercial intent. Section 51A of the EP Act 1986 defines clearing as “the killing or destruction of; the removal of; the severing or ringbarking of trunks or stems of; or the doing of substantial damage to some or all of the native vegetation in an area, including the flooding of land, the burning of vegetation, the grazing of stock or an act or activity that results in the above”. Exemptions under Schedule 6 of the EP Act and the EP Regulations do not apply in ESAs as declared under Section 51B of the EP Act or TEC listed under State and Commonwealth legislation.

No evidence of the survey area containing any TEC or Threatened Flora or Fauna was found during the survey period. The survey area is not located within an ESA.

4.4.2 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 This Act is used by the Western Australian DBCA for the conservation and protection of biodiversity and biodiversity components in Western Australia and to promote the ecologically sustainable use of biodiversity components in the State. Taxa are classified as ‘Threatened” when their populations are geographically restricted or are threatened by local processes (see following sections for Threatened definitions). Under this Act all native flora and fauna are protected throughout the State. Financial penalties are enforced under this Act if threatened species are collected without an appropriate licence.

Under Section 54(1) of the BC Act, habitat is eligible for listing as critical habitat if: (a) it is critical to the survival of a threatened species or a threatened ecological community; and (b) its listing is otherwise in accordance with the ministerial guidelines.

No threatened species or critical habitat listed under the BC Act were recorded within the survey area.

Botanica Consulting 36 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

4.5 Native Vegetation Clearing Principles Based on the outcomes from the survey undertaken, Botanica assessed the results of the desktop and field survey with regards to the native vegetation clearing principles listed under Schedule 5 of the EP Act (Table 4-9). The assessment found that the proposed vegetation clearing activities may be at variance with clearing principles (f) and (j).

Table 4-7: Assessment of development within the survey area against native vegetation clearing principles

Letter Principle Assessment Outcome Native vegetation should not be cleared if it:

Vegetation identified within the survey area is not Clearing is unlikely to be comprises a high level of (a) considered to be of high biological diversity and is at variance to this biological diversity. well represented in the local area. principle

comprises the whole or No significant fauna were observed within the survey part of, or is necessary for area. Majority of the survey area comprises of broad Clearing is unlikely to be (b) the maintenance of, a fauna habitats that are typical of those in the wider at variance to this significant habitat for fauna region. No water bodies (both perennial/ non- principle indigenous to WA. perennial) occur within the survey area.

includes, or is necessary No Threatened Flora taxa, pursuant to the BC Act Clearing is unlikely to be (c) for the continued existence and the EPBC Act were identified within the survey at variance to this of rare flora. area. principle

comprises the whole or part of or is necessary for Clearing is unlikely to be No TEC listed under the EPBC Act or by the BC Act (d) the maintenance of a at variance to this occur within the survey area. threatened ecological principle community (TEC). is significant as a remnant The survey area occurs within the pre-European Clearing is unlikely to be of native vegetation in an Beard vegetation association Barlee 18 and Barlee (e) at variance to this area that has been 485, each of which retains >99% of their original pre- principle extensively cleared European vegetation extent. is growing, in, or in There are no inland waters (lakes/ playas) or association with, an permanent drainage lines within the survey area. Clearing may be at (f) environment associated Multiple ephemeral drainage lines intersect the variance to this principle with a watercourse or survey area which were mostly associated within wetland vegetation community DD-EW1. The survey area occurs within the pre-European Native vegetation should vegetation association of Kununulling 468, not be cleared if the Coolgardie 125 and Coolgardie 540, each of which Clearing is unlikely to be clearing of the vegetation (g) retains >90% of their original pre-European at variance to this is likely to cause vegetation extent. Clearing within the survey area is principle appreciable land not likely to lead to land degradation issues such as degradation. salinity, water logging or acidic soils. Native vegetation should The survey area is not located within a conservation not be cleared if the area. The closest conservation reserve is the Bullock clearing of the vegetation Clearing is unlikely to be Holes Timber Reserve, which located approximately (h) is likely to have an impact at variance to this 41 km east of the survey area. Given the distance on the environmental principle from the survey area, impacts to the environmental values of any adjacent or values of this conservation reserve are unlikely. nearby conservation area. Native vegetation should There are no inland waters (lakes/ playas) or not be cleared if the permanent drainage lines within the survey area. Clearing may be at (i) clearing of the vegetation However, multiple ephemeral drainage lines variance to this principle is likely to cause intersect the survey area and drain into ephemeral

Botanica Consulting 37 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

Letter Principle Assessment Outcome Native vegetation should not be cleared if it: deterioration in the quality salt lake system approximately 3 km south of the of surface or underground survey area. water. Native vegetation should Rainfall is unreliable and highly variable with an not be cleared if clearing average rainfall of 200mm and an evaporation rate Clearing is unlikely to be (j) the vegetation is likely to of 2461mm. The region and topography are not at variance to this cause, or exacerbate, the prone to flooding and does not contain ephemeral principle incidence of flooding water sources.

Botanica Consulting 38 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

5 Bibliography Atlas of Living Australia (2020): Jalmenus aridus: Inland Hairstreak Butterfly https://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:5551a54a-2ff6-49c7- 9b26-62f2484449b5, viewed 31/07/2020. Beard, J.S., (1990). Plant Life of Western Australia, Kangaroo Press Pty Ltd, NSW. BoM, (2020a). Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport Climate Data, Bureau of Meteorology. Available: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate

BoM (2020b). Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas. Bureau of Meteorology Available: http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/map.shtml Botanica Consulting (2020a): Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey Ora Banda Region, unpublished report prepared on behalf of Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Botanica Consulting (2020b). Mulgarrie Project Reconnaissance Flora/ Vegetation and Fauna Survey. Unpublished report prepared for Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd., February 2020 Cowan, M. (2001a). A Biodiversity Audit of Western Australia’s 53 Biogeographical Region in 2001; Coolgardie 3 (COO3 –Eastern Goldfields subregion) pp 156-169, Department of Conservation and Land Management, August 2001 Cowan, M. (2001b). A Biodiversity Audit of Western Australia’s 53 Biogeographical Region in 2001; Eastern Murchison (MUR1 –Eastern Murchison subregion) pp 466-479, Department of Conservation and Land Management, September 2001 DAFWA (2014). Soil Landscape System of Western Australia, Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia DAWE (2020a). Protected Matters Search Tool, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, Australian Government. DAWE (2020b). Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment, Australian Government. DBCA (2018). 2018 Statewide Vegetation Statistics (formerly the CAR Reserve Analysis). Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. DBCA (2017): Priority Ecological Communities for Western Australia Version 27, Species and Community Branch, 30 June 2017. DBCA (2020). NatureMap Database search, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. DotEE (2012). Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA), Version 7, Department of the Environment and Energy. DotEE (2017). National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) Major Vegetation Groups, Version 4.2, Department of the Environment and Energy. DPIRD (2019). Pre-European Vegetation (DPIRD_006) Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia, 24 July 2019 DPIRD (2020). Declared Organism-database search, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Western Australia. Available: http://www.biosecurity.wa.gov.au/ EPA, (2000). Position Statement No. 2 Environmental Protection of Native Vegetation in Western Australia, Environmental Protection Authority EPA (2016a). Technical Guide - Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment – December 2016. Environmental Protection Authority.

Botanica Consulting 39 Norton Gold Fields Pty. Ltd. Rose Dam North Project – Reconnaissance Flora & Fauna Survey

EPA (2016b). Technical Guide – Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment – December 2016. Environmental Protection Authority. Geoscience Australia (2015). Surface Hydrology GIS. Australian Government. Government of Western Australia, (2019): Soil Landscape Mapping – Systems (DPIRD-064), mapping shapefiles obtained from data.wa.gov.au, last updated June 27, 2019 Keighery, B. J., (1994). Bushland Plant Survey: A guide to plant community survey for the community. Wildflower Society of Western Australia (Inc.), Nedlands. Tille, P. (2006). Soil Landscapes of Western Australia’s Rangelands and Arid Interior, Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia Trudgen, M.E. (1988). A Report on the Flora and Vegetation of the Port Kennedy Area. Unpublished report prepared for Bowman Bishaw and Associates, West Perth.

Botanica Consulting 40

Appendix 1: Conservation Ratings BC Act and EPBC Act

Definitions of Conservation Significant Species Code Category State categories of threatened and priority species Threatened Species (T) Listed by order of the Minister as Threatened in the category of critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable under section 19(1), or is a rediscovered species to be regarded as threatened species under section 26(2) of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act). Critically Endangered Threatened species considered to be “facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with criteria set out in the ministerial CR guidelines”. Listed as critically endangered under section 19(1)(a) of the BC Act in accordance with the criteria set out in section 20 and the ministerial guidelines. Published under schedule 1 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2018 for critically endangered fauna or the Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice 2018 for critically endangered flora. Endangered Threatened species considered to be “facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with criteria set out in the ministerial guidelines”. EN Listed as endangered under section 19(1)(b) of the BC Act in accordance with the criteria set out in section 21 and the ministerial guidelines. Published under schedule 2 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2018 for endangered fauna or the Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice 2018 for endangered flora. Vulnerable Threatened species considered to be “facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium- term future, as determined in accordance with criteria set out in the ministerial guidelines”. VU Listed as vulnerable under section 19(1)(c) of the BC Act in accordance with the criteria set out in section 22 and the ministerial guidelines. Published under schedule 3 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2018 for vulnerable fauna or the Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice 2018 for vulnerable flora. Extinct species Listed by order of the Minister as extinct under section 23(1) of the BC Act as extinct or extinct in the wild. Extinct Species where “there is no reasonable doubt that the last member of the species has died”, and listing is otherwise in accordance with the ministerial guidelines (section 24 of the BC EX Act). Published as presumed extinct under schedule 4 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2018 for extinct fauna or the Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice 2018 for extinct flora. Extinct in the Wild Species that “is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised population well outside its past range; and it has not been recorded in its known habitat or expected habitat, at appropriate seasons, anywhere in its past range, despite surveys over a time frame EW appropriate to its life cycle and form”, and listing is otherwise in accordance with the ministerial guidelines (section 25 of the BC Act). Currently there are no threatened fauna or threatened flora species listed as extinct in the wild. If listing of a species as extinct in the wild occurs, then a schedule will be added to the applicable notice. Specially protected species Listed by order of the Minister as specially protected under section 13(1) of the BC Act. Meeting one or more of the following categories: species of special conservation interest; migratory species; cetaceans; species subject to international agreement; or species otherwise in need of special protection. Species that are listed as threatened species (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable) or extinct species under the BC Act cannot also be listed as Specially Protected species. International Agreement/ Migratory Fauna that periodically or occasionally visit Australia or an external Territory or the exclusive economic zone; or the species is subject of an international agreement that relates to the protection of migratory species and that binds the Commonwealth; and listing is otherwise in accordance with the ministerial guidelines (section 15 of the BC Act). Includes birds that are subject to an agreement between the government of Australia and the governments of Japan (JAMBA), China (CAMBA) and The Republic of Korea (ROKAMBA), IA and fauna subject to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention), an environmental treaty under the United Nations Environment Program. Migratory species listed under the BC Act are a subset of the migratory animals, that are known to visit Western Australia, protected under the international agreements or treaties, excluding species that are listed as Threatened species. Published as migratory birds protected under an international agreement under schedule 5 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2018.

Code Category Species of special conservation interest Fauna of special conservation need being species dependent on ongoing conservation intervention to prevent it becoming eligible for listing as threatened, and listing is otherwise in CD accordance with the ministerial guidelines (section 14 of the BC Act). Published as conservation dependent fauna under schedule 6 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2018. Other specially protected species Fauna otherwise in need of special protection to ensure their conservation, and listing is OS otherwise in accordance with the ministerial guidelines (section 18 of the BC Act). Published as other specially protected fauna under schedule 7 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2018. Priority species Possibly threatened species that do not meet survey criteria, or are otherwise data deficient, are added to the Priority Fauna or Priority Flora Lists under Priorities 1, 2 or 3. These three categories are ranked in order of priority for survey and evaluation of conservation status so that consideration can be given to their declaration as threatened fauna or flora. Species that are adequately known, are rare but not threatened, or meet criteria for near threatened, or that have been recently removed from the threatened species or other specially protected fauna lists for other than taxonomic reasons, are placed in Priority 4. These species require regular monitoring. Assessment of Priority codes is based on the Western Australian distribution of the species, unless the distribution in WA is part of a contiguous population extending into adjacent States, as defined by the known spread of locations. Priority 1: Poorly-known species Species that are known from one or a few locations (generally five or less) which are potentially at risk. All occurrences are either: very small; or on lands not managed for conservation, e.g. agricultural or pastoral lands, urban areas, road and rail reserves, gravel P1 reserves and active mineral leases; or otherwise under threat of habitat destruction or degradation. Species may be included if they are comparatively well known from one or more locations but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and appear to be under immediate threat from known threatening processes. Such species are in urgent need of further survey. Priority 2: Poorly-known species Species that are known from one or a few locations (generally five or less), some of which are on lands managed primarily for nature conservation, e.g. national parks, conservation P2 parks, nature reserves and other lands with secure tenure being managed for conservation. Species may be included if they are comparatively well known from one or more locations but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and appear to be under threat from known threatening processes. Such species are in urgent need of further survey. Priority 3: Poorly-known species Species that are known from several locations, and the species does not appear to be under imminent threat, or from few but widespread locations with either large population size or P3 significant remaining areas of apparently suitable habitat, much of it not under imminent threat. Species may be included if they are comparatively well known from several locations but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and known threatening processes exist that could affect them. Such species are in need of further survey. Priority 4: Rare, Near Threatened and other species in need of monitoring (a) Rare. Species that are considered to have been adequately surveyed, or for which sufficient knowledge is available, and that are considered not currently threatened or in need of special protection but could be if present circumstances change. These species are usually P4 represented on conservation lands. (b) Near Threatened. Species that are considered to have been adequately surveyed and that are close to qualifying for vulnerable but are not listed as Conservation Dependent. (c) Species that have been removed from the list of threatened species during the past five years for reasons other than taxonomy. Commonwealth categories of threatened species Extinct EX Taxa where there is no reasonable doubt that the last member of the species has died. Extinct in the Wild Taxa where it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised population EW well outside its past range; or it has not been recorded in its known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate seasons, anywhere in its past range, despite exhaustive surveys over a time frame appropriate to its life cycle and form. Critically Endangered CR Taxa that are facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria. Endangered EN Taxa which are not critically endangered and is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

Code Category Vulnerable VU Taxa which are not critically endangered or endangered and is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria. Conservation Dependent Taxa which are the focus of a specific conservation program the cessation of which would result in the species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered; or (b) the following subparagraphs are satisfied: (i) the species is a species of fish; CD (ii) the species is the focus of a plan of management that provides for actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, the species so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised; (iii) the plan of management is in force under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; (iv) cessation of the plan of management would adversely affect the conservation status of the species.

Definitions of Conservation Significant Communities Category Category Code State categories of Threatened Ecological Communities (TEC) Presumed Totally Destroyed An ecological community will be listed as Presumed Totally Destroyed if there are no recent records of the community being extant and either of the following applies: PD • records within the last 50 years have not been confirmed despite thorough searches or known likely habitats or;

• all occurrences recorded within the last 50 years have since been destroyed. Critically Endangered An ecological community will be listed as Critically Endangered when it has been adequately surveyed and is found to be facing an extremely high risk of total destruction in the immediate future, meeting any one of the following criteria: The estimated geographic range and distribution has been reduced by at least 90% and is CR either continuing to decline with total destruction imminent, or is unlikely to be substantially rehabilitated in the immediate future due to modification;

The current distribution is limited i.e. highly restricted, having very few small or isolated occurrences, or covering a small area;

The ecological community is highly modified with potential of being rehabilitated in the immediate future. Endangered An ecological community will be listed as Endangered when it has been adequately surveyed and is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of total destruction in the near future. The ecological community must meet any one of the following criteria: The estimated geographic range and distribution has been reduced by at least 70% and is EN either continuing to decline with total destruction imminent in the short-term future, or is unlikely to be substantially rehabilitated in the short-term future due to modification; The current distribution is limited i.e. highly restricted, having very few small or isolated occurrences, or covering a small area; The ecological community is highly modified with potential of being rehabilitated in the short- term future. Vulnerable An ecological community will be listed as Vulnerable when it has been adequately surveyed and is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing high risk of total destruction in the medium to long term future. The ecological community must meet any one of the following criteria:

VU The ecological community exists largely as modified occurrences that are likely to be able to be substantially restored or rehabilitated;

The ecological community may already be modified and would be vulnerable to threatening process, and restricted in range or distribution; The ecological community may be widespread but has potential to move to a higher threat category due to existing or impending threatening processes.

Category Category Code Commonwealth categories of Threatened Ecological Communities (TEC)

Critically Endangered CE If, at that time, an ecological community is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future (indicative timeframe being the next 10 years).

Endangered EN If, at that time, an ecological community is not critically endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future (indicative timeframe being the next 20 years). Vulnerable If, at that time, an ecological community is not critically endangered or endangered, but is VU facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium–term future (indicative timeframe being the next 50 years). Priority Ecological Communities (PEC) Poorly-known ecological communities P1 Ecological communities with apparently few, small occurrences, all or most not actively managed for conservation (e.g. within agricultural or pastoral lands, urban areas, active mineral leases) and for which current threats exist. Poorly-known ecological communities Communities that are known from few small occurrences, all or most of which are actively P2 managed for conservation (e.g. within national parks, conservation parks, nature reserves, State forest, un-allocated Crown land, water reserves, etc.) and not under imminent threat of destruction or degradation. Poorly known ecological communities Communities that are known from several to many occurrences, a significant number or area of which are not under threat of habitat destruction or degradation or: Communities known from a few widespread occurrences, which are either large or within P3 significant remaining areas of habitat in which other occurrences may occur, much of it not under imminent threat, or; Communities made up of large, and/or widespread occurrences, that may or not be represented in the reserve system, but are under threat of modification across much of their range from processes such as grazing and inappropriate fire regimes.

Ecological communities that are adequately known, rare but not threatened or meet P4 criteria for near threatened, or that have been recently removed from the threatened list. These communities require regular monitoring.

Conservation Dependent ecological communities

P5 Ecological communities that are not threatened but are subject to a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the community becoming threatened within five years.

Appendix 2: Significant Flora Likelihood Assessment Flowering Distance Status Species Habitat Notes Likelihood Period (km) Grey or yellow-brown sand over September- Conostylis lepidospermoides >100 Habitat unlikely to be present. Low laterite. October Sand, sandy loam, granite. Margins of August- EN Gastrolobium graniticum - Habitat unlikely to be present. Low rock outcrops, along drainage lines. September Ricinocarpos brevis - - >100 Habitat unlikely to be present. Low Red clay over granite, open clay flats. VU Eleocharis papillosa November - Habitat unlikely to be present. Low Claypans. Acacia epedunculata Yellow sand. Sandplains. August 19.3 Habitat possibly present, recorded <20 km from survey area. Possible Red/brown sandy loam. Undulating October or Eremophila praecox 32.8 Habitat likely to be present. Possible plains. December Phebalium appressum Yellow sandplain. July - Habitat possibly present. Possible Ptilotus chortophytus - - >100 Nearest record >100 km Low

P1 Ptilotus procumbens Red clay. November - Habitat possibly present. Possible Ptilotus rigidus - - - Florabase distribution map indicates nearby records. Possible

Brown earth. Open eucalyptus August- Rhodanthe uniflora - Habitat possibly present. Possible woodland. October

Ricinocarpos sp. Eastern - - - Very few records. Low Goldfields August- Elachanthus pusillus - - Very few records. Low October Eucalyptus educta Shallow soils. Granite rocks. April - Habitat unlikely to be present. Low P2 September- Hakea rigida Sandy soils, yellow sand. - At extreme of known range. Low October Rumex crystallinus Arid & semi-arid areas. - - Recorded near survey area. Very scattered, poorly known. Low Sandy clay, loam, concretionary May-June or Alyxia tetanifolia 39.5 Habitat possibly present. Few records in region. Low gravel. Drainage lines, near lakes. November Red clay or loamy soils. Saline July to Angianthus prostratus - Habitat possibly present. Possible depressions. September Atriplex lindleyi subsp. Crabhole plains. - - Habitat unlikely to be present. Low conduplicata Cyathostemon verrucosus - - - At extreme of known range. Low P3 Red clay over granite, open clay flats. Eleocharis papillosa November - Scattered records. Low Claypans. Yellow sand, clayey sand, brown loam, sandy gravel, laterite. Well- Gompholobium cinereum 33 Habitat possibly present. Possible drained open sites, slopes, plains, roadsides. Hysterobaeckea ochropetala - - - Very few records. Low subsp. cometes

Flowering Distance Status Species Habitat Notes Likelihood Period (km) Lepidium fasciculatum - - - Scattered records. Low September- Sandy loam over granite. Granite Melaleuca coccinea November or - Habitat unlikely to be present. Low outcrops, sandplain, river valleys. January Notisia intonsa - - 24.0 Nearby records. Possible Eremophila caerulea subsp. October- Sand, clay or loam. Undulating plains. Habitat possibly present. Low merrallii December Eucalyptus jutsonii subsp. Red to pale orange deep sands. - - Habitat possibly present. Possible P4 jutsonii Undulating areas and on dunes. Eucalyptus x brachyphylla Sandy loam. Granite outcrops. June - Habitat unlikely to be present. Low Frankenia glomerata White sand. November - Habitat unlikely to be present. Low

Appendix 3: Vegetation Condition Rating Vegetation Condition South West and Interzone Botanical Provinces Eremaean and Northern Botanical Provinces Rating Pristine or nearly so, no obvious signs of disturbance Pristine or damage caused by human activities since N/A European settlement. Vegetation structure intact, disturbance affecting individual species and weeds are non-aggressive Pristine or nearly so, no obvious signs of damage Excellent species. Damage to trees caused by fire, the caused by human activities since European presence of non-aggressive weeds and occasional settlement. vehicle tracks. Some relatively slight signs of damage caused by Vegetation structure altered, obvious signs of human activities since European settlement. For disturbance. Disturbance to vegetation structure example, some signs of damage to tree trunks Very Good caused by repeated fires, the presence of some more caused by repeated fire, the presence of some aggressive weeds, dieback, logging and grazing. relatively non-aggressive weeds, or occasional vehicle tracks. Vegetation structure significantly altered by very More obvious signs of damage caused by human obvious signs of multiple disturbances. Retains basic activity since European settlement, including some vegetation structure or ability to regenerate it. Good obvious impact on the vegetation structure such as Disturbance to vegetation structure caused by very that caused by low levels of grazing or slightly frequent fires, the presence of very aggressive aggressive weeds. weeds, partial clearing, dieback and grazing.

Still retains basic vegetation structure or ability to regenerate it after very obvious impacts of human Poor N/A activities since European settlement, such as grazing, partial clearing, frequent fires or aggressive weeds.

Basic vegetation structure severely impacted by Severely impacted by grazing, very frequent fires, disturbance. Scope for regeneration but not to a state clearing or a combination of these activities. Scope approaching good condition without intensive for some regeneration but not to a state Degraded management. Disturbance to vegetation structure approaching good condition without intensive caused by very frequent fires, the presence of very management. Usually with a number of weed aggressive weeds at high density, partial clearing, species present including very aggressive species. dieback and grazing.

The structure of the vegetation is no longer intact and Areas that are completely or almost completely the area is completely or almost completely without without native species in the structure of their Completely native species. These areas are often described as vegetation; i.e. areas that are cleared or ‘parkland Degraded 'parkland cleared' with the flora comprising weed or cleared’ with their flora comprising weed or crop crop species with isolated native trees and shrubs. species with isolated native trees or shrubs.

Appendix 4: List of species identified within each vegetation type Family Taxon CLP-EW1 CLP-EW2 DD-EW1

Aizoaceae Disphyma crassifolium * *

Amaranthaceae Ptilotus obovatus *

Alyxia buxifolia * * Apocynaceae Marsdenia australis *

Cratystylis conocephala * *

Cratystylis microphylla * Asteraceae Cratystylis subspinescens * *

Olearia muelleri *

Podolepis capillaris *

Boraginaceae Halgania andromedifolia *

Casuarinaceae Casuarina pauper *

Atriplex bunburyana *

Atriplex codonocarpa * Atriplex nummularia subsp. spathulata * * * Atriplex stipitata * * Atriplex vesicaria * *

Chenopodium curvispicatum * *

Maireana amoena *

Maireana georgei *

Maireana glomerifolia *

Maireana glomerifolia * * Chenopodiaceae Maireana pyramidata *

Maireana sedifolia *

Maireana suaedifolia * *

Maireana tomentosa * *

Maireana triptera * * Rhagodia eremaea * * Sclerolaena diacantha * * *

Sclerolaena drummondii *

Sclerolaena parviflora *

Tecticornia disarticulata *

Acacia burkittii *

Acacia caesaneura *

Acacia colletioides *

Acacia erinacea * Acacia hemiteles * *

Acacia jennerae *

Acacia kalgoorliensis * Fabaceae Acacia murrayana *

Acacia oswaldii *

Acacia tetragonophylla *

Senna artemisioides subsp. filifolia * *

Senna artemisioides subsp. helmsii *

Senna artemisioides subsp. x artemisioides *

Templetonia egena * Frankeniaceae Frankenia setosa * * Goodeniaceae Scaevola spinescens * *

Lamiaceae Westringia cephalantha *

Family Taxon CLP-EW1 CLP-EW2 DD-EW1

Loranthaceae Amyema miquelii *

Brachychiton gregorii * * Malvaceae Sida calyxhymenia * *

Sida intricata *

Eucalyptus celastroides subsp. celastroides *

Eucalyptus clelandiorum * *

Eucalyptus griffithsii *

Eucalyptus lesouefii * *

Eucalyptus moderata * Myrtaceae Eucalyptus oleosa * *

Eucalyptus salmonophloia * Eucalyptus salubris * *

Eucalyptus transcontinentalis *

Melaleuca sheathiana *

Pittosporaceae Pittosporum angustifolium *

Aristida contorta * *

Eragrostis setifolia * * Poaceae Eragrostis dielsii *

Triodia scariosa * * Grevillea acuaria * *

Proteaceae Grevillea nematophylla * *

Hakea preissii * *

Exocarpos aphyllus * *

Santalaceae Santalum acuminatum *

Santalum spicatum * *

Alectryon oleifolius *

Sapindaceae Dodonaea lobulata * *

Dodonaea viscosa * Eremophila alternifolia * *

Eremophila caperata * * Eremophila decipiens * *

Eremophila dempsteri * *

Eremophila glabra *

Eremophila granitica *

Scrophulariaceae Eremophila interstans subsp. virgata *

Eremophila ionantha *

Eremophila longifolia *

Eremophila oldfieldii subsp. angustifolia * *

Eremophila parvifolia * * Eremophila scoparia * *

Eremophila sp. Mt Jackson (G.J. Keighery 4372) *

Lycium australe * Solanaceae Solanum lasiophyllum * * Solanum orbiculatum * *

Thymelaeaceae Pimelea microcephala *

Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage’s Disclaimer statement at List of Heritage Surveys https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/about-this-website

Search Criteria 1 Heritage Surveys containing 1 Survey Areas in Mining Tenement - M 24/451

Disclaimer Heritage Surveys have been mapped using information from the reports and / or other relevant data sources. Heritage Surveys consisting of small discrete areas may not be visible except at large scales. Reports shown may not be held at the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH). Please consult report holder for more information. Refer to www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/aboriginal-heritage for information on requesting reports held by DPLH.

The information provided is made available in good faith and is predominately based on the information provided to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage by third parties. The information is provided solely on the basis that readers will be responsible for making their own assessment as to the accuracy of the information. If you find any errors or omissions in our records, including our maps, it would be appreciated if you email the details to the Department at [email protected] and we will make every effort to rectify it as soon as possible.

Copyright Copyright in the information contained herein is and shall remain the property of the State of Western Australia. All rights reserved. This includes, but is not limited to, information from the Register of Aboriginal Sites established under and maintained under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

Access Some reports are restricted.

Spatial Accuracy The following legend strictly applies to the spatial accuracy of heritage survey boundaries as captured by DPLH.

Very Good Boundaries captured from surveyed titles, GPS (2001 onwards) submitted maps georeferenced to within 20m accuracy.

Good / Moderate Boundaries captured from GPS (pre 2001) submitted maps georeferenced to within 250m accuracy.

Unreliable Boundaries captured from submitted maps georeferenced to an accuracy exceeding 250m.

Indeterminate Surveys submitted with insufficient information to allow boundary capture.

© Government of Western Australia Report created: 28/05/2020 9:35:03 AM by: GIS_NET_USER Identifier: 453548 Page 1 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage’s Disclaimer statement at List of Heritage Surveys https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/about-this-website

Survey Area Spatial Field / Report Title Report Authors Survey Type Area Description Report ID Number Accuracy Desktop

105309 Works clearance survey under the 1 Archaeological & 12 Tenements: P24/2395-2406 (including MLAs 24/449, Good Field and Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972) and the Ethnographic 24/450, 24/451). Desktop Heritage Act (1990) Credo Project Broad Arrow WA

© Government of Western Australia Report created: 28/05/2020 9:35:03 AM by: GIS_NET_USER Identifier: 453548 Page 2 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage’s Disclaimer statement at List of Registered Aboriginal Sites https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/about-this-website

Search Criteria No Registered Aboriginal Sites in Mining Tenement - m 24/229

Disclaimer The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 preserves all Aboriginal sites in Western Australia whether or not they are registered. Aboriginal sites exist that are not recorded on the Register of Aboriginal Sites, and some registered sites may no longer exist.

Coordinate Accuracy Coordinates (Easting/Northing metres) are based on the GDA 94 Datum. Accuracy is shown as a code in brackets following the coordinates.

© Government of Western Australia Report created: 16/09/2020 2:46:40 PM by: GIS_NET_USER Identifier: 477288 Page 1 Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System For further important information on using this information please see the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage’s Disclaimer statement at List of Other Heritage Places https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/about-this-website

Search Criteria No Other Heritage Places in Mining Tenement - m 24/229

Coordinate Accuracy Coordinates (Easting/Northing metres) are based on the GDA 94 Datum. Accuracy is shown as a code in brackets following the coordinates.

TABLE A. CONSEQUENCE OF EVENT (Actual and Potential)

Level Descriptor Injuries Environment Corporate liability Cost 1 Insignificant No injuries No permanent damage to the No corporate liability <$10,000 environment or heritage feature 2 Minor First aid Spillage immediately contained; Low corporate $10,000 - treatme Minor short-term damage to the liability $50,000 nt environment or heritage feature; 3 Moderate Minor Spillage contained with some Moderate level $50,000 - medical difficulty; of corporate treatme liability $750,000 nt Significant short-term or minor long- term damage to the environment 4 Major Serious Major short-term or significant long- High level of $750,000 - extensiv term damage to the environment corporate liability. e inju ries or heritage feature. $3,0 00,0 00 5 Catastrophic Fatality Major long-term damage to the Very high level of >$3,000,000 environment or heritage feature corpo rate li abi li ty

TABLE B. LIKELIHOOD OF EVENT OCCURRING Level Descriptor Description A Almost Certain Is expected to occur in most circumstances (ie > once per day) B Likely Will probably occur in most circumstances (ie > once per month but < once per C Possible Should occur at some time (ie > once per year but < once per month) D Unlikely Could occur at some time (ie < once per year) E Rare May occur only in exceptional circumstances (ie unlikely to ever occur)

TABLE C. RISK RANKING

Con se qu enc 1 2 3 4 5 A 15 10 6 3 1 B 19 14 9 5 2 C 22 18 13 8 4 D 24 21 17 12 7 E 25 23 20 16 11

Table D. RISK LEVEL TYPE RANKING ACTION REPORTING Extreme risk 1 – 5 • Cease all affected work immediately.

• In the event of an incident an

ICAM is required. Area Manager to be notified immediately High risk 9 – 12 • Consider ceasing all affected work.

• In the event of an incident an ICAM is to be considered.

• Action/s & responsibilities to be assigned by end of the sh ift. Moderate 13 – 19 • In the event of an incident an ICAM is to be Area Manager to be risk considered. notified before the end of shift • Manage by routine procedures. Low risk 20 – 25 • Manage by routine procedures.

DUST SUPPRESSION PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT REVISIONS

Rev. Date Section No. Revised Revised Revision Description

A 09/08/2013 Initial Document

B 23/03/2018 Full doc. Required review. Updated organisational structure, improved grammar, included reference to new EMS documents.

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 1 of 5

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this procedure is to outline the process to suppress prevalence of dust during mining activities, whilst avoiding damage to the surrounding environment.

Dust is generated by wind or vehicle movement over areas cleared of vegetation such as haul roads, ROMs, laydown areas, etc. Risks of generated dust may include; contamination with heavy metals or fibrous materials which may cause harm to health if inhaled, obstruction of vision whilst driving and damage to nearby vegetation if dust settles on leaves and impacts ability to photosynthesise light. Dust suppression is therefore required on a regular basis and is generally through the use of stored groundwater via a standpipe and use of a watercart.

The salinity level of the groundwater resources in the Kalgoorlie region is comparable to salinity levels of sea water or greater (hyper-saline), however, it is the most appropriate and readily available water source to use for dust suppression purposes. The spraying of hyper-saline groundwater to control dust generation is necessary but it is important the application of water is controlled in a manner that prevents secondary impact to vegetation and contamination of the surrounding environment via runoff.

2. SCOPE

The scope of the procedure applies to all sites within the NGF Paddington Operations. For specific applications and the related job steps for dust abatement methods on ramps, haul roads, ROM and mine areas please see specific site safe work procedures.

DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

Definitions  ‘Dust suppression’ is the spraying or dribbling of water on all trafficable roads to abate the dust that rises as vehicles drive over it.  ‘Raw water’ refers to saline and/or hyper-saline water that contains high levels of dissolved salts and is intolerable to most living things.

3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

General Manager Responsible for ensuring sufficient resources are available to implement this Procedure.

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 2 of 5

Environment, Community and Security Superintendent Responsible for discussion/review of this procedure and ensures the Procedure complies with site standards.

Area Superintendents  Responsible for ensuring that staff adhere to procedure; and  Informing the Environmental Department of any issues arising from dust suppression procedures.

Water-Cart Vehicle Operators  Responsible for maintaining awareness and ensuring the correct procedure for spraying roads is adhered to, preventing negative impacts to the environment; and  Reporting any defects associated with the vehicle that may affect the correct application of raw water.

4. PROCEDURE

Dust suppression is required during the operation of a mine where dust can be, or is prevalent, on haul roads and has potential to cause nuisance or present a potential hazard to mine site personnel, operations, or members of the public.

Raw water will be obtained from stand pipes directly to water-carts at various locations on site when needed.

The preferred method of raw water application is via the use of dribble bars as opposed to spray bars. Dribble bars reduce the chance of spraying surrounding vegetation.

Water may be sprayed where adjacent v-drains are in place to capture runoff and prevent spray drifting outside of v-drains, and wind conditions are moderate.

If visible dust is observed, then attempts shall be made to contact an appropriate area shift supervisor, who is to contact the driver of a water cart and organise the application of water in the dusty area. Water is not to be sprayed where any topsoil stripping operations are occurring. If contact cannot be made with either the shift supervisor or water cart driver, the Area Superintendent is to be contacted regarding visible dust.

The use of dust suppression additives is to be assessed via the Hazardous Substances Management Procedure (NGF-SAF-PRO-08-001) if necessary.

Any spills or inappropriate use of hyper-saline water is to be contained where possible and reported to the Environmental Department immediately.

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 3 of 5

4.1 Monitoring

Monitoring is required whilst dust suppression is undertaken to ensure that risks identified are controlled/managed. Dust suppression monitoring includes but is not limited to:  Daily visual observations; and  Annual visual audits of road corridors, bunding, v-drains and spoon drains.

5. CONTINGENCY PLAN

In the event of an uncontrolled discharge of raw water onto vegetation, the following measures should be implemented to reduce the risk of further damage to the environment:  Dust suppression is to stop immediately until the issue has been resolved;  The Area Superintendent and Environment Department will be notified of the spill or where vegetation is affected to ensure that appropriate remediation measures can be implemented;  The spill will be contained within earthen bunds or otherwise to prevent further environmental harm; and  If necessary, contaminated soils should be removed and disposed of from the area.

6. REPORTING

All incidents associated with dust suppression and uncontrolled hypersaline water discharge are classed as reportable incidents by NGF. In the event of an incident, it is required to be entered into Cintellate.

If an incident triggers the criteria within applicable tenement conditions or Section 72 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Environment Department will notify relevant government authorities within the timeframes stipulated within legislation or licence, and to the prescribed standard stipulated within the NGF Incident Reporting and Investigation Procedure.

7. REVIEW

A review shall be carried out to ensure the content of this procedure is still applicable and practicable. A review should take place:  Whenever the process/equipment changes;  At a periodic frequency (every two years); and/or  At incident investigation.

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 4 of 5

8. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS

 Environmental Protection Act 1986; and  Mining Act 1978

9. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION

 Incident and Investigation Procedure  Hazardous Substances Management Procedure  Environmentally Hazardous Substances and Dangerous Goods Management Plan

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 5 of 5

MINE DEWATERING PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT REVISIONS

Rev. Date Section No. Revised Revised Revision Description

A 18/10/2012 Initial Document

B 24/04/2017 All Revision and update

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 1 of 11

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidance to Norton Gold Fields (NGF) employees and contractors on the process of mine dewatering out of open cut and underground mines with discharge primarily into inactive open cut voids, or via other means into the environment.

2. SCOPE

This procedure applies to all sites within the NGF Operations.

3. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

Definitions  Mine dewatering is the extraction of water from an underground or open cut mine and discharge of it into another open cut void or into the environment via other means, such as into a salt lake other water body.  Monthly measurements are to be taken more than 15 days apart across two separate months, but not more than 45 days apart, as per operating license conditions.

Acronyms  DER – Department of Environment Regulation  DoW – Department of Water  GWL – Groundwater Well License

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

General Manager  Responsible for ensuring sufficient resources are available to implement this Procedure.

Environmental Superintendent  Responsible for an annual discussion/biennial review of this Procedure with Area Superintendents and other responsible departments; and  Responsible for maintaining records of open cut and underground mine dewatering volumes, pit water levels and pit water parameters, as required by the relevant DER Works Approval and Licences, and DoW GWLs.

Area Superintendents  Responsible for ensuring that staff adhere to procedure and are made available to carry out inspections as required by relevant licences;  Informing the NGF Environmental Section of any issues identified during dewatering inspections; and

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 2 of 11

 Ensuring logbooks/inspection books are filled out as required by license conditions and when completed, provided to the Environmental Superintendent, or made available to view when requested for inspection purposes.

Surveyors  Surveyors are responsible for ensuring that water levels within the discharge pit are surveyed on a monthly basis or more frequently as required by the relevant licences; and  Responsible for surveying extent of any environmental harm resulting from incidents of hypersaline water discharge.

Dewatering  The Dewatering Section is responsible for ensuring all flow metre readings are recorded on a monthly basis for all pits registered on active GWLs and DER Environmental Operating Licenses.

5. TRAINING

NGF will ensure that training is provided to appropriate responsible site personnel and will include as a minimum the understanding of:  Requirements for dewatering mines as per the relevant licences; and  The requirements of this Procedure.

6. PROCEDURE

Dewatering is required during the operation of a mine where groundwater is infiltrating into an underground or open cut mine at a rate in which it cannot be reutilised for purposes such as dust suppression. In these circumstances, water is collected in either a sump or dam and pumped via a pipeline to a discharge location such as an inactive open cut void with sufficient storage capacity.

Considerations for the discharge location must be investigated prior to requesting government agency approval and include; water quality, storage capacity, geotechnical stability, safe access and groundwater flow direction.

In instances where a salt lake is considered as a potential discharge location, archaeological, hydrological and ecological studies may also be required prior to application to ensure impacts to the environment are minimised.

6.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEWATERING POINTS

Government Approval Prior to undertaking the construction or operation of a dewatering network, approvals are required from DER when design capacity of the discharge could exceed 50,000 t

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 3 of 11

per year (if pipeline infrastructure were to be operated at maximum capacity 24hrs/day for 365 days per year).

The application for Works Approvals and Environmental Operating Licences will be made via the Environment Section after an appropriate discharge receiving location has been identified and risk assessed.

Pipeline Pipelines are to be constructed of HDPE piping that meets Australian Standards:  AS/NZS 2033:2008: Installation of polyethylene pipe systems;  AS/NZS 4129:2008 Fittings for polyethylene (PE) pipes for pressure applications;  AS/NZS 4130:2009 Polyethylene (PE) pipes for pressure applications; and  AS/NZS 4131:2010 Polyethylene (PE) compounds for pressure pipes and fittings.

All pipelines are to be fitted with isolation and breather valves, as dewatering pipeline networks do not generally have telemetry systems installed. Additionally, a flow meter is required to be installed with monthly readings to be reported and made available to the Environment Section to ensure compliance with relevant licences.

Pipeline Bunding As water in the Goldfields is brackish to hypersaline, an uncontrolled release of water can have a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment. Therefore, all pipelines on the surface must be contained within an earthen bund or v-drain that directs water either to a mining void or catchment pit. The bund must be constructed in such a way that if a pipeline were to fail, the bunding would sufficiently contain the volume of discharge from the pipeline and prevent the release of water into the surrounding environment.

Pumping All pumps using fuel are required to have a hydrocarbon spill kit nearby to ensure that any hydrocarbon spills are managed appropriately. Each department is responsible for ensuring their spill kits are stocked and in good order. Where it is identified there is inadequate spill response equipment available, the Environment Section shall be contacted to supply a new or refurbished spill kit for the area.

6.2 Monitoring

Monitoring is required whilst dewatering activities are undertaken to ensure that risks identified by dewatering are controlled/managed (these are generally licence conditions also). Dewatering monitoring includes but is not limited to:

12 hourly inspections Whilst dewatering is occurring, 12 hourly inspections shall be carried out and recorded in the pipeline inspection logbook held within the Area Superintendent’s office. The recommended schedule for 12 hourly inspections should include the following:

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 4 of 11

 Inspection of the pipeline network for leaks and to check that all pipelines, valves, flow meters, fittings and other equipment are in good operating condition;  Inspections of pipeline bund for erosion, degradation and to ensure pipeline remains within the confines of the bund;  Inspections of active groundwater discharge point to ensure that operational procedures are being implemented in accordance with deposition plan; and  Inspection of discharge pit water levels to ensure water levels are maintained within the nominated free board associated with the relevant licences (generally 6 metres below ground level).

Monthly Monitoring Monthly monitoring includes:  Monthly surveys of water levels within the discharge pit are required to be carried out and recorded to ensure the water levels do not breach the freeboard levels outlined in the relevant licences; and  Flow meter readings are required to be recorded monthly from water meters associated with active dewatering pipelines.

Annual Monitoring Groundwater quality sampling is required to be carried out annually (unless stated otherwise on a license). This should include sampling the following analytes (also unless stated otherwise) in all receiving pits:  Electrical conductivity;  Water temperature;  pH;  Total Dissolved Solids; and  A metals suite analysis.

Ground water sampling procedures shall be conducted in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 5667.11 and the groundwater samples sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for analyses.

Additional Inspections The following additional inspections should be carried out following heavy rainfall events:  Integrity of pipeline bund and of pipeline and pit access roads;  Integrity of safety bund, diversion embankment and diversion trench; and  Integrity of pit margins.

Additional monitoring requirements may be necessary in conjunction with those stipulated above, due to the nature of the area and/or the monitoring requirements outlined in the relevant licences.

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 5 of 11

7. RECORD KEEPING

Records of pipeline inspections will be maintained and stored within the Area Superintendents office, to be made available upon request when an internal or external audit is carried out.

Water level surveys, water meter readings and water quality analysis will be maintained by the Survey, Regional Infrastructure and Environment Sections and stored in an appropriately marked folder in the Environmental Superintendent’s office, or in an appropriate digital folder on P drive.

8. CONTINGENCY PLAN

In the event of a spill, the following measures should be implemented to reduce the risk of further damage to the environment:  Dewatering activities to stop immediately until the issue has been resolved;  The Area Superintendent and Environment Section to be notified of spills or breaks in containment to ensure that appropriate remediation measures can be implemented;  Pipeline breaks will be repaired immediately and spilled material collected or pumped and discharged into the pit; and  In the event of erosion or scouring resulting from the spillage, appropriate remediation measures will be implemented, as per the Environmental Superintendent’s advice.

9. REPORTING

All spills, pipeline infrastructure failures, breakdown of containment bunding and failure to carry out 12 hourly inspections without reasonable cause are classed as reportable incidents and are required to be entered into STEMS.

If the incident is also classified as externally reportable, the Environment Section will notify relevant government authorities within the timeframes stipulated by legislation or licence requirements and to the prescribed standard, usually within one working day of becoming aware of the incident, by verbal or written notification.

10. REVIEW

A review shall be carried out to ensure the content of this procedure is still applicable, current and practicable. A review should take place: a. Whenever the process/equipment changes b. At a periodic frequency (every two years) c. At incident investigation.

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 6 of 11

11. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS

 Environmental Protection Act 1986; and  Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914.

12. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION

The following documentation may be utilised or referenced to comply with the requirements of this procedure:

 Norton’s Groundwater Operating Strategy

Department of Water:  Groundwater Well License 151865(10) – Paddington Gold  Groundwater Well License 160697(3) – Ora Banda  Groundwater Well License 167686(3) – Navajo Chief and Janet Ivy  Groundwater Well License 182749(1) – Bullabulling

Department of Environment Regulation:  Environmental Operating License L8327/2008/2 – Rose Pit  Environmental Operating License L8512/2010/2 – Bullant and San Peblo  Environmental Operating License L8692/2012/1 – Enterprise  Environmental Operating License L9048/2017/1 – Janet Ivy

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 7 of 11

Appendix 1: Homestead and Quarters 040 DER License L8327/2008/2 Activities

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 8 of 11

Appendix 2: Bullant Underground DER License 8512/2010/2 Activities

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 9 of 11

Appendix 3: Janet Ivy DER License L9048/2017/1 Activities

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 10 of 11

Appendix 4: Enterprise DER License 8692/2012/1 Activities

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 11 of 11

Rose Dam North Dewatering Works Approval – Commissioning Plan

Following installation of dewatering infrastructure, Norton will undertake a commissioning period to verify the correct installation and operation prior to obtaining a discharge license. Commissioning will include both no-load and load commissioning to ensure compliance against design criteria. Load commissioning is proposed to occur for a period of either six months or until a discharge license is obtained (whichever occurs sooner).

No-load commissioning Prior to any dewatering a no-load commissioning check will occur to ensure correct installation and integrity of infrastructure. This will include:  Confirming pumps, flow meters, air valves and scour valves are installed correctly.  Inspecting pipeline weld integrity.  Pressure testing of the pipeline to maximum credible operating pressure for a period of at least 2 hours.  Confirm pipeline has been anchored with earth or other measures at top of discharge locations.  Ensuring that the v-drains are a maximum of 30cm deep and sufficient to contain a volume of discharge from the pipeline.  Ensure that v-drains contain entire pipeline.  Ensuring that scour pits have been installed at strategic locations along to pipeline corridor, which in combination with bunding are sufficient.