assessment on proponent information ......– the rail alignment design will be assessed to avoid...

BALLABALLAINFRASTRUCTURE–RAILANDCONVEYORPROJECT

ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATIONDOCUMENT

Date:9December2014

BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500

Proponentcontactdetails:

RUTILARESOURCESLTDContactPerson: AngelaJohnson–GroupExecutive‐WAEmail: [email protected]: www.rutila.com.auPhone: +61894835700Address: GroundFloorEast,34ColinStreet,WestPerth,WesternAustralia,6005Documentdevelopedby:

PRESTONCONSULTINGPTYLTDPhilScott(Director)Email: [email protected]: www.prestonconsulting.com.auPhone: +61892210011Fax: +61892214783StreetAddress: Level3,201AdelaideTerrace,EastPerth,WesternAustralia,6004PostalAddress: POBox3093,EastPerth,WesternAustralia,6892 DisclaimerThisReporthasbeenpreparedonbehalfofandfortheexclusiveuseofRutilaResourcesLtdandissubjecttoandissuedinaccordancewiththeagreementbetweenPrestonConsultingPtyLtdandRutilaResourcesLtd.PrestonConsultingPtyLtdacceptsnoliabilityorresponsibilitywhatsoeverfororinrespectofanyuseoforrelianceuponthisReportbyanythirdparty.Photoonfrontpagetitled“BallaBallaTrainPullingCopperOreinSacks–C1901‐1910”obtainedfromBattyeLibraryPerth

ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATIONDOCUMENTRutilaResourcesLtd

BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500 P a g e |i

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

ForgeResourcesSwanPtyLtd(Forge)obtainedMinisterialapprovalforthedevelopmentoftheBallaBallaInfrastructurePort(BBIP)on21August2013(MinisterialStatement945(MS945)).Forgeisa100%ownedsubsidiaryofASXlistedRutilaResourcesLtd(Rutila).Rutilaisthejointventure (JV) partner with Todd Corporation Ltd in the Balla Balla JV, whereby Forge is theassignedManager.

TheBBIPislocatedonthePilbaracoastline,approximately100kilometres(km)eastofAnketellPoint and 120 km south‐west of Port Hedland in Western Australia (WA). The BBIP wasoriginally proposed to allow the export of ore from Rutila’s Balla Balla Infrastructure Mine(MS794),howeverrecentstudieshaveidentifiedthatthereisadditionalportcapacityavailablefor use by third parties. The Pilbara IronOre Project (PIOP) (MS 924) operated by FlindersMinesLtd(Flinders)willbetheBBIPfoundationcustomer.

Toallowthistooccur,anapproximate200kmcombinationofrailwayandoverlandconveyorwillbeconstructedtoconnecttheBBIPwiththePIOPinthecentralPilbararegion.ThisrailwayandconveyororetransportinfrastructureisreferredtoastheBallaBallaInfrastructure–Railand Conveyor Project (the Proposal), and combined with the BBIP, form the Balla BallaInfrastructureProject.

TableES1providesashortsummaryoftheProposalthatisthesubjectofthisdocument.

TableES1:SummaryoftheProposal

ProposalTitle BallaBallaInfrastructure–RailandConveyorProject

ProponentName ForgeResourcesSwanPtyLtd

ShortDescription TheProposalistoconstructandoperatearailwayline(approximately160kminlength)andconveyorline(approximately40kminlength)runningfromthePilbaraIronOreProject(operatedbyFlindersMinesLtd)northtotheBallaBallaInfrastructurePort.TheProposalincludessupportinginfrastructuresuchasstockyards,borrowpits,accessroads,communications,waterboresandpipelines,accommodationcamps,workshops,laydownareas,aballastquarry,aconveyorrailwaylineoverpassandgradeseparationcrossingoftheNorthWestCoastalHighway(NWCH).

Two ‘key’environmental factors, floraandvegetationand terrestrial fauna,were identifiedaspotentiallybeingsignificantlyimpactedbytheProposalintheabsenceofmitigation.Potentialenvironmental impacts,mitigationandoutcomes for these factorsarediscussed inTableES2andaredescribedinmoredetailinSection6.


BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500 P a g e |ii

TableES2:Assessmenttable–keyenvironmentalfactors

PreliminaryKeyEnvironmentalFactor/

EPAObjective

PotentiallySignificantImpact(withoutmitigation)

EnvironmentalAspect

ManagementActions(Mitigation) Regulation PredictedOutcomes(MeetsEPAObjective–Y/N)

FloraandVegetation–

Tomaintainrepresentation,diversity,viabilityandecologicalfunctionatthespecies,populationandcommunitylevel.

Context

Flora:

NoThreatenedFlora(TF)recordedwithintheStudyArea(‘StudyArea’forthisfactorisdefinedasthealignmentandareassurveyedbyEcoscapeanddescribedinEcoscape,2014a);

NinePriority(P)FlorarecordedwithintheStudyArea,includingthreeP1andoneP2taxa;

17additionalPriorityFlora(PF)havethepotentialtooccur(butwerenotrecorded);

NoDeclaredPestplantsundertheBiosecurityandAgricultureManagementAct2007recorded;and

16introducedplantspeciesrecorded.

Vegetation:

90.6%ofthevegetationintheStudyAreawasfoundtobeinExcellentcondition,with6.2%inVeryGoodcondition;

BeardVegetationAssociationsthatintersectwiththeStudyAreaallhavemorethan97.8%oftheirpre‐Europeanextentremaining;

NosheetflowdependentvegetationidentifiedwithintheStudyArea;

NoThreatenedEcologicalCommunities(TECs)identified;

OnePEC(P3‘HorseflatLandSystemoftheRoebournePlains’)locatedinthenorthernportionoftheStudyArea;

VegetationthatmayrepresenttheP1sub‐typeofthe‘FourplantassemblagesoftheWonaLandSystem’PECidentifiedbutnotyetconfirmedasaPEC;

GroundwaterDependentEcosystems(GDEs)occurwithintheStudyArea,generallyalongmaindrainagelines;and

AnumberofvegetationtypeshavingrestricteddistributionswereidentifiedbyEcoscape(2014)asbeinglocallysignificant.

RelevantDesignCommitments:

TheProposalAreaboundaryandBBIPrailloophavebeenrelocatedapproximately4.5kmtothesouth‐east,whichexcludeslargeportionsoftheP3PECfromthisassessment;and

Upto3,000haofgrounddisturbancewillberequiredduringoperations.Thebalancebetweenthevegetationdisturbedduringconstructionandtheoperationalfootprintwillberehabilitatedoncetheareasarenolongerrequired.

Impacts

DirectlossofmostlyVeryGoodtoExcellentconditionvegetation;

Grounddisturbance–clearingofnativevegetation;and

Earthmovingandconstructionactivities.

Implementthefollowingindustrybest‐practicecontrols:

ImplementProjectConstructionandOperationalEMPs;

Vegetationclearingwillbemanagedthroughinternalgrounddisturbanceprocedures;

BoundariesofareastobeclearedordisturbedwillbeidentifiedbyGPScoordinatesandmapsofboundarieswillbeprovidedtodozeroperator;

Undertakeprogressiveclearing;

Conductraisedbladedisturbancewherepracticableontrackstominimisevegetationremoval;

Developthedisturbancefootprinttotheminimumrequiredtoensuresafeandadequateconstructionandoperation;

Applywaterordustsuppressantstodisturbedareasandoretransfer/storageareastominimisedustgeneration;

Implementweedhygieneandmanagementmeasures/procedurestopreventspreadofweedsandtheintroductionofnewweedspeciesasaresultofconstructionandoperationoftherailwaylineandassociatedinfrastructure;and

Cleanvehiclespriortoenteringvegetatedareastopreventtheintroductionofnewweedspecies.

Implementthefollowingadditionalproposalspecificcontrols:

ConductadditionalfloraandvegetationsurveysofanyportionsoftheProposalAreathathavenotyetbeensurveyed.TheProposalAreaistheareathatformsthebasisforthisProposalandistheareawithinwhichtheProposalwillbeimplemented.TheProposalAreaisoutlinedinredinFigure1;

DevelopInfrastructurePlanandsubmittoOEPAforapprovalpriortothecommencementofconstruction.TheInfrastructurePlanistofinalisetherequireddisturbancetokeyenvironmentalfeatures,andwillincludetheresultsofthesurveysdiscussedabove;

Offsetclearingofupto3,000haofVeryGoodtoExcellentconditionvegetation,basedontheresultsoftheInfrastructurePlan;

IdentifythestatusandmaptheextentofthepotentialP1‐P3‘FourplantassemblagesoftheWonaLandSystem‘PECidentifiedintheProposalArea;

VegetationconfirmedtoformpartofaPECistobeconsideredakeyconstraint–therailalignmentdesignwillbeassessedtoavoidPECswherepracticable.Flexibleinfrastructure(camps,accessroads,borrowpitsetc.)willbelocatedoutsideofthePECboundarieswherepracticable;

LocallysignificantvegetationandknownPFlocationswillbeincludedinadesignconstraintsmaptobeusedduringdetailedprojectplanning.Theselocationswillbeavoidedifsuitablealternativeoptionsfortherailalignmentareavailable.Flexibleinfrastructure(camps,accessroads,borrowpitsetc.)willbesitedtoavoidorminimiseimpactstotheselocations;and

Appropriatebufferswillbeappliedaroundlocallysignificantvegetation,PECsandPFifnecessarybasedontheconstructionactivitiestobeundertaken(i.e.tominimiseindirectimpactsfromdust,floodingetc.).

MinisterialStatement(future);

EnvironmentProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999(EPBCAct),PartV(authorisedclearing)andEnvironmentalProtection(ClearingofNativeVegetation)Regulations2004–abletoaddressanyadditionalclearingoutsideofboundariesorlimitsauthorisedunderPartIVoftheEPAct;

WildlifeConservationAct1950(WA)(WCAct)andEPBCActcanaddressimpactstoprotectedfloraiffound;

WeedmanagementwillbeinaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheAgricultureandRelatedResourcesProtectionAct1976;and

FutureStateAgreementAct,MiningAct1978(MiningAct)andPortAuthorityapprovalstoensureProposalisdevelopedasperapproveddesign.

TheProposalwillresultinthedisturbanceofupto3,000haofnativevegetation,withapproximately1,200habeingrehabilitatedatthecompletionoftheconstructionperiod.AconservativeestimateisthatallofthevegetationtobedisturbediseitherinVeryGoodorExcellentcondition(96.8%ofthevegetationwithintheStudyAreafallswithineitherofthesecategories);

ThefinaldisturbanceextentwithineachbioregionwillbeconfirmedwiththesubmissionoftheInfrastructurePlanpriortoconstruction.Thisinformationwillbeusedtodetermineoffsetrequirements;

Theproposeddisturbanceisnotexpectedtoresultinasignificantdeclineintheextentofvegetationassociationsasallarealmostcompletelyintact(i.e.>97.8%remaining)andtheProposalislinearinnature(i.e.disturbanceisspreadacrossupto15associations);

NoTECsorTFspeciesareexpectedtobeimpacted;

PFhavebeenrecordedandsomeplantsorpopulationsmaynotbeabletobeavoided.Impactshoweverarenotexpectedtobesignificantgiventhat:

o Somespeciesthriveondisturbedareasandpopulationsmaythereforeincrease;and

o Mostspecieshaveawidedistributionorarelocallycommon.

OfnoteisthattheBBIPrailloophasbeenrelocatedapproximately4.5kmtothesouth‐east,whichhassignificantlyreducedimpactstoaP3PEC‘HorseflatLandSystemoftheRoebournePlains’.ThefinalProposalAreaboundaryhasbeenamendedtoreflectthischange.Upto324.5haofthisPECremainswithintheProposalArea,howeverthisequatestoonly2.3%oftheoverallPECpolygon(PECpolygon1878).AportionofthePECmaybedisturbedhoweveritnotisexpectedtobesignificantfromalocalorregionalperspective;

Upto6haofthevegetationthatmayrepresentaP1sub‐typeofthe‘FourplantassemblagesoftheWonaLandSystem’PECisexpectedtobeimpactedasitlieswithinaconfinedvalley.TheimplementationofmanagementactionswillminimisetheimpactstothispotentialPEChoweverupto19%ofthepolygon(Figure7)willbedisturbed.Thereareapproximately127,050haofthisPECwithinthePilbara,thereforetheProposalisnotexpectedtosignificantlyimpactthePEConaregionalscale;

NosheetflowdependentvegetationwillbeimpactedasnonewasfoundwithintheProposalArea;

Indirectimpactsarenotexpectedtobesignificant

Alterationorblockageofsurfacewaterflows

Incorporatesurfacewatermanagementanderosionprotectionintoprojectplanninganddesigntominimisedisruptiontowatercoursesandriparianvegetation;and

Implementmeasurestomanagesurfacewaterflowsalongthelengthoftherailalignmenttominimisedownstreameffects.

EnvironmentProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999(EPBCAct),PartV(authorisedclearing)andEnvironmentalProtection(ClearingofNativeVegetation)Regulations2004–abletoaddressdisturbancetovegetation


BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500 P a g e |iii


EPAObjective


EnvironmentalAspect


DirectlossofconfirmedorpotentialPECvegetation;

DirectlossofPFspecies;

Indirectimpactstovegetationhealththrougharangeofmechanismssuchasdust,floodingorerosion;

Transferofexistingweeds,introductionofnewweedspeciesduringconstructionandoperation;and

GroundwaterdrawdownaroundabstractionboresresultinginareductioninGDEhealth.

asaresultoffloodingorerosionoutsideofthelimitsauthorisedunderPartIVoftheEPAct;and

FutureStateAgreementAct,MiningAct1978(MiningAct)andPortAuthorityapprovalstoensurewatercoursecrossingsaredevelopedasperapproveddesign.

astheimplementationofindustry‐standardcontrolshassuitablymanagedtheseimpactsinsimilarprojectsacrossthePilbara;

AnyoccurrencesofnewweedspeciesorthespreadofexistingweedswillbecontainedwithintheProposalAreaandcontrolledthrougheradicationmeasures;and

TakingintoconsiderationthecarefulselectionofProposalAreaboundaries(toexcludekeyenvironmentalfeatures),proposedmanagementactionsandtheapplicationofoffsets,RutilaexpectsthattheProposalcanbeimplementedtomeettheEPAObjectiveforthisfactor.

Abstractionofgroundwater

GroundwaterabstractionborestobelocatedandoperatedsuchthatgroundwaterdrawdownisminimisedwithinareasofconfirmedGDEs.

26Dand5CLicencesundertheRIWIActcanensureimpactstoGDEsareminimised.

TerrestrialFauna‐Tomaintainrepresentation,diversity,viabilityandecologicalfunctionatthespecies,populationandassemblagelevel.

Context

Threebroadfaunahabitats;plainandplateau,slopesandriver,largecreekandassociatedvegetation;

FiveconservationsignificantfaunarecordedintheStudyArea(‘StudyArea’isdefinedasthealignmentandareassurveyedbyPhoenixanddescribedinPhoenix,2014a):

o NorthernQuoll(EN‐EPBCAct;S1‐WCAct);

o RainbowBee‐eater(Migratory–EPBCAct);

o LinedSoil‐creviceSkink(P4–DepartmentofParksandWildlife(DPaW));

o AustralianBustard(P4–DPaW);and

o WesternPebble‐moundMouse(P4–DPaW).

Afurther23conservationsignificantfaunaspeciesmaypotentiallyoccur;

Approximately640haofsuitableNorthernQuolldenningandshelterhabitatwasmappedasscattered‘patches’,spanningseverallandsystemsandisconsideredsignificanthabitat;

RestrictedhabitatforPilbaraOlivePython(VU–EPBCAct,S1–WCAct)andNorthernMarsupialMole(EN–EPBCAct,S1–WCAct)alsolocated;

3,612haofpotentialburrowingandforaginghabitatfortheBilby(VU–EPBCAct;S1–WCAct)andBrush‐tailedMulgara(P4–DPaW)wasrecordedinthenorthernportionoftheStudyArea;

WiththeexceptionoftheNorthernQuoll,PilbaraOlivePythonandNorthernMarsupialMolehabitat,conservationsignificantfaunahabitatisgenerallywellconnectedtosimilarhabitatoutsideoftheProposalArea;

TheRainbowBee‐eater,AustralianBustardandWesternPebble‐moundMousearecommonandwidespreadthroughoutthe

Grounddisturbance–clearingofpotentialfaunahabitat

Implementthefollowingmanagementactions:

ImplementmanagementactionsdetailedinFloraandVegetationsectionabove.Themajorityoftheseactionsalsomanageimpactstofaunahabitat;

ConductadditionaltargetedsignificantfaunahabitatsurveysofanyportionsoftheProposalAreathathavenotyetbeensurveyed(Figure8);

DevelopInfrastructurePlanandsubmittoOEPAforapprovalpriortothecommencementofconstruction.TheInfrastructurePlanistofinalisetherequireddisturbancetoconservationsignificantfaunahabitat,andwillincludetheresultsofthesurveysdiscussedabove;

NoNorthernMarsupialMolehabitatistobedisturbed;

NorthernQuollandPilbaraOlivePythondenning/shelterhabitatareasaretobeconsideredkeyconstraints–therailalignmentdesignwillbeassessedtoavoidtheseareasofhabitatwherepracticable.Flexibleinfrastructure(camps,accessroads,borrowpitsetc.)willnotbelocatedwithinthesehabitatareas;

Watercoursecrossingswillbeconstructedwithculvertsorbridgeswhichwillallowfaunatotraverseundertherailcorridor;

Bilby,Brush‐tailedMulgaraandSREhabitatwillbeincludedinadesignconstraintsmaptobeusedduringdetailedprojectplanning.Flexibleinfrastructure(camps,accessroads,borrowpitsetc.)willbesitedtoavoidorminimiseimpactswithinthesehabitatareas;

AppropriatebufferswillbeappliedaroundNorthernQuoll,PilbaraOlivePythonandNorthernMarsupialMoledenning/shelterhabitatifnecessarybasedontheconstructionactivitiestobeundertaken(i.e.tominimiseindirectimpactsfromdust,floodingetc.);

PrepareandimplementaNorthernQuollManagementPlanpriortoconstruction.ThemanagementplanwillincludeinformationfromtheInfrastructurePlanaboutfinalhabitatdisturbancerequirementsaswellasadditionalspecificdesignandmanagementcontrolsfortheNorthernQuollsuchas:

o Pre‐clearingsurveystodeterminethelocationofdens;

o ClearingcampaignsandsignificantdevelopmentswithinNorthernQuollcriticaldenning/shelterhabitatwillbescheduledtoavoidthebreedingseasonwherepossible;

o Considerationofadditionalfaunaculvertstomaintainhabitatconnectivity;

o Rehabilitationofhabitat;and

o ConductaprogramtomonitortheeffectsoftheProposalonNorthernQuoll.

MinisterialStatement(future);

EPBCActPartV(authorisedclearing)andEnvironmentalProtection(ClearingofNativeVegetation)Regulations2004–abletoaddressanyadditionalfaunahabitatdisturbanceoutsideofboundariesauthorisedunderPartIVoftheEPAct;

WCActandEPBCActcanaddressunauthorisedimpactstoprotectedfauna;and

FutureStateAgreementAct,MiningActandPortAuthorityapprovalstoensureProposalisdevelopedasperapproveddesign.

TheProposalwillresultinthedisturbanceofapproximately3,000haoffaunahabitat,ofwhichapproximately1,200hawillberehabilitatedatthecompletionoftheconstructionperiod.BroadfaunahabitatinthesurroundingarearemainsalmostcompletelyintactandthereforetheProposalisnotexpectedtohaveasignificanteffectontherepresentationofbroadfaunahabitatatalocalorregionallevel;

NorthernQuollareexpectedtobeabletotraversetherailembankment.ThemajorityoftheareasofNorthernQuolldenning/shelterhabitatwillbecompletelyavoided.OfnoteisthattheProposalAreahasbeenrevisedtonowexcludesiteQ5,whichhadthehighestrecordednumbersofNorthernQuoll.Aftertheimplementationofmanagementactionsupto5haoftheremaininghabitatwillberequiredtobedisturbedoutofatotalof640haidentifiedintheStudyArea.ThisequatestoadisturbanceofhabitatwithintheStudyAreaoflessthan1%.Allofthelandsystemscontainingsuitablehabitatarewellrepresentedinthesurroundingareas.Rutilaisconfidentthathabitatdisturbancehasbeenavoidedandminimisedasmuchaspossible.TheProposalisthereforenotexpectedtoresultinasignificantresidualimpacttothisspecies;

Aftertheimplementationofthemanagementactionsupto78haofPilbaraOlivePythonhabitatwillberequiredtobedisturbed,outofatotalof4,109haidentifiedwithintheStudyArea.OfnoteisthattheProposalAreahasbeenrevisedtonowexcludesiteQ5,whichhadasignificantportionofsuitablehabitatforthisspecies.ThemaximumdisturbanceofhabitatidentifiedwithintheStudyAreaequatestolessthan2%.SuitablehabitatexistsoutsideoftheProposalAreaandRutilaisconfidentthathabitatdisturbancehasbeenavoidedandminimisedasmuchaspossible.RutilathereforeexpectsthattheProposalwillnotresultinasignificantresidualimpactonthisspecies;

Thesanddunehabitats(shownindarkblueonFigure2andFigure3)areconsideredtobesuitabletosupporttheNorthernMarsupialMole,howeveritspresenceorabsencecannotbe

Vehicletraffic,noiseandhumaninteraction

Implementthefollowingcontrols:

Includefaunaegressmechanismsatallturkeysnestdams;

Providetrainingtoensurethatnativeorintroducedfaunaarenotfedbysite

FutureStateAgreementAct,MiningActandPortAuthorityapprovalstoensureProposalisconstructedinaccordancewith


BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500 P a g e |iv


EPAObjective


EnvironmentalAspect


Pilbarabioregionandtherecordsofthesespeciesfromthesurveysarenotconsideredtobesignificant;

13likelyorpotentialshort‐rangeendemic(SRE)taxaidentifiedasoccurringwithintheStudyArea;and

TwooftheseSREspeciesareonlyknownfromwithintheStudyArea.

RelevantDesignCommitments:

Upto3,000haofgeneralfaunahabitatdisturbancewillberequiredduringoperations.Thebalancebetweenthehabitatdisturbedduringconstructionandwhatisrequiredduringoperationswillberehabilitatedoncetheareasarenolongerrequired;

TheProposalAreaboundaryhasbeenrevisedtoexcludeNunyerryGorge,whichcontainssiteQ5,thesitethathadthehighestrecordednumbersofNorthernQuollduringthePhoenixsurvey;

DisturbanceofNorthernQuolldenning/shelterhabitatwillberestrictedtoamaximumof5ha;

NoNorthernMarsupialMolehabitatwillbedisturbed;and

DisturbanceofPilbaraOlivePythonshelterhabitatwillberestrictedtoamaximumof78ha.

Impacts

Generallossoffaunahabitat;

Lossofconservationsignificantfaunahabitat;

Declineinhabitatquality;

Vehiclestrikecausinginjuryordeath;and

Changeinbehaviourasaresultofnoise.

duringconstructionandoperationactivities

personnel;

Storefoodwastesinbinsthatarenoteasilyaccessibletofauna;

Uselownoiseequipmentwherepracticable;

Developborrowpitssuchthattheyarefree‐draining(wherepracticable–discussedfurtherinSection7)tominimisewaterpooling;

Controlintroducedfaunaaroundcampsandotherworkareas;

Internalreportingofallincidentsresultinginfaunainjuryordeath;and

Setandenforcevehiclespeedlimits.

controls. confirmed.Nevertheless,avoidance,minimisationandmitigationstrategieshavebeenappliedthishabitat,andtheProposalisabletocompletelyavoidthishabitat;

OtherconservationsignificantfaunahabitatiswidespreadandgenerallywellconnectedtosimilarhabitatoutsideoftheProposalArea.Thedisturbanceofanarrowcorridorandassociateditemsisnotexpectedtosignificantlyimpactthehabitatofthesespecies.

TheProposalwillnotaffecttheconservationstatusofanysignificantspecies;

TwoSREspeciesareonlyknownfromwithinthestudyarea,fromrockyhillandgullyhabitat.AvoidanceandmanagementstrategiesareproposedforSREhabitat,andthedevelopmentoflinearinfrastructureislikelytodissectaportionofSREhabitatratherthandisturbanentirepopulation.ItisalsolikelythatsuitablehabitatexistsoutsidetheProposalArea(Phoenix,2014a).TheProposalisthereforeunlikelytoresultinsignificantimpactstoanySREspecies;

Noiseimpactsarenotexpectedtobesignificantasconstructiondoesnotgenerallyoccurinasinglelocationforanextendedperiod.Railmovementsduringoperationsareinfrequent;and

TakingintoconsiderationthecarefulselectionofProposalAreaboundaries(toexcludekeyfaunahabitat)andproposedmanagementactions,RutilaexpectsthattheProposalcanbeimplementedtomeettheEPAObjectiveforthisfactor.

500000mE

500000mE

550000mE

550000mE

600000mE

600000mE

7700000mN7700000mN

7650000mN7650000mN

7600000mN7600000mN

LOCALITY

0 10km

Scale 1:750,000MGA94 (Zone 50)

WESTERNWESTERN

AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA

KalgoorlieKalgoorliePerthPerth

Balla BallaBalla Balla

GeraldtonGeraldton

LegendProposed Infrastructure Areas

Pilbara Iron Ore Project (PIOP)

BBI Mine & Port

Proposal Area

Rail

Conveyor

TopographyConservation / National Park

DoT Port Boundary

Road / Track

Railway

Watercourse

KarrathaKarratha Port HedlandPort Hedland

MungaroonaMungaroonaRange NatureRange Nature

ReserveReserve

NorthNorth

WestWest

CoastalCoastal

HighwayHighway

ROEBOURNEROEBOURNE

Whim CreekWhim Creek

WICKHAMWICKHAM

TomTom

PricePrice

RailwayRailway

Roebourne

Roebourne

Wittenoom

Wittenoom

RoadRoad

Millstream Chichester National ParkMillstream Chichester National Park

RoadRoadWittenoom

Wittenoom

Nanut

arra

Nanut

arra

Karijini National ParkKarijini National Park

NWCH Crossing

SherlockSherlock

RiverRiver

Fortescue

Fortescue

FortescueFortescue

RiverRiver

RiverRiver

CaliwingaCaliwinga

Cree

kCr

eek

Weelumurra

Weelumurra

CreekCreek

HooleyHooley CreekCreek

Nuny

erry

Nuny

erry

Creek

Creek

Sher

lock

Sher

lock

Rive

rRi

ver

BallaBalla

RiverRiver

BallaBalla

BBI Port

BBI PortConveyor

BBI RailStockyard

PIOPPIOP

BBI MineBBI Mine

BBI PortStockyard

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure ES 1: Location of the Proposal Area and Indicative Infrastructure


BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500 P a g e |vi

FigureES2providesaconceptualillustrationofthesignificanceframeworkandhowitappliestothekeyenvironmentalfactorsthatmaybeimpactedbytheProposal.ItillustratesRutila’sviewof the levelofuncertaintyremainingafterall available informationhasbeenconsidered. It isexpected that the application of conditions (relating to offsets and the requirement for anInfrastructurePlan)willgreatlyreduceanyuncertaintyandensurethattheProposalcanmeettheEPA’sObjectives.

Please note that Figure ES2 is conceptual only and is not intended to imply precision inevaluatingthesignificanceofimpacts.

FigureES2:Conceptualillustrationoftheapplicationofthesignificanceframework

Flora&Vegetation TerrestrialFauna

Likelysignificanceofimpacts

KeyEnvironmentalFactors Outcome Condition

MaymeettheEPA'sObjectives

MeetstheEPA'sObjectives

UnlikelytomeettheEPA'sObjective


BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500 P a g e |vii

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................I

LISTOFFIGURES..........................................................................................................................................VIII

LISTOFTABLES...........................................................................................................................................VIII

LISTOFAPPENDICES.................................................................................................................................VIII

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1

ProjectBackground...............................................................................................................................................1

PurposeofthisDocument...................................................................................................................................1

LevelofAssessmentCriteria‐CategoryAAPI...........................................................................................2

2 PROPONENTANDKEYPROPOSALCHARACTERISTICS......................................................3

ProponentDetails...................................................................................................................................................3

KeyProposalCharacteristics.............................................................................................................................3

3 GENERALDESCRIPTIONOFPROPOSAL...................................................................................8

ProposalFacilitiesandActivities....................................................................................................................8

Location,TenureandLandUse......................................................................................................................10

AlternativesConsidered.....................................................................................................................................11

ApprovalandDevelopmentTimeframes...................................................................................................12

4 STAKEHOLDERCONSULTATION.............................................................................................15

5 RELEVANTSTUDIES.....................................................................................................................17

6 ASSESSMENTOFPRELIMINARYKEYENVIRONMENTALFACTORS.............................19

DeterminationofKeyEnvironmentalFactors........................................................................................19

FloraandVegetation..........................................................................................................................................19

Context........................................................................................................................................................................19

PotentialSignificantImpactswithoutMitigation..................................................................................21

ProposedManagement(Mitigation)............................................................................................................25

Regulation.................................................................................................................................................................26

OutcomeandAssessmentagainstEPAObjective....................................................................................27

TerrestrialFauna..................................................................................................................................................29

Context........................................................................................................................................................................29

PotentialSignificantImpactswithoutMitigation..................................................................................32

ProposedManagement(Mitigation)............................................................................................................32

Regulation.................................................................................................................................................................33

OutcomeandAssessmentagainstEPAObjective....................................................................................34

7 OTHERENVIRONMENTALFACTORS......................................................................................37


BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500 P a g e |viii

8 PRINCIPLESOFTHEEPACT......................................................................................................41

9 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................42

10 GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................................................43

11 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................45

12 APPENDICES...................................................................................................................................47

LISTOFFIGURES

FigureES1:LocationoftheProposalAreaandIndicativeInfrastructure…………………………….……vFigureES2:Conceptualillustrationoftheapplicationofthesignificanceframework……………….viFigure1:LocationoftheProposalAreaandIndicativeInfrastructure.......................................................5Figure 2: Conservation significant fauna records andhabitat in thenorthernhalf of the StudyArea(Source:Phoenix,2014a).....................................................................................................................................6Figure 3: Conservation significant fauna records andhabitat in thenorthernhalf of the StudyArea(Source:Phoenix,2014a).....................................................................................................................................7Figure4:TenureandlandusewithintheProposalArea...............................................................................13Figure5:AlternativerailalignmentoptionsconsideredfortheProposal.............................................14Figure6:PriorityEcologicalCommunitiesoftheNorthernPortionoftheRailCorridor................22Figure7:PriorityEcologicalCommunitiesoftheSouthernPortionoftheRailCorridor................23Figure8:StudyAreasandProposalAreaboundaries.....................................................................................24

LISTOFTABLES

TableES1:SummaryoftheProposal……………………............................................…………………………………iTableES2:Assessmenttable–keyenvironmentalfactors.......................................................................…...iiTable1:CriteriaforCategoryAAPIlevelofassessment..................................................................................2Table2:KeyCharacteristicsoftheProposal(CorrespondstoProposalAreaboundaryprovidedinFigure1)...........................................................................................................................................................................4Table3:SummarydescriptionofProposalelements........................................................................................8Table4:ApprovalsSchedule......................................................................................................................................12Table5:Relevantstakeholderconsultationrecords.......................................................................................15Table6:Summaryofenvironmentalsurveys....................................................................................................17Table7:Environmentalassessment–otherenvironmentalfactors.........................................................38Table8:EPActprinciples............................................................................................................................................41

LISTOFAPPENDICES

Appendix1:BiologicalReportsandSurveysAppendix2:ProposalAreaShapefilesAppendix3:SummaryofStakeholderConsultation


BBIRA‐RAL‐EN‐RPT‐2500 P a g e |1

1 INTRODUCTION

PROJECTBACKGROUND

ForgeResourcesSwanPtyLtd(Forge)obtainedMinisterialapprovalforthedevelopmentoftheBallaBallaInfrastructurePort(BBIP)on21August2013(MinisterialStatement945(MS945)).Forgeisa100%ownedsubsidiaryofASXlistedRutilaResourcesLtd(Rutila).Rutilaisthejointventure (JV) partner with Todd Corporation Ltd in the Balla Balla JV, whereby Forge is theassignedManager.

TheBBIPislocatedonthePilbaracoastline,approximately100kilometre(km)eastofAnketellPoint and 120 km south‐west of Port Hedland in Western Australia (WA). The BBIP wasoriginally proposed to allow the export of ore from Rutila’s Balla Balla Infrastructure Mine(MS794) mine, however recent studies have identified that there is additional port capacityavailable for use by third parties. The Pilbara Iron Ore Project (PIOP) (MS 924) operated byFlindersMinesLtd(Flinders)willbetheBBIPfoundationcustomer.

Toallowthistooccur,anapproximate200kmcombinationofrailwayandoverlandconveyorwillbeconstructedtoconnecttheBBIPwiththePIOPinthecentralPilbararegion.ThisrailwayandconveyororetransportinfrastructureisreferredtoastheBallaBallaInfrastructure–Railand Conveyor Project (the Proposal), and combined with the BBIP form the Balla BallaInfrastructureProject.

PURPOSEOFTHISDOCUMENT

The purpose of this Assessment on Proponent Information (API) document is to provide adetailed description of the Proposal and to enable assessment of the potential environmentalimpactsthatmayresult,shouldtheProposalbeimplemented.Thisdocumentalsooutlinesthekeyelements(characteristics)requiredfortheconstructionandoperationoftheProposal.Theassessmentwill be completed by theOffice of the Environmental ProtectionAuthority ofWA(OEPA)undertheprovisionsofPartIVoftheEnvironmentalProtectionAct1986(EPAct).

ThisdocumenthasbeensubmittedalongwithareferralunderSection38(1)oftheEPAct,ontheassumptionthatanAPIlevelofassessmentisappropriate(refertoSection1.3below).ThisassumptionisbasedonongoingdiscussionswiththeOEPAoverseveralmonths.

TheintentionisthatthisAPIdocumentcontainsalltheinformationthattheOEPAwouldrequireto assess the Proposal, and therefore the scoping process can be circumvented. Rutila hascommissioned studies based on input from the OEPA and therefore it is expected that thisprocessisappropriate.

This API document has been written in accordance with the EPA’s gazetted EnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA)PartIVdivisions1and2AdministrativeProcedures(EPA,2012a),andhasalsotakenintoaccounttheEnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline8:forEnvironmentalFactorsandObjectives(EPA2013c). RutilaalsoconsideredOEPAadviceabouttheguidancedocumentcurrentlybeingpreparedforreleasebytheOEPA.



This API document focuses on the environmental factors that are deemed to be ‘key’ factors,thosewith thepotential tobe significantly impactedandcouldnotbeappropriatelymanagedunderotherexisting legislation. Potential impacts to thesekey factorsaredescribed indetailandassessedusingrelevantstudiesspecifictotheProposal. ‘Other’environmental factorsarediscussedbriefly,withafocusondemonstratingthattheycanbeappropriatelymanagedusingacombination of industry‐standard controls and other existing legislation. Therefore, this APIdocument describes the most relevant impacts and characteristics of the Proposal forassessment and provides all related biological reports and survey results as Appendices(Appendix1).

Rutila is also in the process of preparing a referral under the Environment Protection andBiodiversityConservationAct1999(Cth)(EPBCAct)whichistobesubmittedinparallelwiththisAPIdocument.RutilaintendsonkeepingtheapprovalprocessesseparateanddoesnotrequestabilateralassessmentforthisProposal.

LEVELOFASSESSMENTCRITERIA‐CATEGORYAAPI

In submitting thisdocument, the criteria foraCategoryA levelof assessmentwere reviewed.Table1identifiesthesecriteriaanddescribeshowtheProposalcomplieswitheachcriteria.

Table1:CriteriaforCategoryAAPIlevelofassessment

Criteria Comment

(a) The Proposal raises a limitednumber of key environmentalfactors that can readily bemanagedandforwhichthereisanestablished condition‐settingframework.

The Proponent, in consultationwith the OEPA, has considered the keyenvironmental factors. Flora and vegetation and terrestrial fauna areconsideredtobekeyenvironmentalfactorsfortheProposal.

There is an established condition setting framework for rail and linearinfrastructureproposalsinterrestrialenvironmentsinthePilbara.

(b) The Proposal is consistent withestablishedpolicies,guidelinesandstandards.

ThelocationandpurposeofthelanduponwhichtheProposalisbasedisconsistentwithestablishedGovernmentpolicyandlanduse.

Assessmentagainstpolicies,guidelinesandstandardsisprovidedinthisAPIdocumentandtheProposalisconsistentwiththese.

Information is provided where relevant in relation to guidelines andstandards.

(c) The Proponent can demonstratethat it has conducted appropriateand effective stakeholderconsultation, in particular withdecisionmakingauthorities.

Rutilahascompletedextensivestakeholderconsultation. AsummaryoftheconsultationisincludedinSection5.

(d) There is limited or local concernonly about the likely effect of theProposal, implemented, on theenvironment.

TheProposalisexpectedtoresultinlowlevelsoflocalconcern.PreviousconcernswiththeProposalfromPastoralists,NativeTitleclaimantsandmining tenure holders have led to numerous realignments of theProposalArea (refer to Section2.5) to ensure that theProposalwill beacceptable. The Proposal Area is the area that forms the basis for thisProposalandistheareawithinwhichtheProposalwillbeimplemented.TheProposalAreaisoutlinedinredinFigure1.



2 PROPONENTANDKEYPROPOSALCHARACTERISTICS

PROPONENTDETAILS

Theproponent for this submission isForge. Forge is a 100%owned subsidiaryofASX listedRutila.RutilaistheJVpartnerwithToddCorporationLtdintheBallaBallaJV,wherebyForgeistheassignedManager.

TheProponentfortheProposalisdetailedbelow:

ForgeResourcesSwanPtyLtdABN:14149783068

Thekeycontactpersoninrelationtothisdocumentis:

RutilaResourcesPtyLtd

ContactPerson: AngelaJohnson–GroupExecutive‐WAEmail: [email protected]: www.rutila.com.auPhone: +61417910294Address: GroundFloorEast,34ColinStreet,WestPerth,6005

KEYPROPOSALCHARACTERISTICS

RutilahasconsideredEnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline1:DefiningtheKeyCharacteristicsofaProposal (EAG1) (EPA, 2012b) ‐ which focuses on how to define the key characteristics ofproposals for thepurposesof assessment and incorporation intoMinisterial Statements. Theobjective of EAG1 is to assist proponents to identify and provide the key characteristics thatcaptureallkeyfeaturesoftheproposalrelevanttoPartIVoftheEPAct.ThekeycharacteristicsfortheProposalaredescribedinTable2.



Table2:KeyCharacteristicsoftheProposal(CorrespondstoProposalAreaboundaryprovidedinFigure1)

SummaryoftheProposal

ProposalTitle BallaBallaInfrastructure–Rail&ConveyorProject

ProponentName ForgeResourcesSwanPtyLtd

ShortDescription TheProposalistoconstructandoperatearailwayline(approximately160kminlength)andconveyorline(approximately40kminlength)runningfromthePilbaraIronOreProject(operatedbyFlinders)northtotheBallaBallaInfrastructure‐Port.TheProposalincludessupportinginfrastructuresuchasstockyards,borrowpits,accessroads,communications,waterboresandpipelines,accommodationcamps,workshops,laydownareas,aballastquarry,aconveyorrailwaylineoverpassandalevelcrossingoftheNorthWestCoastalHighway.

PhysicalElements

Element Location ProposedExtentAuthorised

Grounddisturbance

WithintheProposalAreashowninFigure1

Disturbanceofnomorethan3,000hectares(ha)withinthe50,089haProposalArea,withnomorethanapproximately1,800haremainingdisturbedduringoperations.Thedisturbanceareasnotrequiredforoperationsaretoberehabilitatedpost‐construction.

Allelements WithintheProposalAreashowninFigure1

Disturbanceofnomorethan5hawithinareasofdefinedNorthernQuolldenningandshelterhabitatasshowninFigure2andFigure3.

Disturbanceofnomorethan78hawithinareasofdefinedPilbaraOlivePythonshelterhabitatasshowninFigure2andFigure3.

NodisturbanceofNorthernMarsupialMolehabitatasshowninFigure2andFigure3.

500000mE

500000mE

550000mE

550000mE

600000mE

600000mE

7700000mN7700000mN

7650000mN7650000mN

7600000mN7600000mN

LOCALITY

0 10km


WESTERNWESTERN

AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA

KalgoorlieKalgoorliePerthPerth

Balla BallaBalla Balla

GeraldtonGeraldton



BBI Mine & Port

Proposal Area

Rail

Conveyor


DoT Port Boundary

Road / Track

Railway

Watercourse

KarrathaKarratha Port HedlandPort Hedland


ReserveReserve

NorthNorth

WestWest

CoastalCoastal

HighwayHighway

ROEBOURNEROEBOURNE


WICKHAMWICKHAM

TomTom

PricePrice

RailwayRailway

Roebourne

Roebourne

Wittenoom

Wittenoom

RoadRoad


RoadRoadWittenoom

Wittenoom

Nanut

arra

Nanut

arra


NWCH Crossing

SherlockSherlock

RiverRiver

Fortescue

Fortescue

FortescueFortescue

RiverRiver

RiverRiver

CaliwingaCaliwinga

Cree

kCr

eek

Weelumurra

Weelumurra

CreekCreek

HooleyHooley CreekCreek

Nuny

erry

Nuny

erry

Creek

Creek

Sher

lock

Sher

lock

Rive

rRi

ver

BallaBalla

RiverRiver

BallaBalla

BBI Port

BBI PortConveyor

BBI RailStockyard

PIOPPIOP

BBI MineBBI Mine

BBI PortStockyard

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure 1: Location of the Proposal Area and Indicative Infrastructure

560000mE

560000mE

7700000mN7700000mN

7680000mN7680000mN

7660000mN7660000mN

7640000mN7640000mN

600000mE

600000mE

NorthNorth

WestWest CoastalCoastal HighwayHighway



BBI MineBBI Mine

0 4km


560000mE

560000mE

7700000mN7700000mN

7680000mN7680000mN

7660000mN7660000mN

7640000mN7640000mN

600000mE

600000mE



BBI Mine

Proposal Area

Conservation Significant Vertebrate SpeciesAustralian Bustard

Northern Quoll

Lined Soil-Crevice Skink

Rainbow Bee-eater

Western Pebble Mound Mouse

Conservation Significant Fauna HabitatGreater Bilby, Mulgara sp.

Greater Bilby, Mulgara sp. andNothern Marsupial Mole

Northern Quoll

Northern Quoll and Pilbara Olive Python

Pilbara Olive Python


Road / Track

Railway

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure 2: Conservation significant fauna records and habitat in the northern half of the Study Area (Source: Phoenix, 2014a)

7600000mN7600000mN

7580000mN7580000mN

560000mE

560000mE

580000mE

580000mE

7620000mN7620000mN

Nanut

arra

TomTom

PricePrice

Railway

Railway

Roebourne

RoebourneWittenoom

Wittenoom

RoadRoad


PIOPPIOP

0 4km


7600000mN7600000mN

7580000mN7580000mN

560000mE

560000mE

580000mE

580000mE

7620000mN7620000mN



BBI Mine

Proposal Area

Conservation Significant Vertebrate SpeciesAustralian Bustard

Northern Quoll

Lined Soil-Crevice Skink

Rainbow Bee-eater

Western Pebble Mound Mouse

Conservation Significant Fauna HabitatGreater Bilby, Mulgara sp.

Greater Bilby, Mulgara sp. andNothern Marsupial Mole

Northern Quoll

Northern Quoll and Pilbara Olive Python

Pilbara Olive Python


Road / Track

Railway

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure 3: Conservation significant fauna records and habitat in the northern half of the Study Area (Source: Phoenix, 2014a)



3 GENERALDESCRIPTIONOFPROPOSAL

PROPOSALFACILITIESANDACTIVITIES

Table3summarisestheelementsoftheProposalaswellasanykeycharacteristicsrelevanttoEIA.Upto3,000haofgrounddisturbancewithinthe50,089haProposalAreawillberequiredtoimplementtheProposal.Figure1showstheboundaryoftheProposalAreawithinwhichallgrounddisturbanceisexpectedtooccur.

TheProposaldoesnotincludeminingoperationsortheprocessingofironoreatRutila’sBallaBalla InfrastructureMineor theexportofore throughRutila’sBBIP,whichhavealreadybeenapprovedunderPartIVoftheEPAct(MinisterialStatements794and945respectively).

Table3:SummarydescriptionofProposalelements

ProposalElement Description

40km(estimated)overlandconveyorfromPIOPConveyorFeedChutetotheBallaBallaInfrastructureRailway(BBIR)Stockyard

ThebatterylimitforthesouthofthePIOPistheendoftheloadoutConveyorintotheconveyorFeedChute.FlinderswilldelivertheoretotheConveyorFeedChute,whichunloadsdirectlyontotheoverlandconveyor.

ThisconveyorconnectsthePIOPConveyorFeedChutetotheBBIRStockyard.Itwillbeapproximately40kminlengthandinstalledonanelevatedtrestlestructure.Communications,power,waterpipelinesandotherservicesareexpectedtobeeitherconnectedtothetrestlestructure,orburiedalongsideorunderneaththestructure.

Disturbanceestimatesarebasedonanaverage30mconstructiondisturbancewidth,whichincludestheconveyorconstructionarea,aswellasaccessroadsandtopsoilstockpiles.

Theaveragecorridorwidthwillbereducedtoapproximately18mforoperations,with12mbeingrehabilitatedonceitisnolongerrequired.

Allconveyorsareexpectedtobecompletelycovered,althoughthiswillbedependentonoperationalrequirements.

TheconveyorwillcrosstheRioTintoIronOre(RTIO)TomPricerailwaylineviaatrestleoverpassatthenorthernendoftheconveyorcorridor(Figure1).

RutilaisindiscussionswithRTIOaboutthedesignoftheoverpass,howeveritisexpectedthatanyissueswillbeminorincomparisonwiththealternativeoptionofarail‐over‐railoverpass.

BBIRStockyard TheBBIRstockyardislocatedimmediatelyeastoftheRTIOTomPricerailwaylineandadjacenttothesouthernloopoftheBBIR(Figure1).

Orefromthe40kmconveyorwillbestackedwithinthestockyardfromwhereitwillbereclaimedbyabucket‐wheelreclaimerandloadedontotrainsviaatrainloadingfacility.

Thestockpiles,reclaimer,internalconveyortransferpointsandtrainloadingfacilitywillbefittedwithwater(orapprovedequivalent)spraystocontroldust.Stormwaterrunofffromstockpileswillbecontrolledon‐siteusingretentionandsedimentationbasins.

BBIR‐160km(estimated)railwaylinefromBBIRStockyardtotheBBIPStockyard

TheBBIRwillextendapproximately160kmnorthfromtheConveyor/RailInterchangeStockyard(Figure1).Therailwaylinewillbestandardgaugeheavyhaulrailwaywithpassingloopsstrategicallylocatedalongthelinetomaximisesystemperformance.Amarshallingyardwillalsobeinstalled.

Therailwayconstructioncorridorwillincludetherailembankment,accessroads,topsoilstockpiles,communicationsandservices.Communicationsandotherserviceswillgenerallybeburiedalongsidetherailembankmentinaseparateservicescorridor(Figure1).

Therailwayconstructioncorridorwillrequireanaverageof80mdisturbancewidth.Theaverageoverallcorridorwidthwillbereducedtoapproximately50mforoperations,with30mbeingrehabilitatedonceitisnolongerrequired.

Therailembankmentwillbearmouredbyballastrocktominimiseerosionofthestructure.

Drainageculvertsorbridgeswillbeinstalledforminorandmajorwatercoursecrossingsrespectively.Aminimumtwomajorwatercoursecrossingswillberequired,tocrossFortescueandSherlockRiversand/oritstributaries.Figure1showsthelocationofthesewatercoursecrossings.Culvertswillbeinstalledacrosswatercourses,andtheywillbe




appropriatelydesignedandinstalledsuchthattheycancopewithpotentialfloodeventsineachlocation.

Therailwaylinewillcrossseveralpublicroads,themostsignificantbeingtheNWCH,whichwillbearoadoverrailgradeseparationcrossing.ThesecrossingswillbeinstalledwithwarningsasrequiredbytheRailSafetyAct2010.

BBIPStockyard TheBBIPStockyardwillbelocatedadjacenttothenorthernrailloop,withaconveyoroverpassconnectingthestockyardwiththeBBIP(Figure1).Itwillholdsufficientcapacitytoloadcape‐sizevesselsandaccommodateathroughputof25milliontonnesperannum.OrewillbeunloadedfromthetrainsusingacarunloaderandtransportedviaoverlandconveyortotheBBIPstockyard.

Orewillbestackedwithinthestockyardfromwhereitwillbereclaimedbyabucket‐wheelreclaimerandtransferredontotheBBIPconveyorviaaloadoutbin.

Thestockpiles,bucket‐wheelreclaimer,internalconveyortransferpointsandtheloadoutbinwillbefittedwithwater(orapprovedequivalent)spraystocontroldust.Stormwaterrunofffromstockpileswillbecontrolledon‐siteusingretentionandsedimentationbasins.

TheBBIPStockyardhasbeenrelocatedfromitsoriginalposition(asapprovedunderMS945)tonowbefurthersetbackfromthecoastline.

AmarshallingyardandrollingstockmaintenancefacilityalsoformpartoftheBBIPStockyardarea,locatedsouthoftherailloop.

BBIPConveyor Ashort(approximately5km)conveyorwillconnecttheBBIPStockyardwiththeBBIPcauseway.TheorewillthenbeexportedviatheapprovedBBIPfacilities.

Theconveyorwillbeinstalledonatrestlestructure,andwillcrosstherailembankmentatthenorthernsideoftherailloop.Theconveyorconstructioncorridorincludestheconveyorconstructionarea,aswellasaccessroadsandtopsoilstockpiles.Communications,power,waterpipelinesandotherservicesareexpectedtobeeitherconnectedtothetrestlestructure,orburiedalongsideorunderneaththestructure.

Disturbanceestimatesarebasedonanaverage30mconstructiondisturbancewidth,whichincludestheconveyorconstructionarea,aswellasaccessroadsandtopsoilstockpiles.

Theaveragecorridorwidthwillbereducedtoapproximately18mforoperations,with12mbeingrehabilitatedonceitisnolongerrequired.

Allconveyorsareexpectedtobecompletelycovered.

Borrowpits Rutilawilltargetacutandfillbalanceasmuchaspossiblealongtheraillength,howeverthroughareasofflatterrain,borrowpitswillberequiredtoprovidesufficientmaterialfortherailembankment.BorrowpitswillbetargetsuitablematerialwithintheProposalArea,inlocationsthatminimisehauldistances.Thesizeofeachborrowpitwillvary,howeverthetypicaldepthwillbe2m.

Borrowpitswillgenerallybeslopedtobefree‐draining.Theremaybesomeareasofextremelyflatgroundwheretheborrowpitscannotreasonablybeslopedtobefree‐draining.Intheselocationstheborrowpitswillbebundedaroundtheirperimetertopreventsurfacewaterinflows,andevaporationandinfiltrationwillbeusedtominimisethetimethatstandingwaterremainsinthepit.

Severalborrowpitswillremainopenduringtheoperationalperiodtoprovidesupplementarymaterialformaintenancepurposedasrequired.Theremainingborrowpitswillberehabilitatedoncetheyarenolongerrequired.

Associatedinfrastructureandservices

ExternalAccessRoads‐referstoroadsthatarelocatedoutsideoftherailcorridor.Thesemayincluderoadsthatconnecttherailcorridorwithborrowpits,waterbores,publicroadsoraccommodationcamps.

Theseroadswillvaryinwidthdependingontheirpurpose,from6mforlightvehicleaccessroadsto20mformaterialhaulroads.

CommunicationTowersandReticulatedServices‐communicationscables(e.g.fibreoptic)andtowerswillbeinstalledalongthelengthoftherailandconveyorcorridors.Thesecableswillbeburiedwithintheservicessectionofthecorridororinstalledalongtheconveyortrestlestructure.

WaterSupplyandPipelines‐duringconstructionandoperations,waterwillbesourcedfromanumberofboreswithintheProposalArea.Thetotalexpectedwaterrequirementwillbe1.8GL/yrforconstruction,primarilyrequiredforembankmentconditioninganddustsuppression.Lowerwatervolumeswillberequiredduringoperation,formaintenancepurposes.




Sourcesofsuitablegroundwaterarecurrently beinginvestigated.Onceidentified,RutilawillobtaintheappropriatelicencesundertheRightsinWaterandIrrigationAct1914(RIWIAct).

Eachborewillbeoperatedtoensurethatonlythesustainableyieldforeachboreisabstracted.AbstractionplanningwillbedetailedinaGroundwaterOperatingStrategysubmittedtotheDepartmentofWater(DoW)aspartofthe5Capplicationprocess.

AccommodationCamps‐potentiallythreeaccommodationcampswillbeinstalledwithintheProposalAreaforconstructionpersonnel.Thesecampswillbeappropriatelysitedinproximitytokeyworkareasandpotablewatersupply.

WorkshopandLaydownAreas‐severalworkshopsandlaydownareaswillberequiredalongthelengthoftheProposalArea.Workshopswillvaryinsizeandpurposeandwillbeusedtoservicelightandconstructionvehicles,andotherequipment.Laydownareaswillbeusedforparkingandstorageareas.

Therewillbelightvehiclerefuellingfacilitiesatseveraloftheworkshopsorlaydownareas.On‐sitestorageoffuelwillberequiredfortheoperationofmobileplant,vehicles,generatorsandotherequipment.Somelimitedquantitiesofsolvents,paints,cleaningproductsandbondingagentswillalsoberequired.Allhydrocarbons,hazardousordangerousgoodswillbestoredandusedincompliancewithrelevantlegislationandstandards.

BallastQuarry‐maybedevelopedwithintheProposalAreaifasuitablesitecanbelocated.Thisballastquarrywillprovideballastarmourmaterialfortherailembankment.

IfasuitablesitecannotbefoundwithintheProposalAreathenmaterialmaybebroughttositefromanexternalsource(i.e.notpartofthisProposal).

PowerSupply‐generatorswillbeutilisedduringconstruction,locatedclosetoareasofpowerdemand(i.e.suchascampsorworkshops).Generatorswilleitherbeself‐bunded,orlocatedwithinabundedareatominimisespillrisks.

Landfill‐oneormoreputresciblelandfillsmaybedevelopedonsiteforthedisposalofconstructionandoperationswaste.Allhazardouswasteswillbedisposedofoff‐site.Theviabilityofrecyclingopportunitieswillbeconsidered.

NolandfillswillbelocatedwithintheMillstreamWaterReserve.

Alllandfillswillbesited,developedandoperatedinaccordancewithDepartmentofEnvironmentRegulation(DER)worksapprovalandlicenceconditions.

LOCATION,TENUREANDLANDUSE

TheProposalAreaislocatedinthePilbararegionofWAandisshowninFigure1.Allproposeddisturbance addressed in this API document is planned to be constructed entirelywithin theboundaryoftheProposalArea.

TheProposalAreawillbealignedwiththefollowingtenure(fromsouthtonorth):

Miscellaneous licenceL47/733extendingnorth from thePIOP to the southernendof the railcorridor;

ThefutureSpecialRailwayLicence(SRL)corridorwhichwilloverlaythemajorityoftherailwayportion of the Proposal. The SRL will run from the rail loop at the BBIR Stockyard to theboundaries of a newPilbara Ports Authority (PPA) lease in the north. Thewidth of the SRLwhen granted will be narrower than the Proposal Area as it will be refined based on moredetaileddesignworkcompletedinearly2015;and

A futurePilbaraPortsAuthority (PPA) lease thatwill include thenorthernportion of the railcorridor,aswellastheBBIPstockyardandBBIP.

ASection91(S91)licencehasbeenappliedforundertheLandAdministrationAct1997overthemajorityof theProposalAreaand is expected tobegrantedon12December2014. ThisS91



licence will allow geotechnical, water and other relevant investigations to occur prior toconstruction.

The Proposal Area passes through the City of Karratha and the Shire of Ashburton LocalGovernmentareas. TheProposalArea includesanareaofUnallocatedCrownLand(UCL)andthreepastoral leases–Sherlock,MallinaandCoolawanyah. Mining isasignificant landuse inthe surrounding area of the proposed BBIR and the Proposal Area traverses several areas ofMiningActtenure.

The Proposal Area passes between the Millstream Chichester National Park and MungarooRangeNatureReserve(avoidanceofthesereserveswasidentifiedearlyasakeyconstraintforthe Proposal), however it does pass through a Redbook area. This Redbook area (shown inFigure 4) lies immediatelywest and adjacent to theMillstream Chichester National Park andcoversanareaof73,585ha.

Figure4showsthetenureandlandusefeatures.

ALTERNATIVESCONSIDERED

A railway line is considered the best iron ore transport option as Rutila can cost‐effectivelyboost their transport efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by negating the use ofroadhaulage.

NumerousdifferentrailalignmentoptionsfromminetoportwereoriginallyconsideredfortheProposal (Figure 5). Key factors that Rutila considered during the assessment of alternativealignmentsfortheProposalincluded:

Cost; Engineeringconstraints; Developmenttimeframes; Locationinrelationtoorebodies(PIOPandotherareasofpotentialmineralisation); RegisteredandotherpotentialsignificantAboriginalHeritagesites; Complete avoidance of Millstream Chichester National Park and Mungaroona Range

NatureReserve; Existingpublicuseareas; Pastoralactivitiesandpastoralistrequests;and Potentialenvironmentalconstraints.

Several key changes that were made to the overall Proposal Area alignment have someenvironmentaloutcomesasdiscussedbelow:

1. AvoidanceofNunyerryGorge. NunyerryGorgewas found tohave a relatively largepopulation of Northern Quoll (refer to Appendix 1) that was unavoidable given thenarrowwidthofthegorge.TheareawasalsoidentifiedasasignificantethnographicsiteduringAboriginalHeritageinvestigations.TherealignmentoftheProposalAreaaroundthissectiongreatlyreducedthepotentialenvironmentalandHeritageimpacts;

2. Relocationofnorthernrailloop.TheoriginallocationofthenorthernrailloopwasattheverynorthernendoftheProposalArea.Therailloophasnowbeenrelocatedsouth‐west,andwilllinktotheBBIPviaashort(5km)conveyor.Thisrelocationbothshortens



theraillengthbyapproximately5kmandalsogreatlyreducestheimpacttoaPriorityEcologicalCommunity(discussedfurtherinSection4);and

3. Crossing of Sherlock River. The alignment now crosses the Sherlock River higherupstream, where the width of the watercourse and predicted flows are lower. Thisreduced the potential impacts to riparian vegetation and indirect impacts associatedwith watercourse crossings. This realignment also avoids the Roebuck Plains asrequested by the Pastoralist as well as the Croyden Outstation, which has Aboriginalsignificance.

The final Proposal Area alignment was considered to be the most feasible based onconsiderationoftheabovefactors.

APPROVALANDDEVELOPMENTTIMEFRAMES

Key approvalmilestone targets for assessment under Section 38 of the EP Act are shown inTable4.ThesetimeframesareconsistentwiththeEPA’sEnvironmentalAssessmentGuidelineNo.6: for Timelines for EIA of Proposals (EAG6) (EPA2010). The key development milestonetimeframes will be determined after a full Bankable Feasibility Study has been completed inmid‐2015.

Table4:ApprovalsSchedule

2014

Stage Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

RutilasubmitsReferralFormandAPIdocumentationOEPAsetlevelofassessmentasAPIOEPAassessAPIandRutilaprovideadditionalinformationifrequestedOEPApublishreportanddraftconditionsandsubmittoMinister

MinisterialStatementreleased

2015

CITY OFCITY OFKARRATHAKARRATHA

SHIRE OFSHIRE OFASHBURTONASHBURTON

TOWN OFTOWN OFPORT HEDLANDPORT HEDLAND

500000mE

500000mE

550000mE

550000mE

600000mE

600000mE

7700000mN7700000mN

7650000mN7650000mN

7600000mN7600000mN


ReserveReserve

NorthNorth

WestWest

CoastalCoastal

HighwayHighway

ROEBOURNEROEBOURNE


WICKHAMWICKHAM

TomTom

PricePrice

RailwayRailway

Roebourne

Roebourne

Wittenoom

Wittenoom

RoadRoad


RoadRoadWittenoom

Wittenoom

Nanut

arra

Nanut

arra


SherlockSherlockPastoral StationPastoral Station

MallinaMallinaPastoral StationPastoral Station

MallinaMallinaPastoral StationPastoral Station

CoolawanyahCoolawanyahPastoral StationPastoral Station

MillstreamMillstreamWater ReserveWater Reserve

UnallocatedUnallocatedCrown Land /Crown Land /

RedbookRedbookAreaArea

UnallocatedUnallocatedCrown LandCrown Land

PIOPPIOP

BBI MineBBI Mine

0 10km




BBI Mine & Port

Proposal Area

Pastoral StationSherlock

Mallina

Coolawanyah

TopographyShire Boundary

Conservation / National Park

DoT Port Boundary

Redbook Area

Millstream Water Reserve

Road / Track

Railway

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure 4: Tenure and land use within the Proposal Area

500000mE

500000mE

550000mE

550000mE

600000mE

600000mE

7700000mN7700000mN

7650000mN7650000mN

7600000mN7600000mN

BBI Port


ReserveReserve

NorthNorth

WestWest

CoastalCoastal

HighwayHighway

ROEBOURNEROEBOURNE


WICKHAMWICKHAM

TomTom

PricePrice

RailwayRailway

Roebourne

Roebourne

Wittenoom

Wittenoom

RoadRoad


RoadRoadWittenoom

Wittenoom

Nanut

arra

Nanut

arra


PIOPPIOP

BBI MineBBI Mine

0 10km


BBI Port



BBI Mine & Port

Indicative Rail Alignment

Considered Rail Alignments


DoT Port Boundary

Road / Track

Railway

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure 5: Alternative rail alignment options considered for the Proposal



4 STAKEHOLDERCONSULTATION

Rutila has identified the key stakeholders for the Proposal and in addition to identifyingindividualstakeholders,Rutilahasalsobroughttogethermultiplestakeholderswherenecessarytoensurethereisalignmentbetweenkeydecisionmakingauthorities.

A date record summary of consultation efforts is maintained by Rutila and will be used tosupport the government approvals process by demonstrating that key stakeholder have beenidentified and will be added to when new stakeholders arise. This summary of stakeholderconsultationisprovidedinAppendix3.

Table 5 details the key stakeholders that Rutila has consulted with that are relevant to thisProposal.

Table5:Relevantstakeholderconsultationrecords

Stakeholder Date Topics/issuesraisedProponentresponse/outcome

OEPA Ongoingmonthlymeetings

Submission,formatandcontentoftheAPIdocument(thisdocument);

Presentationofoutcomesofbiologicalsurveys; Keyfactors; ReviewofdraftEIAsummarytable;and Projectupdates.

RutilawillcontinuetoinformOEPAofdesignchangesandthestatusofsurveysandapprovalsubmissions.

DER 21Nov2014 PresentationoftheProposal; Licensingofvariousinfrastructurethatform

partoftheProposalunderPartVoftheEPAct,including:o BBIPStockyardandconveyorconnection

toBBIP;o Wastewatertreatmentplants;o Landfill(s)(ifrequired);ando Mobilecrushingfacilities(ifrequired).

RutilawillobtainworksapprovalsandlicencesunderPartVoftheEPActpriortoconstructionandoperationrespectively.

DoW 14Oct2014 PresentationoftheProposal; Groundwaterabstractionalongtherail

alignment; Submissionof26DandBedandBanksPermit

applicationsforgroundwaterinvestigations;and

DoWinformedRutilathattheMillstreamaquifershouldbeconsideredtobecompletelyallocated.

Rutilawillsubmit5ClicenceapplicationsforallgroundwaterabstractionfortheProposal.

DepartmentoftheEnvironment(DoE)(Commonwealth)

24Sep2014 PresentationoftheProposal; Presentationofoutcomesofbiologicalsurveys; PresentationofpotentialimpactstoMattersof

NationalEnvironmentalSignificance(MNES); ExpectedsubmissiondatesforEPBCAct

referral;and Cost‐recovery.

RutilawillconsiderDoE’sadvicewhenpreparingtheEPBCReferral.

DPaW Oct‐Nov2014

InformationregardingtheProposalandpotentialimpactstoconservationsignificantspeciesprovidedviaphoneandemail;and

DPaWoriginallystatedthatameetingwouldnotbenecessaryasnomajorconcernswereraised,howeverrecentlyhaverequestedaprojectpresentation(tooccurinDecember

RutilawillcontinuetoliaisewithDPaWasrequired,howevernoconcernswereraised.



Stakeholder Date Topics/issuesraisedProponentresponse/outcome

2014).

DepartmentofStateDevelopment

Ongoing DiscussionsandacceptanceoftheProposal. Proposalaccepted.

PPA Ongoing ProposedPortLandandlease/licenceboundaries;and

TransferfromDepartmentofTransportjurisdiction.

Developmentapplicationandlease/licenceapplicationsforthedevelopmentoftheProposalwillbesubmitted.

NgarlumaAboriginalCorporation

Ongoing Tenureboundaries&potentialdisturbanceimpactsdiscussed;

Employment,contractingandtrainingopportunitiesdiscussed;and

Heritagesurveyscompleted.

GeneralfavourablefeedbackofProposal,discussionongoing.

YindjibarndiAboriginalCorporation

Ongoing Tenureboundaries&potentialdisturbanceimpactsdiscussed;

Employment,contractingandtrainingopportunitiesdiscussed;and

Heritagesurveyscompleted.

Proposalwelcomed.

WunambalGaamberaAboriginalCorporation

Ongoing ProposaldiscussedincludingrelationshiptoPIOP. Proposalwelcomed.

CoolawanyahPastoralStation

Ongoing Tenureboundaries&potentialdisturbanceimpactsdiscussed;and

Earlyworksprogressing.

Proposalgenerallyaccepted,discussionsongoing.

SherlockPastoralStation



Proposalaccepted.

MallinaPastoralStation



Proposalwelcomed.

Flinders Ongoing PIOPexportrequirements; Timeframetargets; Infrastructureconnections; UseofFlinderscampforbiologicalsurveys;and Sharingofenvironmentalinformationand

resources.

RutilawillcontinuetoliaisewithFlindersthroughoutthelifeoftheProposal.

DepartmentofTransport

Ongoing–Lastconsultationwas19Nov2014

Transfermarinevesting;and Inputtomarine&raildesign/philosophy.

Proposalaccepted.

MainRoadsWesternAustralia

19Nov2014 ThedesignoftheNWCHcrossing. Proposalaccepted.



5 RELEVANTSTUDIES

InpreparationoftheProposal,publicallyavailableinformationwasconsidered,howevermostof the Proposal Area had not been subject to biological surveys, with the only knowninformationrelatingtotheapprovedBBIPandBallaBallaInfrastructureMineatthenorthoftheProposalAreaandthePIOPatthesouthernextent.

Rutila planned and implemented a series of studies to confirm specific aspects of baselineenvironmentalinformationandlikelyimpactsassociatedwiththeProposal.EcoscapeAustraliaPtyLtd(Ecoscape)conductedthefloraandvegetationsurveysandPhoenixEnvironmentalPtyLtd(Phoenix)conductedtheterrestrialfaunasurveys.ThesestudiesarelistedanddescribedinTable6,andprovidedinAppendix1forreference.

Table6:Summaryofenvironmentalsurveys

Survey/investigationsname

StudyArea,typeandtiming

Studystandard/guidanceandlimitations

FloraandVegetation

RutilaResourcesRailwayCorridorFloraandVegetationAssessment.June2014.

DesktopassessmentandreconnaissancesurveyconductedinMay2014.

EPAGuidanceStatementNo.51 PositionStatementNo.3 ConsultationwithDPaWLimitations:None.

RutilaResourcesRailwayCorridorFloraandVegetationAssessment.November2014.

57,063haStudyArea;

SingleseasonLevel2survey;and

DesktopreviewandfieldsurveyinJul–Aug2014.

EPAGuidanceStatementNo.51 PositionStatementNo.3 ConsultationwithDPaWLimitations:

FieldsurveywasconductedoutsidetheoptimalperiodforPilbarabotanicalsurveysasoutlinedinGuidanceStatementNo.51.Thereweremoderateconstraintsinthisregardinsomeareasandsomevegetationtypesthathadasignificantannualorephemeralcomponent.

Allotherlimitationswereconsiderednegligible.

TerrestrialFauna

TerrestrialFaunaSurveysfortheRutilaResourcesRailwayCorridor.FinalReport.November2014.

27,064haStudyArea;

Level1terrestrialfaunasurveyandLevel2short‐rangeendemic(SRE)surveyconductedinJuneandJuly2014;and

Targetedvertebratefaunasurveyconducted26Aug–4Sep2014.

EPAGuidanceStatementNo.51 EPAGuidanceStatementNo.56 EPAGuidancefortheAssessmentofEnvironmentalFactors

No.20 PositionStatementNo.3 ConsultationwithDPaWLimitations:

Scopeandcompleteness–PilbaraOlivePythonsurveyspresenteddifficultywithoutthecapacityofthefieldteamtoundertakenightsurveys.

Proportionoffaunaidentified,recordedand/orcollected–ThescopedidnotincludesystematicLevel2trapping,thereforecomprehensiveassemblagedatawasnotcollected

Availabilityofadequatecontextualinformation–Paucityofcomparativedatainthearearegardingapproximate/typicalabundanceanddistributionofmanyspecies,includingthetargetspeciesinthetargetedfaunasurvey.

Addendumto:TerrestrialFaunaSurveysfortheRutilaResourcesRailwayCorridor.November2014.

Level1fieldsurveyconductedon20‐22October2014.

Studystandard/guidanceasabove.Limitations: Habitatmappingwasconductedmainlyatabroadscale,

basedoninformationcollectedduringflightsovertheStudyAreasandonlyground‐truthedatsurveysites.



Rutilawillalsobeconductingdetailedassessmentspriortoconstructionsuchas:

Geotechnical investigations and test pits, including watercourse crossing locations.These investigations will provide information for bridge and culvert design,embankmentmaterialsandpotentialborrowpitlocations;

Groundwater source investigation drilling, pump‐testing and sustainable yieldassessmentsattargetlocationsalongthelengthoftheProposalArea;

Landfillsitinginvestigationsifwasteistobedisposedofonsite; Nutrient loading assessments for wastewater disposal (i.e. from sewage treatment

plants);and Flowrateandvolumeassessmentsatwatercoursecrossingstoinformculvertorbridge

design.



6 ASSESSMENTOFPRELIMINARYKEYENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

DETERMINATIONOFKEYENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

This API document has taken into account advice about the recent guidance document beingpreparedforreleasebytheOEPA.Thissectionwillfocusontheenvironmentalfactorsthataredeemedtobe‘key’factors;thosewiththepotentialtobesignificantlyimpactedandcouldnotbeappropriatelymanagedunderotherexistinglegislation. Potential impactstothesekeyfactorsare described in detail and assessed using the information provided from relevant studiesspecifictotheProposal.‘Other’environmentalfactorsarediscussedbrieflyinSection7,withafocus on demonstrating that they can be appropriately managed using a combination ofindustry‐standardcontrolsandotherexistinglegislation.Insummary,thissectionwilldescribethemost relevant impactsandcharacteristicsof theProposal forassessmentandprovidesallrelatedbiologicalreportsandsurveyresultsasAppendices(Appendix1).

RutilaandPrestonConsultingPtyLtdconductedanassessmentofthepotentialenvironmentalimpactsoftheProposalanddeterminedthatfloraandvegetationandterrestrialfaunawerethetwo‘key’environmentalfactorsthatrequiredadetailedassessmentinthisAPIdocument.

The hydrological processes environmental factor was originally considered to be a ‘key’environmental factor due to the potential for the rail embankment to impact Sheetflowdependent vegetation, however none was identified in the flora and vegetation surveys.Remaining impacts to this factor (i.e. those associated with watercourse crossings) wereexpected to be able to be managed using industry‐standard design commitments and therequirementsoftheSRLandPPAapprovals.

FLORAANDVEGETATION

CONTEXT

PolicyContextThe Proposal Area passes between the Millstream Chichester National Park and MungarooRangeNatureReserve(avoidanceofthesereserveswasidentifiedearlyasakeyconstraintforthe Proposal), however it does pass through a Redbook area. This Redbook area (shown inFigure 4) lies immediatelywest and adjacent to theMillstream Chichester National Park andcoversanareaof73,585ha(Figure4).

RelevantBaselineInformationThefollowinginformationsummarisestherelevantfindingsofthefloraandvegetationsurveysundertakenbyEcoscape(2014). Thecompletereportshavebeenprovided inAppendix1 forreference.



Flora:

NoplanttaxonrecordedintheStudyAreawaslistedasThreatenedundertheEPBCAct; Noplant taxon recorded in the survey isgazettedas aTFpursuant toSubsection2of

Section23FoftheWildlifeConservationAct1950(WA)(WCAct); NinePriorityFlora(PF)specieswerefound:

o P1 taxa Abutilon sp. Pritzelianum (S. van Leeuwen 5095), Helichrysumoligochaetum,Heliotropiummuticum;

o P2taxonPentalepistrichodesmoidessubsp.Hispida;o P3 taxa Indigofera sp. Bungaroo Creek (S. van Leeuwen 4301), Oldenlandia sp.

HamersleyStation(A.A.MitchellPRP1479),Sidasp.BarleeRange(S.vanLeeuwen1642);and

o P4taxaGoodenianuda,Rhynchosiabungarensis. 17otherPFhavethepotentialtooccurbutwerenotrecorded; Two taxawere found that have a significant range extension (Gyrostemontepperi and

Sidasp.RabbitFlat(B.J.Carter626)); Onepreviouslyundescribedspecieswasfound,knownasAcaciasp.thatwasattimesa

dominantcomponentofthemidstratum;and 16introducedspecieswerelocated,noneofwhichwereDeclaredPestplantsorlistedon

anyweedregister.

Vegetation:

90.6%ofthevegetation intheStudyAreawasfoundtobe inExcellentcondition,with6.2% in Very Good condition. Areas that were mapped in lesser condition had beenimpactedbycattlegrazingandweedinvasion(Ecoscape,2014);

None of the vegetation types recordedwithin the Study Area are considered likely torepresentaThreatenedEcologicalCommunity(TEC). ThenearestknownTECismorethan20kmfromtheStudyArea;

Onevegetation typewasconsidered to represent theP3 ‘HorseflatLandSystemof theRoebourne Plains’ PEC (shown on Figure 6) (vegetation type Ex1) and another fourvegetation types may represent other subtypes of this PEC (vegetation types Te(1),Tw(1),MattiskeFPg1andCc2AbEb);

One vegetation typemay represent (Shownon Figure 7) the P1 ‘Cracking clays of theChichesterandMungaroonaRange’subtypeofthe‘FourplantassemblagesoftheWonalandsystem’PEC(vegetationtypeSb);

GroundwaterDependantEcosystems(GDEs)occurwithintheStudyArea,predominantlyalongmajordrainagelines;

Threevegetationtypesmaybesignificantaccordingto theEPAGuidanceStatementNo.51. Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment inWesternAustraliaduetohavingsmallrepresentation/restricteddistribution(vegetationtypes(ElAs3Tm,FbGpEmandAmEe);

Twovegetationtypeshaveanassociationwithpoorlyrepresentedlandsystems(AmEeandAs3associatedwiththeGregorylandsystem);and

The characteristics of one vegetation type is similar to other vegetation that wasconsideredsignificantinothersurveysintheregion(vegetationtypesElEgTw).



Duetorecentdesignrefinements,therearesomeportionsoftheProposalAreathatdonotalignwiththeareaexaminedbyEcoscapeduringtheirlevel2survey(Figure8).Alloftheseportionsarewithintheboundariesofthedesktopsurveybuffer(Appendix1).

RelevantDesignConsiderationsOfnote is that theBBIP rail loophas been relocated approximately 4.5 km to the south‐east,which has significantly reduced impacts to the P3 ‘Horseflat Land System of the RoebournePlains’PEC(Figure6). RutilahasamendedtheoriginalProposalAreaboundarytoreflectthischange.

Upto1,800haofgrounddisturbancewillberequiredduringoperations.Thebalancebetweenthe vegetation disturbed during construction andwhat is required during operations will berehabilitatedoncetheareasarenolongerrequired.

POTENTIALSIGNIFICANTIMPACTSWITHOUTMITIGATION

Ground disturbance such as direct clearing, earthmoving activities and increased vehiculartraffic, predominantly during the construction of the Proposal may result in the followingimpacts:

Direct loss of primarily Very Good to Excellent condition native vegetationwithin theProposalArea(96.8%isexpectedtobe inVeryGoodtoExcellentcondition(Ecoscape,2014));

DirectlossofPFindividualsorpopulations; ClearingofvegetationwithinPECorpotentialPECvegetationtypes.324.5haoftheP3

‘HorseflatLandSystemoftheRoebournePlains’PECislocatedwithintheProposalArea(anotherfourvegetationtypesthatmayrepresentothersubtypesofthisPEC(equatestoan additional 140 ha) have been excluded from the Proposal Area by amending theboundaries).OnevegetationtypemayrepresenttheP1‘CrackingclaysoftheChichesterand Mungaroona Range’ subtype of the ‘Four plant assemblages of the Wona landsystem’PEC,whichcoversanareaof32ha(Figure7);

Directlossoflocallysignificantvegetation; Indirect impacts to vegetation health through a range of mechanisms such as dust,

floodingorerosion;and Transferofexistingweeds,ortheintroductionofnewweedspeciesduringconstruction

and/oroperation.

Therailembankmentwillcrossnumerousminorandmajorwatercoursesalongthelengthoftherailalignment.Withoutmitigationthesewatercoursecrossingsmaycausefloodinganderosion.Thismayresultinthedeclineinvegetationhealthwithinaffectedareas.

Theabstractionofgroundwaterwillberequiredatvariouslocationsalongthelengthoftherailalignment. Target groundwater abstraction zonesmay alignwith areas of GDEs andwithoutmitigation this abstraction may result in significant groundwater drawdown that couldpotentiallyresultinadeclineinvegetationhealthwithintheaffectedGDEs.

7685000mN7685000mN

7715000mN7715000mN

575000mE

575000mE

580000mE

580000mE

565000mE

565000mE

0 2km


585000mE

585000mE

7695000mN7695000mN

7700000mN7700000mN

7705000mN7705000mN

7710000mN7710000mN

NorthNorth

Highway

Highway

PIOPPIOP

CoastalCoastal

WICKHAMWICKHAM

ROEBOURNEROEBOURNE


ReserveReserve

Millstream ChichesterMillstream ChichesterNational ParkNational Park

KarijiniKarijiniNational ParkNational Park

LOCALITY

TomTom

PricePrice

Railway

Railway

WestWest

RoebourneRoebourne

Road

Road

Wittenoom

Wittenoom


7690000mN7690000mN

BBI Mine & PortBBI Mine & Port



BBI Mine & Port

Proposal Area

VegetationHorseflat Land System of theRoebourne Plains P3 PEC(DER Polygon 1878)

Potential Horseflat Land Systemof the Roebourne Plains P3 PEC(as mapped by Ecoscape)

Area Not Surveyed By Ecoscape

TopographyRoad / Track

North

Wes

t Coa

stal

Hig

hway

North

Wes

t Coa

stal

Hig

hway

BBI MineBBI Mine

BBI PortBBI Port

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure 6: Priority Ecological Communities of the Northern Portion of the Rail Corridor

0 1km

590000mE

590000mE

585000mE

585000mE

580000mE

580000mE

7605000mN7605000mN

7600000mN7600000mN

7595000mN7595000mN

7590000mN7590000mN

NorthNorth

Highway

Highway

PIOPPIOP

CoastalCoastal

WICKHAMWICKHAM

ROEBOURNEROEBOURNEWhim CreekWhim Creek


ReserveReserve

Millstream ChichesterMillstream ChichesterNational ParkNational Park

KarijiniKarijiniNational ParkNational Park

LOCALITY

TomTom

PricePrice

Railway

Railway

WestWest

RoebourneRoebourne

Road

Road



Proposal Area

VegetationPotential Cracking Clays of the Chichesterand Mungaroona Range P1 PEC

TopographyRoad / Track

Wittenoom

Wittenoom

BBI Mine & PortBBI Mine & Port

Roebourne

Roebourne

Wittenoom

Wittenoom

RoadRoad

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure 7: Priority Ecological Communities of the Southern Portion of the Rail Corridor

500000mE

500000mE

550000mE

550000mE

600000mE

600000mE

7700000mN7700000mN

7650000mN7650000mN

7600000mN7600000mN

7550000mN7550000mN


ReserveReserve

NorthNorth

WestWest

CoastalCoastal

HighwayHighway

ROEBOURNEROEBOURNE


WICKHAMWICKHAM

TomTom

PricePrice

RailwayRailway

Roebourne

Roebourne

Wittenoom

Wittenoom

RoadRoad


RoadRoadWittenoom

Wittenoom

Nanut

arra

Nanut

arra


PIOPPIOP

BBI MineBBI Mine

0 10km




BBI Mine & Port

Proposal Area

Surveys Completed Inside the Proposal AreaFlora & Fauna

Surveys Completed Outside the Proposal AreaFlora and Fauna


DoT Port Boundary

Road / Track

Railway

SPritchard

Text Box

Figure 8: Study Areas and Proposal Area boundaries



PROPOSEDMANAGEMENT(MITIGATION)

Rutila proposes to implement appropriate management measures to mitigate the potentialimpactsdescribed in Section6.2.2 above. Themanagementmeasureshavebeendivided intotwotypesofcontrols;industrybest‐practicecontrolsandadditionalProposal‐specificcontrols.Industrybest‐practicecontrolstobeimplementedarelistedbelow:

Developthedisturbancefootprinttotheminimumrequiredtoensuresafeandadequateconstructionandoperation;

ConstructionandOperationalEMPswillbedevelopedandimplemented; Internalgrounddisturbanceproceduresandagrounddisturbancepermit(GDP)system

will be developed prior to the commencement of ground disturbance. VegetationclearingwillonlyoccurifaccompaniedbyanapprovedGDP;

BoundariesofareastobeclearedordisturbedwillbeidentifiedbyGPScoordinatesandmapsofboundarieswillbeprovidedtothebulldozeroperator;

Clearingwillbeundertakeninaprogressivemanner,ascloseasreasonablypracticablepriortoconstruction;

Topsoilandvegetationwillbepushedtothesideofdisturbanceareasorcorridors foruseinrehabilitation;

Conductraisedbladedisturbancewherepracticableontemporarydisturbanceareas; Applywaterordustsuppressantstodisturbedareasandoretransfer/storageareasto

minimisedustgeneration; Incorporatesurfacewatermanagementanderosionprotectionintoprojectplanningand

designtominimisedisruptiontowatercoursesandriparianvegetation; Implement measures to manage surface water flows along the length of the rail

alignmenttominimisedownstreameffects; Locate and operate groundwater abstraction bores in accordance with DoW

requirementssuchthatgroundwaterdrawdownisminimisedwithinareasofconfirmedGDEs;

Implementweedhygieneandmanagementmeasures/procedures topreventspreadofweeds and the introduction of new weed species as a result of construction andoperation;and

Cleanvehiclespriortoenteringvegetatedareastopreventtheintroductionofnewweedspecies.

ThefollowingadditionalProposal‐specificmanagementmeasureswillbeemployedbyRutilatoavoid,minimiseand/ormitigatepotentialimpactstofloraandvegetation:

ConductadditionalfloraandvegetationsurveysofanyportionsoftheProposalAreathathavenot yet been surveyed. Figure 8 shows areas thatwerenot subject to a Level 2survey(howeverallareasliewithintheboundariesofthedesktopsurveybuffer).Rutilawill ensure that each area is surveyed to an appropriate level. A desktop survey isexpectedtobesuitableformostareasgiventhelackofTForTECs,howeverasitesurveytomaptheboundariesmayoccurifpotentialPECvegetationisidentified;

Develop Infrastructure Plan and submit to OEPA for approval prior to thecommencement of construction. This Proposal is being submitted prior to detaileddesign,thereforeflexibilityiscriticalatthisearlystage.TheInfrastructurePlanwillbe



completed following detailed design andwill finalise the required disturbance to keyenvironmentalfeatures,andwillincludetheresultsofthesurveysdiscussedabove;

An offset is to be provided for clearing of up to 3,000 ha of Very Good to Excellentconditionvegetation,basedontheresultsoftheInfrastructurePlan.TheInfrastructurePlan will provide accurate details of disturbance of Very Good or Excellent conditionvegetationwithineachlandsystem;

IdentifythestatusandmaptheextentofthepotentialP1‐P3‘FourplantassemblagesoftheWonaLandSystem’PECidentifiedintheProposalArea;

VegetationconfirmedtoformpartofaPECistobeconsideredakeyconstraint–therailalignment design will be assessed to avoid PECs where practicable. Flexibleinfrastructure(camps,accessroads,borrowpitsetc.)willbelocatedoutsideofthePECboundarieswherepracticable.TheInfrastructurePlanwillfinalisetheexpectedimpactpriortoconstructionanddemonstratehowtheaboveactionswereincorporatedintothedesign;

Locally significant vegetation and known PF locations will be included in a designconstraintsmap to be used during detailed project planning. These locationswill beavoided if suitable alternative options for the rail alignment are available. Flexibleinfrastructure(camps,accessroads,borrowpitsetc.)willbesitedtoavoidorminimiseimpacts to these locations. The Infrastructure Plan will finalise the expected impactpriortoconstructionanddemonstratehowtheaboveactionswereincorporatedintothedesign;

Appropriatebufferswillbeappliedaroundlocallysignificantvegetation,PECsandPFifnecessarybasedontheconstructionactivitiestobeundertaken(i.e.tominimiseindirectimpactsfromdust,floodingetc.);and

Groundwater abstraction bores to be located and operated such that groundwaterdrawdownisminimisedwithinareasofconfirmedGDEs.

Rutila will ensure that all staff, contractors and visitors are made aware of obligations andobjectivesregardingtheprotectionofnativevegetation.

REGULATION

TheMinisterialStatementreleasedasaresultofthisAPIprocessisexpectedtoregulateimpactsto flora and vegetation, either via limits in the key characteristic table or via conditions,includingthefollowing:

Limitofgrounddisturbanceduringconstructionperiod; Limit of ground disturbance during operations period, with a requirement for the

remaining balance (construction disturbance minus operations disturbance) to berehabilitated;

LimitondisturbancewithinconfirmedPECboundaries; ConfinementofactivitiestowithindefinedProposalArea; Condition requiring the submission and approval of an Infrastructure Plan prior to

construction;and Condition requiring offsets for the disturbance of Very Good to Excellent condition

vegetation.Conditionisexpectedtosetapriceperhectareforeachbioregion.



The EPBCActwill regulate any potential impacts toMNES flora or vegetation resulting fromProposal implementation (however none have been found so far). Rutila is referring theProposal toDoE inparallel to thisAPI submission, however thiswill be for impacts toMNESfauna.

Part V of the EP Act and the Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Clearing) Regulations2004 can address any unauthorised clearing that may occur outside of the areas approvedthroughthePartIVEPActprocess.

Themanagementofweedswillbe inaccordancewith therequirementsof theAgricultureandRelatedResourcesProtectionAct1976.

SeveralapprovalsrelatetothedesignoftheProposal,andwillensureitcomplieswithrelevantstandards. TheseincludeafutureStateAgreementActproposalfortherailcorridor,aminingproposaltobesubmittedundertheMiningActfortheconveyor,andPortAuthorityapprovalsforworkswithinthePPAboundary(boundariesarestillinnegotiation,howeverthiswillcoverthenorthernportionofProposal).

OUTCOMEANDASSESSMENTAGAINSTEPAOBJECTIVE

PredictedOutcomes

The outcomes presented in this section have been determined using the best availableinformation. Given that theProposal is intended to allow some flexibility through thedesignphase, these outcomes have allowed for a level of conservatism where impacts cannot beaccuratelydefined.

After the application of management and mitigation measures have been considered, theProposalwillresultinthedisturbanceofupto3,000haofnativevegetation.Itisexpectedthat1,800haofthesedisturbedareaswillberequiredduringoperations.Theremainder(estimated1,200 ha) will be rehabilitated at the completion of the construction phase. Progressiverehabilitationmay occur if viable. A conservative estimate is that all of the vegetation to bedisturbediseitherinVeryGoodorExcellentcondition(96.8%ofthevegetationwithintheStudyAreafallswithineitherofthesecategories).

ThefinaldisturbanceextentwithineachbioregionwillbeconfirmedwiththesubmissionoftheInfrastructure Plan prior to construction. This information will be used to determine offsetrequirements. ThecostoftheoffsetcontributionperhectareforeachbioregionisexpectedtobesetbytheEPAaspartoftheministerialconditions.

The proposed disturbance is not expected to result in a significant decline in the extent ofvegetation associations as all are almost completely intact (i.e. >97.8% remaining) and theProposalislinearinnature(i.e.disturbanceisspreadacrossupto15associations).

TECsorTFspeciesarenotexpectedtobeimpactedbytheProposalasnonehavebeenrecordedwithinorincloseproximitytotheProposalArea.

The BBIP rail loop has been relocated approximately 4.5 km to the south‐east, which hassignificantlyreducedimpactstotheP3‘HorseflatLandSystemoftheRoebournePlains’PEC.Upto 324.5 ha of this PEC still lies within the Proposal (and may be disturbed), however thisequates to a disturbance of only 2.3% of the overall PEC polygon (PEC polygon 1878), in



addition to the 0.58% disturbance associated with the BBIP. A portion of the PEC may bedisturbedhoweveritisexpectedtobesignificantfromalocalorregionalperspective

Up to 6 ha of the vegetation thatmay represent the P1 ‘Cracking clays of the Chichester andMungaroonaRange’sub‐typeof the ‘Fourplantassemblagesof theWonaLandSystem’PEC isexpectedtobeimpactedasitlieswithinaconfinedvalley.TheimplementationofmanagementactionsidentifiedinSection4.3.1.4willminimisetheimpactstothispotentialPEC,howeverupto19%ofthepolygonwillbedisturbed.ThisPECextendsoverapproximately127,050haofthePilbara, therefore the Proposal is not expected to significantly impact the PEC on a regionalscale.

NoSFDVwillbeimpactedasnonewasfoundwithintheProposalArea.Environmentalculvertsarethereforenotexpectedtoberequired.

PFhavebeenrecordedwithin theProposalAreaanddespite the implementationof the listedmanagementmeasuressomeplantsorpopulationsmaynotbeabletobeavoided.ItmustalsobeassumedthattherewillbeotherPFplantsorpopulationswithintheProposalAreathathavenotyetbeenlocatedgiventhatitisnotpossibletolocateeveryplantoversuchalargearea.TheProposalishowevernotexpectedtosignificantlyimpactoraffecttheconservationstatusofanyPF species given that some species thrive on disturbed areas and populationsmay thereforeincrease andmost species have a wide distribution or are locally common (refer to Phoenix(2014)inAppendix1foradditionalinformationaboutPF).

TheProposal isunabletoavoidpassingthroughaRedbookArea(Figure4),asthealternativewould be to pass through theMillstreamChichesterNational Park or theMungaroonaRangeNatureReserve.ThelinearnatureoftheProposalhowevermeansthatimpactstothevalueofthisRedbookAreawillnotbesignificantlyaffected.

Indirect impacts are not expected to be significant as the implementation of best‐practiceindustrycontrolshassuitablymanagedtheseimpactsinsimilarprojectsacrossthePilbara.

AnyoccurrencesofnewweedspeciesorthespreadofexistingweedswillbecontainedwithintheProposalAreaandcontrolledthrougheradicationmeasures.

DegreeofUncertainty

Thereare someuncertainties associatedwith thepredictedoutcomes,howevernoneof theseareexpectedtobesignificant.Theseinclude:

Areas of the Proposal Area that lie outside Ecoscape’s Level 2 survey area (Figure 8).These areas were within the boundary of Ecoscape’s desktop survey however andnothingsignificantwasfoundinthoseareas.TheseareaswillbesubjectedtoaLevel2surveypriortoconstruction,withthefindingsbeingincludedintheInfrastructurePlan.Theproposedkeycharacteristicslimitsandconditionsareexpectedtoensurethatanyuncertainty does not result in changes to the predicted impacts. The degree ofuncertaintyforthepredictedoutcomesisthereforelow;and

The Level 2 survey occurring over a single season. It is expected that sufficientinformation was gathered during the single season Level 2 survey to allow anassessmentof impactstothisfactor. AsecondseasonmayleadtotheidentificationofadditionalPFspeciesor locationshowevergiventhelinearnatureoftheProposal,andthewide‐ranginghabitatofthemajorityofPF,itisunlikelythatthisinformationwouldalterthepredictedoutcome.



AlignmentwithEPAObjective

Given that up to 3,000 ha of Very Good to Excellent condition vegetation is required to bedisturbedtoimplementtheProposal,theProposalwaspredictedtohavearesidualimpactforthisfactor.Takingintoconsiderationtheapplicationofoffsetshowever,RutilaexpectsthattheProposalcanbeimplementedtomeettheEPAobjectiveforthisfactor.

TERRESTRIALFAUNA

CONTEXT

PolicyContextAs discussed in Section 6.2.1, the Proposal Area passes between the Millstream ChichesterNationalParkandMungarooRangeNatureReserve(avoidanceofthesereserveswasidentifiedearlyasakeyconstraintfortheProposal),howeveritdoespassthroughaRedbookarea.ThisRedbook area (shown in Figure 4) lies immediately west and adjacent to the MillstreamChichesterNationalParkandcoversanareaof73,585ha(Figure4).

RelevantBaselineInformationThe following information summarises the major findings of the terrestrial fauna surveysundertakenbyPhoenix.Unlessotherwisestated,thefollowingtextshouldbeconsideredtobeadirectreferencetoPhoenix(2014a).

Eight broad fauna habitats were mapped by Phoenix within the Study Area. These faunahabitats,alongwiththeirextentofoccurrencewithintheStudyArea,aredetailedinAppendix1.Three fauna habitats were limited in extent; Woodland, Gully and Isolated Sand Dune, eachcoveringlessthan1%oftheStudyArea.

Atotalof128vertebratefaunaspecieswererecordedduringthefieldsurveys. Fivespeciesofconservation significance were recorded during the survey from direct sightings, secondaryevidence,echolocationrecordingsandcameratraps:

NorthernQuoll(Dasyurushallucatus)(Endangered–EPBC); RainbowBee‐eater(Meropsornatus)(Migratory–EPBC); LinedSoil‐creviceSkink(Notoscincusbutleri)(Priority4–DPaW); AustralianBustard(Ardeotisaustralis)(Priority4–DPaW);and WesternPebble‐moundMouse(Pseudomyschapmani)(Priority4–DPaW).

Northern Quoll was recorded from trapping, camera trapping, scats and bones. During thetargeted survey, 21 Northern Quoll individuals were recorded at three sites and based onpopulationestimates this reflects thenumberof animals in the trappingarea. Approximately640haofsuitabledenningandshelterhabitatforNorthernQuollwasmappedoverseverallandsystems as scattered ‘patches’ within the Study Area. The habitat is considered significanthabitatforthespecies.ThelandsystemscontainingsuitablehabitatarealsowellrepresentedintheStudyAreasurrounds.ItislikelythatNorthernQuolloccurmorebroadlyinsuitablehabitatintheseareas,includingwithintheChichesterandHamersleyRangeswhichextendwidelyeastandwestoftheStudyArea.



TheRainbowBee‐eater(Meropsornatus)andLinedSoil‐creviceSkink(Notoscincusbutleri)weredirectlysightedwithintheStudyArea.TracksoftheAustralianBustard(Ardeotisaustralis)andan inactive mound of the Western Pebble‐mound Mouse (Pseudomys chapmani) were alsorecorded. The records of the Lined Soil‐crevice Skink from the survey represent an easterlyrange extension of approximately 40 km. The survey records fromwithin spinifex grasslandhabitatareconsistentwiththehabitattypeofthemajorityofpreviousrecordsforthespecies.This habitat iswell represented bothwithin the StudyArea andmore broadly outside of theStudyArea and itmayoccurmore commonly in thebroader region. TheRainbowBee‐eater,AustralianBustardandWesternPebble‐moundMousearecommonandwidespreadthroughoutthePilbarabioregionandtherecordsofthesespeciesfromthesurveysarenotconsideredtobesignificant.

BasedonhabitatspresentintheStudyArea,knowndistributionsandnearbyrecords,afurther23conservationsignificantspeciesmaypotentiallyoccurintheStudyArea(Phoenix,2014a):

Reptiles:

Gane'sBlindSnake(Aniliosganei)(Priority1–DPaW);and PilbaraOlivePython(Liasisolivaceusbarroni)(Vulnerable–EPBCAct),(Schedule1–WC

Act).

Birds:

FlockBronzewing(Phapshistrionica)(Priority4–DPaW); Fork‐tailedSwift(Apuspacificus)(Migratory–EPBCAct),(Schedule3–WCAct); EasternGreatEgret(Ardeamodesta)(Migratory–EPBCAct),(Schedule3–WCAct); GlossyIbis(Plegadisfalcinellus)(Migratory–EPBCAct),(Schedule3–WCAct); White‐belliedSea‐Eagle (Haliaeetusleucogaster) (Migratory–EPBCAct), (Schedule3–

WCAct); GreyFalcon(Falcohypoleucos)(Schedule1–WCAct),(Vulnerable–DPaW); PeregrineFalcon(Falcoperegrinus)(Schedule4–WCAct); BushStone‐curlew(Burhinusgrallarius)(Priority4–DPaW); CommonSandpiper(Actitishypoleucos)(Migratory–EPBCAct),(Schedule3–WCAct); CommonGreenshank(Tringanebularia)(Migratory–EPBCAct),(Schedule3–WCAct); WoodSandpiper(Tringaglareola)(Migratory–EPBCAct),(Schedule3–WCAct); Oriental Pratincole (Glareolamaldivarum) (Migratory – EPBC Act), (Schedule 3 – WC

Act);and StarFinch(Neochmiaruficaudasubclarescens)(Priority4–DPaW).

Mammals:

Brush‐tailedMulgara(Dasycercusblythi)(Priority4–DPaW); Long‐tailedDunnart(Sminthopsislongicaudata)(Priority4–DPaW); Bilby(Macrotislagotis)(Vulnerable–EPBCAct),(Schedule1–WCAct); NorthernMarsupialMole(Notoryctescaurinus)(Endangered–EPBC),(Schedule1–WC

Act),(Endangered–DPaWpriorityfaunalist); SpectacledHare‐wallaby(Lagorchestesconspicillatusleichardti)(Priority4–DPaW); Black‐flanked Rock‐wallaby (Petrogale lateralis lateralis) (Vulnerable – EPBC Act),

(Schedule1–WCAct),Vulnerable–DPaW);



GhostBat(Macrodermagigas)(Priority4–DPaW);and Short‐tailedMouse(Leggadinalakedownensis)(Priority4–DPaW).

NoevidenceofBilby,Mulgara,NorthernMarsupialMole,PilbaraOlivePythonoranynewLeristaspecies was recorded during the targeted fauna survey. Approximately 3,600 ha of habitatcharacterised by burrowing substrate and adequate vegetation structure suitable to supportBilby andMulgarawasmappedwithin the Study Area, although habitat qualitywas variablewithinthesemappedareas. LandsystemmappingindicatesthepotentialhabitatextendswellbeyondtheStudyArea,bothtotheeastandwest.

It is highly likely the Pilbara Olive Python occurs within the Study Area, particularly in the(approximately) 40 km section containing creekline habitat within the Rocklea land system.ThishabitatoccursinthecentralpartoftheProposalAreaandwasidentifiedasverysuitableforthespecies(Figure2andFigure3). Thehabitatis linedbyrockylandfeaturesanddottedwithpermanentpoolswhichare ideal forbasking, foraging and sheltering. TheRocklea landsystemextendswelloutsidetheStudyArea.Minorcreeklines,permanentwaterholesandrockyrefuges suitable for this species were evident in the Rocklea land system from aerialobservationsbeyondtheStudyAreaboundaries.

The sand dune habitats are considered suitable to support the Northern Marsupial Mole.Becauseofthelimitedinformationavailableonthespeciesdistributionandbiology,aswellassamplingdifficulties, itspresenceinthishabitatcannotbeconclusivelyruledoutbasedonthefieldsurveyresults.

Thirteen likely orpotential SRE invertebrateswere collected from the StudyArea comprisingthree arachnids, two centipedes, seven isopods andone snail. Elevenof thesewere collectedfrom the field survey and two specieswere identified in the desktop review inside the StudyArea,butwerenotcollectedinthepresentfieldsurvey.Withtheexceptionofslaters,allSREswereonlyrecordedashighertaxonomicranks(sp.indet.),morphologicalidentificationwasnotpossible.Twoslaters,Buddelundia‘92’andBuddelundia‘95’arecurrentlyonlyknownfromtheStudyArea,butarelikelytooccurmorewidelybasedontheirapparenthabitatpreferencesforrockyhillslopesandgullies,respectively.

RelevantDesignConsiderationsUp to 3,000 ha of general fauna habitat disturbancewill be required during operations. Thebalance between the habitat disturbed during construction and what is required duringoperationswillberehabilitatedoncetheareasarenolongerrequired.

TherailalignmenthasbeenrelocatedtonowavoidPhoenix’ssiteQ5(NunyerryGorge),whichhadthehighestnumbersofNorthernQuollduringthePhoenixsurvey(Figure2andFigure3).RutilahasamendedtheiroriginalProposalAreaboundarytoreflectthischange.

Rutilahaverevieweddisturbancerequirementsandcancommittothefollowingfromadesignperspective:

DisturbanceofNorthernQuolldenning/shelterhabitatwillberestrictedtoamaximumof5ha;

NoNorthernMarsupialMolehabitatwillbedisturbed;and DisturbanceofPilbaraOlivePythonshelterhabitatwillberestricted toamaximumof

78ha.



POTENTIALSIGNIFICANTIMPACTSWITHOUTMITIGATION

Ground disturbance such as direct clearing, earthmoving activities and increased vehiculartraffic during the construction and operation of the Project (predominantly during theconstructionphaseofthisProposal)mayresultinthefollowingimpacts:

Directdisturbanceofupto3,000haofgeneralfaunahabitat; Direct disturbance of potential conservation significant fauna habitat, including

identifiedNorthernQuoll,Bilby,Mulgara,PilbaraOlivePythonandNorthernMarsupialMolehabitat;

Declineinhabitatqualityasaresultofindirectimpacts(suchasdustorpollution); Alterations in faunabehaviour(suchasbreedingand foragingetc.)asaresultofnoise

emissionsfromconstructionandoperationalactivities;and Possibility of terrestrial fauna injury or death as a result of vehicle strike due to

increasedvehiculartrafficwithintheProposalArea.

PROPOSEDMANAGEMENT(MITIGATION)

TheProposaldesignhas,andwillcontinueto,avoidandminimiseclearingofhighervaluefaunahabitat where practicable. The proposed rail alignment and locations of associatedinfrastructureweredevelopedtooptimiseoperationalcostswhilebeingsensitivetotheneedtoavoidorlimittheimpacttopotentialsignificantfaunavaluesduetoclearinganddisturbanceofhabitat.

Rutila proposes to implement appropriate management measures to mitigate the potentialimpactsdescribed in Section6.3.2 above. Themanagementmeasureshavebeendivided intotwotypesofcontrols;industrybest‐practicecontrolsandadditionalProposal‐specificcontrols.

The proposed industry best‐practice controls for ground disturbance (i.e. such asminimisingdisturbance, developing a GDP system, managing weeds etc.) listed in Section 6.2.3 will alsoapplytogeneralfaunahabitatdisturbanceandthereforehavenotbeenrepeatedinthissection.Additionalindustrybest‐practicemanagementmeasuresspecifictofaunawillinclude:

Watercourse crossings will be constructed with culverts or bridges which will allowfaunatotraverseundertherailorconveyorcorridor;

Faunaegressmechanismswillbeinstalledatallturkeysnestdams; Control introduced faunaaround campsandotherworkareas andprovide training to

ensurethatnativeorintroducedfaunaarenotfedbysitepersonnel; Storefoodwastesinbinsthatarenoteasilyaccessibletofauna; Uselownoiseequipmentwherepracticable; Developborrowpitssuchthattheyarefree‐drainingtoavoidwaterpooling; Reportinternallyallincidentsresultinginfaunainjuryordeath;and Setandenforcevehiclespeedlimits.

ThefollowingProposal‐specificmanagementmeasureswillalsobeemployedbyRutilatoavoid,minimiseand/ormitigatepotentialimpactstoterrestrialfauna:

Conduct additional targeted significant fauna habitat surveys of any portions of theProposalAreathathavenotyetbeensurveyed(Figure8);



Develop Infrastructure Plan and submit to OEPA for approval prior to thecommencement of construction. The Infrastructure Plan is to finalise the requireddisturbancetoconservationsignificantfaunahabitat,andwillincludetheresultsofthesurveysdiscussedabove;

Watercourse crossings will be constructed with culverts or bridges which will allowfaunatotraverseundertherailcorridor;

NorthernMarsupialMoledenning/shelterhabitatwillnotbedisturbed; NorthernQuollandPilbaraOlivePythondenning/shelterhabitatistobeconsideredkey

constraints– the rail alignmentdesignwillbeassessed toavoid theseareasofhabitatwhere practicable. Flexible infrastructure (camps, access roads, borrowpits etc.)willnotbelocatedwithinthesehabitatareas;

Bilby,Brush‐tailedMulgaraandSREhabitatwillbeincludedinadesignconstraintsmaptobeusedduringdetailedprojectplanning.Flexibleinfrastructure(camps,accessroads,borrowpitsetc.)willbesitedtoavoidorminimiseimpactswithinthesehabitatareas;

Appropriate buffers will be applied around Northern Quoll, Pilbara Olive Python andNorthern Marsupial Mole denning /shelter habitat if necessary based on theconstruction activities to be undertaken (i.e. to minimise indirect impacts from dust,floodingetc.);

Given the extent of suitable Northern Quoll habitat in the Proposal Area, a NorthernQuollManagementPlanwillbepreparedand implementedprior to construction. Themanagement plan will include information from the Infrastructure Plan about finalhabitatdisturbancerequirementsaswellasadditionalspecificdesignandmanagementcontrolsfortheNorthernQuollsuchas:

o Pre‐clearingsurveystodeterminethelocationofdens;o ClearingcampaignsandsignificantdevelopmentswithinNorthernQuollcritical

denning/shelterhabitatwillbescheduledtoavoidthebreedingseasonwherepossible;

o Considerationofadditionalfaunaculvertstomaintainhabitatconnectivity;o Rehabilitationofhabitat;ando ConductaprogramtomonitortheeffectsoftheProposalonNorthernQuoll.

IntheeventthatmonitoringsuggestssignificantadverseeffectsonlocalNorthernQuollpopulations as a result of the Proposed Action, a framework will be developed forfurtherinvestigations,managementandcontingencyactions.

REGULATION

TheMinisterialStatementreleasedasaresultofthisAPIprocessisexpectedtoregulateimpactsto flora and vegetation, either via limits in the key characteristic table or via conditions,includingthefollowing:

Limitofgrounddisturbanceduringconstructionperiod; Limit of ground disturbance during operations period, with a requirement for the

remaining balance (construction disturbance minus operations disturbance) to berehabilitated;

Limit on disturbance within Northern Quoll, Pilbara Olive Python and NorthernMarsupialMoledenning/shelterhabitatboundaries;

ConfinementofactivitiestowithindefinedProposalArea;and



Condition requiring the submission and approval of an Infrastructure Plan prior toconstruction.

The EPBC Act will regulate any potential impacts to MNES fauna resulting from Proposalimplementation.RutilaisreferringtheProposaltoDoEinparalleltothisAPIsubmission.TheWCActalsomanagesunauthorisedimpactstospecieslistedunderthatAct.

Part V of the EP Act and the Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Clearing) Regulations2004canaddressanyunauthorisedclearingoffaunahabitatthatmayoccuroutsideoftheareasapprovedthroughthePartIVEPActprocess.

SeveralapprovalsrelatetothedesignoftheProposal,andwillensureitcomplieswithrelevantstandards. TheseincludeafutureStateAgreementActproposalfortherailcorridor,aminingproposaltobesubmittedundertheMiningActfortheconveyor,andPortAuthorityapprovalsforworkswithinthePPAboundary(boundariesarestillinnegotiation,howeverthiswillcoverthenorthernportionoftheProposal).

OUTCOMEANDASSESSMENTAGAINSTEPAOBJECTIVE

PredictedOutcomes

The proposed railway corridor and locations of associated infrastructure were developed tooptimise operational costs and balance the need to avoid or limit the impact to potentialsignificantfaunavalues.

Other active management measures are also consistent with best practice and stewardshipprinciples.

After application of the described management and mitigation measures, the Proposal isexpectedtoresultinthefollowingoutcomesinrelationtoterrestrialfauna:

TheProposalwillresult inthedisturbanceofapproximately3,000haof faunahabitat,withapproximately1,800haremainingdisturbedduringtheoperationsperiod. Broadfaunahabitat in the surrounding area remains almost completely intact and thereforetheProposal isnotexpectedtohaveasignificanteffectontherepresentationofbroadfaunahabitatatalocalorregionallevel;

NorthernQuollareexpectedtobeabletotraversetherailembankment.ThemajorityoftheareasofNorthernQuolldenning/shelterhabitatwillbecompletelyavoided.Ofnoteis that the Proposal Area has been revised to now exclude Nunyerry Gorge (site Q5),whichhadthehighestrecordednumbersofNorthernQuoll.Aftertheimplementationofthe management actions approximately 5 ha of the remaining 640 ha of denning /shelter habitat will be required to be disturbed. The overall disturbance of habitatwithin the Study Area is therefore less than 1%. All of the land systems containingsuitable habitat are well represented in the surrounding areas, including within theChichesterandHamersleyRangeswhichextendwidelyeastandwestoftheStudyArea(Phoenix, 2014). Rutila is confident that habitat disturbance has been avoided andminimised asmuch as possible. TheProposal is thereforenot expected to result in asignificantresidualimpacttothisspecies;

PilbaraOlivePythonwasconsideredlikelytooccurinanapproximately40kmsectionofcreeklinehabitatwithintheProposalArea.Thiscreeklinehabitatextendswelloutsidethe Proposal Area. Minor creek lines, permanentwaterholes and rocky refugeswere



evident fromaerialobservationsbeyondtheProposalArea (Phoenix,2014). After theimplementationofthemanagementactionsupto78haofPilbaraOlivePythonhabitatwill be required tobedisturbed, out of a total of 4,109ha identifiedwithin the StudyArea.Asstatedabove,theProposalAreahasbeenrevisedtonowexcludesiteQ5,whichhada significantportionof suitablehabitat. Theoveralldisturbanceofhabitatwithinthe Study Area equates to approximately 1.9%. Rutila is confident that habitatdisturbancehasbeenavoidedandminimisedasmuchaspossible.This,combinedwiththeknowledgethatsuitablehabitatextendswellbeyondtheboundariesoftheProposalArea,resultsintheexpectationthattherewillnotbeasignificantresidualimpactonthisspecies;

Thesanddunehabitats(shownindarkblueonFigure2andFigure3)areconsideredtobe suitable to support the Northern Marsupial Mole, however due to limited speciesdistribution and biology information its presence or absence cannot be confirmed(Phoenix,2014).Rutilahastakenaconservativeapproachandassumedthatthisspeciesis present. Avoidance, minimisation andmitigation strategies have been applied thishabitat. After the implementation of the management actions, the two NorthernMarsupialMolehabitatareaswillbeentirelyavoided;

Otherconservationsignificantfaunahabitatiswidespreadandgenerallywellconnectedto similarhabitat outsideof theProposalArea. Thedisturbanceof anarrowcorridorandassociateditemsisnotexpectedtosignificantlyimpactthehabitatofthesespecies;

TheProposalwillnotaffecttheconservationstatusofanysignificantspecies; TwoSREspeciesareonlyknownfromwithinthestudyarea, fromrockyhillandgully

habitat. Avoidance andmanagement strategies are proposed for SRE habitat, and thedevelopmentof linear infrastructure is likely todissectaportionofSREhabitatratherthandisturbanentirepopulation.ItisalsolikelythatsuitablehabitatexistsoutsidetheProposal Area (Phoenix, 2014a). The Proposal is therefore unlikely to result insignificantimpactstoanySREspecies;and

Indirect impacts are not expected to be significant as construction does not generallyoccurinasinglelocationforanextendedperiod.Railmovementsduringoperationsareinfrequent.

DegreeofUncertainty

Thereare someuncertainties associatedwith thepredictedoutcomes,howevernoneof theseareexpectedtobesignificant.Theseinclude:

Areas of the Proposal Area that lie outside Phoenix’s targeted survey area (Figure 8).TheseareaswillbesubjectedtoaLevel2surveypriortoconstruction,withthefindingsbeing included in the InfrastructurePlan. Theproposedkeycharacteristics limitsandconditionsareexpectedtoensurethatanyuncertaintydoesnotresultinchangestothepredicted impacts. The degree of uncertainty for the predicted outcomes is thereforelow;and

AreasofNorthernQuollhabitatthatwasnotsurveyedduringthetargetedsurvey.ThesepotentialhabitatareaswereidentifiedbyRutilaasbeingcompletelyavoidableandthishasbeenconsideredincalculatingtheamountofhabitatthatisrequiredtobedisturbed.Therefore the uncertainty about the presence of Northern Quoll within these habitatareashasnoimpactonthepredictedoutcomeastheareaswouldbeavoidedanyway.



AlignmentwithEPAObjective

Given thatminimal impacts toconservationsignificant faunahabitatsareexpectedduring theimplementation of the Proposal, the Proposal is not expected to have a significant residualimpact for this factor. Rutila expects that theProposal can be implemented tomeet the EPAobjectiveforthisfactor.



7 OTHERENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

Rutilahasassessedthepotential impactsoftheProposalonthevariousenvironmentalfactorslisted in EnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline8: forEnvironmentalFactorsandObjectives (EPA2013c). ThisAPIdocument focuseson theenvironmental factors thataredeemed tobe ‘key’factors, those with the potential to be significantly impacted and could not be appropriatelymanagedunderotherexistinglegislation.PotentialimpactstothesekeyfactorsaredescribedindetailinSection6andassessedusingrelevantstudiesspecifictotheProposal.

The ‘other’ environmental factorshavebeen consideredbyRutila anddue to the low level ofimpact, application of industry standard controls and other regulatory mechanisms, thesefactorsarenotexpectedtoberequiredtobeassessedindetailbytheEPA.Table7providestherelevantEIAinformationfor‘other’environmentalfactorstoensuretheEPAhasahighdegreeofconfidencethatthepotentialimpactsarenotsignificantandaremanageableunderstandardindustry controls and other regulatory mechanisms. Rutila understands the importance ofcompliancewiththerelevantstatutesthatwillbeusedtomanagetheseenvironmentalfactors.

Toensure that theassessmentsareasconciseaspossible, the followingsectionsonlycontainthe baseline environmental information that was deemed to be relevant to each factor. Fordetailed information of broader existing environmental information (i.e. geology, climate andweather),pleaserefertothebiologicalsurveyreportsattachedinAppendix1.



Table7:Environmentalassessment–otherenvironmentalfactors

FactorandEPAObjective

RelevantExistingEnvironment EnvironmentalAspectPotentially

SignificantImpact(withoutmitigation)

ManagementActions(Mitigation) RegulationPredictedOutcomes(Meets

EPAObjective–Y/N)

HydrologicalProcesses‐Tomaintainthehydrologicalregimesofgroundwaterandsurfacewatersothatexistingandpotentialuses,includingecosystemmaintenance,areprotected.

ThePilbaraischaracterisedbyseasonalwatercoursesinresponsetotheerraticnatureofrainfallintheregion;

ThenorthernportionoftheProposalAreaisassociatedwiththeSherlockRiver,crossingtheriverandcorrespondingwithitsfloodplainandtributaries;

NearthecentreoftheProposalAreathealignmentcrossestheFortescueRiver;

ThesouthernportionoftheProposalAreaisassociatedwithWeelumurraCreekanditstributariesthatflowintotheFortescueRiver;

GDEsidentifiedwithintheStudyArea; NoSheetflowdependantvegetationidentified

withintheStudyArea;and Nosignificantgroundwaterusersknowninthe

area.

Grounddisturbance–clearingofapproximately3,000haofnativevegetation;

DevelopmentoftheProposal,includingcreekandrivercrossings;

Abstractionofapproximately1.8GL/yrofgroundwaterforwatersupplyduringconstruction(reducesto0.3GL/yrduringoperations);and

Removalofriparianandin‐streamvegetation.

Alterationstosurfacewaterflows,causingflooding,sedimentation,,ponding,diversions,erosionand/orreductioninsurfacewateravailabilitydownstream;

Erosioncausedbyincreasedrun‐offandflowvelocityasaresultofreducedvegetationcover;

Reductioningroundwateravailability;and

GroundwaterdrawdownreducingthehealthofGDEs.

ThefollowingmanagementstrategieswillbeemployedbyRutilatoavoid,minimiseand/ormitigatepotentialimpactstohydrologicalprocesses:

Civilengineeringdesignswillincludeappropriatedrainagerequirements.Catchmentanalysiswillbecarriedoutinordertodetermineculvertandbridgedesignparameters;

Installengineeredculvertswherenaturaldrainagefeaturesareinterruptedbytherailembankment;

Borrowpitswillbemadetobeself‐drainingwherepracticable.Inextremelyflatareaswhereborrowpitscannotreasonablybemadetoself‐drainthepitswillbebundedtopreventsurfaceflowsfromenteringthepit.Watercollectingwithinthepitwillbeallowedtoinfiltrateorevaporate;

Wheretheriskoferosionisidentifiedinspecificareasduringconstruction,erosioncontrolstructuressuchassiltfences,diversionandcollectionbunds,sedimentdamsandholdingsumpswillbeinstalled.Suchstructureswillbetemporaryinnatureandwillbecompletelyremovedaspartofrehabilitationoftheconstructionarea;

Undertakeprogressiverehabilitationofdisturbedareasthatarenotrequiredforongoingoperations;and

Drillandabstractgroundwaterinaccordancewith26Dand5ClicencesadministeredbytheDoW.

MinisterialStatement(future) EPBCActPartV(authorised

clearing)andEnvironmentalProtection(ClearingofNativeVegetation)Regulations2004–abletoaddressanyadditionalclearingoutsideofboundariesauthorisedunderPartIVoftheEPAct;

26Dand5ClicencesundertheRIWIActwillmanagegroundwaterdrillingandabstraction;and

FutureStateAgreementAct,MiningActandPortAuthorityapprovalstoensuremajorwatercoursecrossingsaredevelopedasperapproveddesign.

Vegetationclearingwillbeprogressive,andareasnotrequiredforoperationswillberehabilitatedprogressivelyoratthecompletionoftheconstructionperiod.Thisminimisesthepotentialforsurfacewaterimpactssuchaserosionandflooding;

Best‐practicesurfacewatermanagementforrailprojectsisnowwellunderstoodandhasbeendemonstratedtobesuccessfulandwillbeadoptedfortheProposal;

GroundwaterimpactsareexpectedtobeminorandabletobemanagedbyDoWundertheRIWIAct;

Erosionandsedimentationimpactsduringconstructionareexpectedtobelocalisedandshort‐term;and

Thisfactorcanbemanagedusingindustrystandardmanagementcontrolsandexistinglegislation.ThiswillensurethattheProposalwilleffectivelymeettheEPAobjective.

Landforms‐Tomaintainthevariety,integrity,ecologicalfunctionsandenvironmentalvaluesoflandformsandsoils.

PilbaraBioregion; Chichester,FortescuePlains,Hamersleyand

Roebournesubregions;and 65geologicalunits.

Developmentofborrowpitsandballastquarry;and

Earthworkssuchascutandfillactivities.

Alterationofexistinglandforms;and

Soilerosionandsedimentationfromdisturbedareas.

Anetcutandfillbalancewillbetargetedduringengineeringdesign;

Implementationofsedimentanderosioncontrolmeasures(detailedabove);

Borrowpitdepthswillgenerallybelimitedto2m; Borrowpitswillbemadetobeself‐drainingwhere

practicable.Inextremelyflatareaswhereborrowpitscannotreasonablybemadetoself‐drainthepitswillbebundedtopreventsurfaceflowsfromenteringthepit.Watercollectingwithinthepitwillbeallowedtoinfiltrateorevaporate;

Borrowpitsthatarenotrequiredforoperationswillberehabilitated;and

Ifnotrequiredforoperations,theballastquarrywillbeclosedandrehabilitatedinaccordancewithcurrentMiningActguidance.

MinisterialStatement(future);and

FutureStateAgreementAct,MiningActandPortAuthorityapprovalstoensureProposalisdevelopedasperapproveddesign.

TheProposalfootprintisrestrictedlargelytovalleyfloorswithminimalneedforcuttingsortraversaloversignificantlandforms;

TheProposalwillnotresultinthecreationofsignificantlandformsoractivitiesthatwillaffecttheecologicalfunctionofsoils;and

TheProposalcanmeettheEPAobjective.

SubterraneanFauna‐Tomaintainrepresentation,diversity,viabilityandecologicalfunctionatthespecies,populationandassemblagelevel.

TheProposalisnotexpectedtohaveanimpactonsubterraneanfauna.Nosignificantexcavationsordewateringareproposedalongthelinearalignment.

TerrestrialEnvironmentalQuality‐Tomaintainthequality

ThemajorityoftheProposalArearemainsrelativelyundisturbed,howeverwithsomeevidenceofgrazing.NoareasofpotentialcontaminationarelocatedinproximitytotheProposalArea.

Generationofwaste‐including:

Generaldomesticwaste(e.g.paper,cardboards,some

Localisedcontaminationofsoil,groundwaterorsurfacewaterandsubsequentimpacts

WastewillbesegregatedandeitherremovedfromsiteviaanauthorisedwastecontractorordisposedofonsitetoalandfilllicensedunderPartVoftheEPAct;

HydrocarbonsandchemicalsbundedandstoredinaccordancewithDangerousGoodsSafety(StorageandHandlingforNon‐

DangerousGoodsSafetyAct2004(storageofhazardousmaterials);

DangerousGoodsSafety(StorageandHandlingforNon‐

TheProposaldoesnotinvolvetheproduction,storageorhandlingoflargequantitiesofmaterialsthatmaycausepollution.The







EPAObjective–Y/N)

oflandandsoilssothattheenvironmentalvalues,bothecologicalandsocial,areprotected.

plasticsandfoodscraps); Industrialwastes(e.g.

pallets,packaging,scrapmetals;andtyres);

Hazardouswastes(e.g.hydrocarbonsandcontaminatedmaterial);and

Hydrocarbonorchemicalspills.

onsurroundingecosystems;and

Creationofhazardsfornativefaunaandpersonnel

explosives)Regulations2007andAS1940:StorageandHandlingofFlammableandCombustibleLiquids;

Re‐fuellingbaysatbulkfuelstoragefacilitiesequippedwithconcreteapronsorsuitablelining(e.g.buriedheavydutyplastic);

Spillclean‐upmaterialreadilyavailableatworksitesandonmobileservicetrucksofvehicles,wherehydrocarbonsandchemicalsarestoredand/orused;and

Aspillresponseprocedurewillbedevelopedandimplementedpriortoconstruction.

explosives)Regulations2007; PartVEPAct(WorksApproval

andLicenceforlandfill); EnvironmentalProtection

(UnauthorisedDischarges)Regulations2004;and

GeneralprovisionsoftheEPAct.

potentialforimpactsonthisfactorarethereforerelativelylowandcanbeappropriatelymanagedviaexistinglegislation.TheProposalcanthereforemeettheEPAobjective.

InlandWatersEnvironmentalQuality‐Tomaintainthequalityofgroundwaterandsurfacewater,sedimentandbiotasothattheenvironmentalvalues,bothecologicalandsocial,areprotected.

ThenorthernportionoftherailalignmentisassociatedwiththeSherlockRiver,crossingtheriverandcorrespondingwithitsfloodplainandtributaries;

NearthecentreoftherailcorridorthealignmentcrossestheFortescueRiver;and

ThesouthernportionoftherailalignmentisassociatedwithWeelumurraCreekanditstributariesthatflowintotheFortescueRiver.

Generationofwaste(asdescribedinthefactorabove);

Hydrocarbonorchemicalspills;

Surfacewaterrunofffromclearedareas;and

Alterationofsurfacewaterflows.

Groundwaterorsurfacewatercontaminationviawasteorhydrocarbon/chemicalspills;and

Increasedturbidityduetoerosioncausedbyreducedvegetationcoveroralterationofsurfacewaterflowpaths.

Managewasteandhydrocarbon/chemicalspillsaspermanagementactionslistedinthefactorabove(TerrestrialEnvironmentalQuality);and

Managesurfacewaterflowsinaccordancewiththemanagementactionslistedinthefactor‘HydrologicalProcesses’.

DangerousGoodsSafetyAct2004(storageofhazardousmaterials);

DangerousGoodsSafety(StorageandHandlingforNon‐explosives)Regulations2007;

PartVEPAct(WorksApprovalandLicenceforlandfill);

EnvironmentalProtection(UnauthorisedDischarges)Regulations2004;and

GeneralprovisionsoftheEPAct.

TheProposaldoesnotinvolvetheproduction,storageorhandlingoflargequantitiesofmaterialsthatmaycausepollution.

SurfacewatermanagementhasbeendiscussedadequatelyundertheHydrologicalProcessesfactorandwasdeterminedthattheEPAObjectivecouldbemet.

Thepotentialforimpactsonthisfactorarethereforerelativelylowandcanbeappropriatelymanagedviaexistinglegislation.TheProposalcanthereforemeettheEPAobjective.

AirQuality‐Tomaintainairqualityfortheprotectionoftheenvironmentandhumanhealthandamenity.

TheProposalislocatedinaremoteareainwiththenearestsensitivereceptorsmorethan3.5kmawayaslistedbelow:o CoolawanyahHomestead(3.5kmtothe

southeastoftheProposalArea);o MountFloranceHomestead(6kmtothe

southeast);o SherlockHomestead(7kmtothewest);ando CroydonOutstation(10kmtothewest).

NosignificantsourcesofairpollutionareinproximitytotheProposal.

Dustliftfrombareground/clearedareas;

Constructionandoperationalactivitiessuchasthemechanicaldisturbanceofrockandsoilmaterialsbyplantoperation,blastinganduseofvehiclesondirtroads;and

Useofmachinery,gensetsandlightandheavyvehicles.

Increasedlevelsofairbornedust;and

Minorpointsourceairemissionsfromvehicleandgensetexhausts.

Theareaofexposedclearedsurfaceswillbekepttotheminimumrequiredforsafeandefficientconstruction;

Dustsuppressionwilloccurinareasthathavehighpotentialtogeneratedust,suchasareasthatreceiveheavytrafficandkeyconstructionareas;

Vehiclespeedswillberestricted; Theperformanceofdustsuppressionequipmentwillbe

monitoredbyregularsiteinspections;and Wherepracticableandcosteffectivedustsuppressantsmaybe

usedtoreducethevolumeofwaterrequiredtoeffectivelyminimisedustgeneration.

OccupationalSafetyRegulations1996;

GeneralprovisionsoftheEPAct;and

MiningAct(conveyortoPIOP)andPortAuthority(portboundaries)approvalstoincludemanagementofdust.

Thepotentialforimpactsonthisfactorarerelativelylow,withdustbeingthemainemission.NosensitivereceptorsareincloseproximitytotheProposalArea.TheProposalthereforecanmeettheEPAobjective.

Amenity‐Toensurethatimpactstoamenityarereducedaslowasreasonablypracticable.

TheProposalAreaisnotextensivelyusedbythepublicandisnotvisiblefrommaintouristroutesorsettlements;

TheProposalislocatedinaremoteareainwiththenearestsensitivereceptorsmorethan3.5kmaway;and

TherearenopublicfacilitiesinproximitytotheProposalArea.

Earthmovingactivities; Vehiclemovements; Generalconstructionand

operationactivities/traffic;and

Useofmachinery.

Directimpactssuchasnoiseandvibrationtosensitivereceptors;and

Publicaccesswillbelimitedinsomeoperationalareas.

Equipmentusedwillbemaintainedinaccordancewithmanufacturers’specificationsandrelevantstandards;

VehiclespeedswithintheProposalAreawillberestricted; Anynoiseorotheramenitycomplaintswillberaisedasan

incidentandinvestigated;and Internalcombustionenginesfittedwithasuitablemufflerin

serviceablecondition.

EnvironmentalProtection(Noise)Regulations1997;

StatePlanningPolicy5.4(noise);

GeneralprovisionsoftheEPAct;and

FutureStateAgreementActprocessexpectedtoconsideramenityimpactsonstakeholders.

Thepotentialforimpactsonthisfactorarerelativelylowgiventheremotelocation,andcanbeappropriatelymanagedviaexistinglegislationandnegotiationswithPastoralists.TheProposalthereforecanmeettheEPAobjective.

Heritage‐Toensurethathistoricalandculturalassociationsarenotadverselyaffected.

SeverallistedAboriginalHeritagesites(oftheirbuffers)occurwithintheProposalArea;

InitialAboriginalHeritagesurveysarecurrentlybeingundertakenfortheProposal;and

NoEuropeanHeritagesitesarelocatedwithintheProposalArea.

Generalgrounddisturbance. DisturbanceofAboriginalHeritagesites.

EthnographicandheritagesurveyswillbeundertakenpriortoanygrounddisturbancetoidentifysitesofAboriginalsignificance;

SignificantAboriginalsiteswillnotbedisturbedwithoutauthorisation;

AllaspectsoftheProposalwillbecarriedoutinaccordancewithEPAGuidanceStatementNo.41(EPA2004)throughtheimplementationofaCulturalHeritageManagementPlanandrelevantagreementswithnativetitleclaimantgroups,therebyavoidingimpacttoAboriginalsitesofsignificance;and

Grounddisturbancewillbesubjectedtoaninternalground

AboriginalHeritageAct1972; AboriginalandTorresStrait

IslanderHeritageProtectionAct1984;and

NativeTitleAct1993.

RutilaisawareoftheirresponsibilitiesundertheAboriginalHeritageAct1972,andiscurrentlyworkingwiththerelevantNativeTitlegroupstoensureimpactstoAboriginalHeritagesitesareminimised.Therailalignmenthasalreadybeenrelocatedinsomeareastoavoidsignificantsites.

Thepotentialforimpactsonthis







EPAObjective–Y/N)

disturbanceapprovalprocess. factorcanbeappropriatelymanagedviaexistinglegislation.TheProposalthereforecanmeettheEPAobjective.

HumanHealth‐Toensurethathumanhealthisnotadverselyaffected.

Norisktohumanhealthisanticipated.NoiseandvibrationiscoveredintheAmenitysectionabove.

Offsets‐Tocounterbalanceanysignificantresidualenvironmentalimpactsoruncertaintythroughtheapplicationofoffsets.

OnePEC(P3‘HorseflatLandSystemoftheRoebournePlains’)recordedinthenorthernportionoftheEcoscape(2014)StudyArea(Figure6);

VegetationthatmayrepresentoneofthefourcommunitytypesthatfortheP1‐P3‘FourplantassemblagesoftheWonaLandSystem‘PECwasrecordedtooccurwithintheEcoscape(2014)StudyArea(Figure7);

NoTECsorTFrecorded; ThreeP1,oneP2,fourP3andtwoP4PFspecies

found;and WiththeexceptionoftheNorthernQuoll,Pilbara

OlivePythonandNorthernMarsupialMolehabitat,faunahabitatisgenerallywellconnectedtosimilarhabitatoutsideoftheProposalArea.

Grounddisturbance–clearingofapproximately3,000haofnativevegetation;and

Earthmovingandconstruction/operationactivities.

DirectlossofmostlyVeryGoodtoExcellentconditionvegetation

DirectlossofconfirmedandpotentialPECvegetation

DirectlossofPFspecies

Directlossofconservationsignificantfaunahabitat

DevelopInfrastructurePlanandsubmittoOEPAforapprovalpriortothecommencementofconstruction.TheInfrastructurePlanistofinalisetherequireddisturbancetokeyenvironmentalfeatures,andwillincludetheresultsofthesurveysdiscussedabove;and

Offsetclearingofupto3,000haofVeryGoodtoExcellentconditionvegetation,basedontheresultsoftheInfrastructurePlan.

EPAct EPBCAct

OffsetsareproposedtocounterbalancethesignificantresidualenvironmentalimpactsoruncertaintyassociatedwiththeProposal.TheProposalwillthereforemeetthisEPAobjective.

RehabilitationandClosure‐Toensurethatpremisesareclosed,decommissionedandrehabilitatedinanecologicallysustainablemanner,consistentwithagreedoutcomesandlanduses,andwithoutunacceptableliabilitytotheState.

ThemajorityoftheProposalAreaiscurrentlyusedforpastoralactivities,withaportionremainingasUCL.

Ongoinguseof/responsibilityforinfrastructure;

Hydrocarbon/chemicalstorageareas;

Disturbedareas;and Inadequaterehabilitation

andclosureplanning.

Contamination; Alterationof

landformsimpactingsurfacewaterflow;

Increasederosionassociatedwithunstablelandforms;

Unsuitablereinstatementofvegetationorfaunahabitat;and

Thespreadofweeds,increaseddust.

Topsoilwillbestrippedandstoredonsiteforrehabilitation; Managementproceduresfortherecovery,storageand

utilisationoftopsoilwillbedevelopedandimplemented; Topsoilistobestoredfortheshortesttimeperiodpossibleto

maintainviabilityoftheseedbankandsoilfertility; Anyareasclearedforconstructionpurposesthatarenot

requiredduringoperations(borrowpits,accesstracksetc.)willberehabilitatedassoonaspracticableaftertheyarenolongerrequired;

RehabilitationProcedurewillbedevelopedfortheProjectinaccordancewithEPAGuidanceStatementNo.6RehabilitationofTerrestrialEcosystems(EPA2006),whichsetsoutthegeneralexpectationsaboutre‐establishingbiodiversityvalueswhereasiteistoberehabilitatedbacktonativevegetation;

ComplywiththerequirementsoftheContaminatedSitesAct2003ifcontaminationoccurs;

Soilstockpileswillbeinspectedregularlyforevidenceoferosionandweedsandremediatedaccordingly;and

ClosureandrehabilitationoftherailstructureitselfwillbesubjecttodiscussionswiththeWAStateGovernmentasrailwaylinesaregenerallyretainedasastateasset.

MinisterialStatement(future)toincluderequirementforrehabilitationofareasnotrequiredforoperations;

ContaminatedSitesAct2003willmanageanypotentialcontamination;and

FutureStateAgreementAct(rail),MiningActandPortAuthority(conveyor)approvalprocessesexpectedtoconsiderrehabilitationandclosure.

Anyareasclearedforconstructionpurposesthatarenotrequiredduringoperations(borrowpits,accesstracksetc.)willberehabilitated,eitherprogressivelyoratthecompletionofconstruction.ClosureandrehabilitationoftherailstructureitselfwillbesubjecttodiscussionswiththeWAStateGovernmentasrailwaylinesaregenerallyretainedasastateasset.Ifrequired,thefinalclosureoftheProposalisnotexpectedtobecomplicatedduetothelackofsignificantlandforms.

RehabilitationandclosureisthereforenotexpectedtobeasignificantissuefortheProposalandthereforetheProposalcanmeettheEPAobjective.



8 PRINCIPLESOFTHEEPACT

TheEPActidentifiesaseriesofprinciplesforenvironmentalmanagement(Section4a,EPAct,asamended). Rutila has considered these principles in relation to the development andimplementationoftheProposal.Table8outlineshowtheprinciplesrelatetotheProposal.

Table8:EPActprinciples

Principle HowitwillbeaddressedbytheProposal

1. Precautionaryprinciple

Wheretherearethreatsofseriousirreversibledamage,lackoffullscientificcertaintyshouldnotbeusedasareasonforpostponingmeasurestopreventenvironmentaldegradation.

Intheapplicationoftheprecautionaryprinciple,decisionsshouldbeguidedby:

a. carefulevaluationtoavoid,wherepracticable,seriousorirreversibledamagetotheenvironment;and

b. anassessmentoftherisk‐weightedconsequencesofvariousoptions.

TheProposalhasutilisedexistingenvironmentaldataduringdesignandhassupplementeditwithaseriesofstudiesthatareidentifiedinSection4.1.Detaileddesignwillutilisespatialdatatoavoidandminimiseimpactsonidentifiedconstraints.

2. Intergenerationalequity

Thepresentgenerationshouldensurethatthehealth,diversityandproductivityoftheenvironmentismaintainedorenhancedforthebenefitoffuturegenerations.

TheProposalcanbedesignedandimplementedwithoutsignificantimpactsonthehealth,diversityandproductivityoftheenvironment.TheProposalwillenableeconomicandsocialbenefitstoflowfromironoreprojectsthathave“strandedore”andwouldotherwisehavenotransportsolution.

3. Conservationofbiologicaldiversityandecologicalintegrity

Conservationofbiologicaldiversityandecologicalintegrationshouldbeafundamentalconsideration

SurveyworkhasbeenusedtoconfirmtherangeandstatusofenvironmentalvalueswithintheProposalArea.TherecordedbaselinedatafromtheProposalAreaandsurroundsindicatethattherearenotlikelytobesignificantbiodiversityorecologicalintegrityimpactsatlocalorregionalscales.

4. Improvedvaluation,pricingandincentivemechanismsa. Environmentalfactorsshouldbeincludedinthe

valuationofassetsandservices.b. Thepolluterpaysprinciple–thosewhogenerate

pollutionandwasteshouldbearthecostofcontainment,avoidanceorabatement.

c. Theusersofgoodsandservicesshouldpaypricesbasedonthefulllifecyclecostsofprovidinggoodsandservices,includingtheuseofnaturalresourcesandassetsandtheultimatedisposalofanywaste.

d. Environmentalgoals,havingbeenestablished,shouldbepursuedinthemostcosteffectiveway,byestablishingincentivestructures,includingmarketmechanisms,whichbenefitand/orminimisecoststodeveloptheirownsolutionsandresponsestoenvironmentalproblems.

Railtransportofbulkmaterialhasbeenproventobemoreefficientandachievealowerenvironmentalimpactduringoperationthanroadtransport.

EnvironmentalconstraintavoidanceandmanagementcostshavebeenconsideredintheprojectcostingphasesandthiswillcontinuethroughtheBankableFeasibilityStudystage.

5. Wasteminimisation

Allreasonableandpracticablemeasuresshouldbetakentominimisethegenerationofwasteanditsdischargeintotheenvironment

Wastewillbeminimisedbyadoptingthehierarchyofwastecontrols;avoid,minimise,re‐use,recycleandsafedisposal.



9 CONCLUSION

AvoidanceisakeystrategyforthemanagementofenvironmentalimpactsandRutilahasusedtheinformationgatheredbyEcoscapeandPhoenixin2014toincorporateconstraintmappingandavoidanceintotheiralignmentplanningatanearlystage.Thisplanning,combinedwiththeproposedwidthoftheProposalArea,willallowthemajorityofsignificantvegetationorhabitattobeavoidedcompletely.

Forthoseareasofsignificantvegetationorhabitatthatcannotbeavoided,disturbancewillbeable to be minimised through management measures such as relocation of flexibleinfrastructure,narrowingofconstructioncorridorsthroughsignificantvegetationorhabitatandgeneralbest‐practiceindustrycontrols.

Areasdisturbedduringconstruction thatarenotrequired foroperationswillberehabilitated.ThisisexpectedtobeasignificantareaforthisProposal(approximately1200ha)andwillresultinareductionintheresidualimpactoftheProposal.

Offsets are proposed to compensate for the residual environmental impact of the Proposal;specifically the loss of 3,000 ha of Very Good to Excellent condition vegetation. FinalarrangementswilloccurpendingthesubmissionofanInfrastructurePlanatthecompletionofdetaileddesign,andoffsetpaymentswilloccuronacostperhectarebasis.

Rutila has completed extensive stakeholder consultation that will continue to develop as theProposalproceedsintodetaileddesign,constructionandoperationalphases(refertoSection4).This stakeholder consultation has demonstrated that many environmental factors can bemanagedunderotherlegislation.

‘Key’and‘other’environmentalfactorshavebeenassessedagainstEPAObjectivesandrelevantguidelines. The Proposal has been prepared with design, layout and management controlsidentified to avoid, minimise or manage the potential environmental impacts. Given theconfiguration of the Proposal to avoid andminimise significant impacts and themanagementactions and controls to protect the environment, the Proposal is expected to meet the EPAObjectives.



10 GLOSSARY

Term Meaning

AHAct AboriginalHeritageAct1972

API AssessmentonProponentInformation–thelevelofassessmentrelevanttothisProposal

BBIP BallaBallaInfrastructurePort

BBIR BallaBallaInfrastructureRailway

DAA DepartmentofAboriginalAffairs

DER DepartmentofEnvironmentRegulation

DisturbanceArea TheactualareaofdisturbancerequiredtoimplementtheProposal.TheDisturbanceAreawillbewithintheProposalAreaboundaries.

DMP DepartmentofMinesandPetroleum

DoE DepartmentoftheEnvironment(Commonwealth)

DoW DepartmentofWater

DPaW DepartmentofParksandWildlife

DSD DepartmentofStateDevelopment

EAG1 EnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline1:Definingthekeycharacteristicsofaproposal

EAG6 EnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline6:TimelinesforEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentofProposals

Ecoscape EcoscapeAustraliaPtyLtd

EIA EnvironmentalImpactAssessment

EMPs EnvironmentalManagementPlans

EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAuthority(WA)

EPAct EnvironmentalProtectionAct1986

EPBCAct EnvironmentalProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999(Commonwealth)

Flinders FlindersMinesLimited

Forge ForgeResourcesSwanPtyLtd

GDEs GroundwaterDependentEcosystems

GL Gigalitre

ha Hectares

km Kilometres

m Metres

MNES MattersofNationalEnvironmentalSignificance

MS945 MinisterialStatement945

NWCH NorthWestCoastalHighway

OEPA OfficeoftheEnvironmentalProtectionAuthorityofWesternAustralia

PEC PriorityEcologicalCommunities–plantcommunitieslistedasbeingpotentiallythreatenedundertheWildlifeConservationAct1950

PF PriorityFlora

Phoenix PhoenixEnvironmentalPtyLtd

PIOP PilbaraIronOreProject



Term Meaning

PPA PilbaraPortsAuthority

Proposal AsdefinedundertheEPAct‐aproject,plan,programme,policy,operation,undertakingordevelopmentorchangeinlanduse,oramendmentofanyoftheforegoing,butdoesnotincludescheme.

TheProposal TheProposalistoconstructandoperatearailwayline(approximately160kminlength)andconveyorline(approximately40kminlength)runningfromthePilbaraIronOreProject(operatedbyFlinders)northtotheBallaBallaPort.TheProposalincludessupportinginfrastructuresuchasstockyards,borrowpits,accessroads,communications,waterboresandpipelines,accommodationcamps,workshops,laydownareas,aballastquarry,aconveyorrailwaylineoverpassandgradeseparationcrossingoftheNorthWestCoastalHighway(NWCH).

ProposalArea TheProposalAreaistheareathatformsthebasisforthisProposalandistheareawithinwhichtheProposalwillbeimplemented.TheProposalAreaisoutlinedinredinFigure1.

RIWIAct RightsinWaterandIrrigationAct1914

Rutila RutilaResourcesLtd

RTIO RioTintoIronOre

S91 Section91oftheLandAdministrationAct1997

SRE Short‐rangeEndemic

SRL SpecialRailLicence

TEC ThreatenedEcologicalCommunities–plantcommunitieslistedasbeingthreatenedandlegallyprotectedundertheWildlifeConservationAct1950and/ortheEnvironmentProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999

TF ThreatenedFlora

UCL UnallocatedCrownLand

WA WesternAustralia

WCAct WildlifeConservationAct1950(WA)



11 REFERENCES

BOM(2014),ClimatestatisticsforAustralianlocations.CommonwealthofAustralia,BureauofMeterology.Availableat:http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/.DepartmentofAgriculture(2003),EvaporationdataforWesternAustralia.DepartmentofAgriculture,SouthPerth,WA.ResourceManagementTechnicalReportNo.65.EnvironmentAustralia(2001),AdirectoryofimportantwetlandsinAustralia.3rdedition.EnvironmentAustralia,Canberra,ACT.EPA(2012a),EnvironmentalImpactAssessment(PartIVDivisions1and2)AdministrativeProcedures2012.WesternAustralianGovernmentGazette.Perth,Friday,7December2012.No.223.

EPA(2012b),EnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline1:DefiningtheKeyCharacteristicsofaProposal.EnvironmentalProtectionAct1986.EnvironmentalProtectionAuthority.WesternAustralia.May2012

EPA(2013a),EnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline10:ScopingaProposal.EnvironmentalProtectionAct1986.EnvironmentalProtectionAuthority.WesternAustralia.August2013.

EPA(2013b),EnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline6:forTimelinesforEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentofProposals.EnvironmentalProtectionAct1986.EnvironmentalProtectionAuthority.WesternAustralia.March2013.

EPA(2013c),EnvironmentalAssessmentGuideline8:forEnvironmentalFactorsandObjectives.EnvironmentalProtectionAct1986.EnvironmentalProtectionAuthority.WesternAustralia.June2013.

Ecoscape(2014).RutilaResourcesRailwayCorridorFloraandVegetationAssessment.November2014.

Leighton,K.A.(2004),Climate.In:vanVreeswyk,A.M.E.,Payne,A.L.,Leighton,K.A.&Hennig,P.(eds)TechnicalBulletin9.AninventoryandconditionsurveyofthePilbararegion,WesternAustralia.DepartmentofAgriculture,GovernmentofWesternAustralia,SouthPerth,WA,pp.19–38.McKenzie,N.L.&Bullen,R.D.(2009),Theecholocationcalls,habitatrelationships,foragingnichesandcommunitiesofPilbaramicrobats.RecordsoftheWesternAustralianMuseum,Supplement78:123–155.Phoenix(2014a),TerrestrialFaunaSurveysfortheRutilaResourcesRailwayCorridor.FinalReport.November2014.

Phoenix(2014b),Addendumto:TerrestrialFaunaSurveysfortheRutilaResourcesRailwayCorridor.Draftreport.November2014.

TraditionalOwners‐MillstreamParkCouncil,DEC&ConservationCommissionofWesternAustralia(2011),Millstream‐ChichesterNationalParkandMungaroonaRangeNatureReserveManagementPlan.TraditionalOwners‐MillstreamParkCouncil,DepartmentofEnvironment



andConservationandConservationCommissionofWesternAustralia,Millstream,PerthandCrawley,WA.VanVreeswyk,A.M.E.,Payne,A.L.,Leighton,K.A.&Hennig,P.(2004),AninventoryandconditionsurveyofthePilbararegion,WesternAustralia.DepartmentofAgriculture,GovernmentofAustralia,TechnicalBulletin92:1–424.



12 APPENDICES

ThefollowingAppendicesareprovidedontheattachedCD:

Appendix1:BiologicalReportsandSurveysAppendix2:ProposalAreaShapefilesAppendix2:StakeholderConsultationSummary

assessment on proponent information ......– the rail alignment design will be assessed to avoid...

Documents