AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL MINING CORPORATION LTD

 AUSTRALIANABORIGINALMINING
CORPORATIONLTD
EXTENSIONMININGPROJECT
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION
ADDENDUM
3FEBRUARY2015
Preparedfor:AAMCLtd
ByPrestonConsultingPtyLtd
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
PRESTONCONSULTING
Email:
pscott@prestonconsulting.com.au
Website:
www.prestonconsulting.com.au
Phone:
+61892210011
Fax:
+61892214783
StreetAddress:
Level3,201AdelaideTerrace,EASTPERTHWesternAustralia6004
PostalAddress:
POBox3093,EastPerth,WesternAustralia,6892
Disclaimer
This Report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Australian Aboriginal Mining
CorporationLtdandissubjecttoandissuedinaccordancewiththeagreementbetweenPrestonConsultingPty
LtdandAustralianAboriginalMiningCorporationLtd.
PrestonConsultingPtyLtdacceptsnoliabilityorresponsibilitywhatsoeverfororinrespectofanyuseofor
relianceuponthisReportbyanythirdparty.
CopyingofanypartofthisReportwithouttheexpresspermissionofPrestonConsultingPtyLtdandAustralian
AboriginalMiningCorporationLtdisnotpermitted.
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 4 The Proposal .............................................................................................................................4 Assessment Background Information ......................................................................................4 2 FLORA AND VEGETATION .................................................................................................. 5 Habitat of Sauropus sp. Koodaideri Detritals ...........................................................................5 Additional Surveys. ...................................................................................................................6 Mine Development Envelope Boundary ...................................................................................6 Location of Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 10 3 SUBTERRANEAN FAUNA ................................................................................................. 11 Proposed Disturbance per Geological Unit ........................................................................... 11 Geological Connectivity ......................................................................................................... 12 Depth of Potential Troglofauna Habitat ............................................................................... 16 Suitability of Geological Units for Troglofauna Habitat ........................................................ 16 4 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 18 5 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 20 LISTOFFIGURES
Figure 1: Original and Revised Mine Development Area ....................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Vegetation Map Showing Revised Unsurveyed Portion of Mine Development Area ............. 8 Figure 3: Revised Proposal Area to Reduce Unsurveyed Portion of Mine Development Area .............. 9 Figure 4: Geological Cross Sections ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Locations of Geological Cross Sections ................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Spatial Extent of Geological Units ......................................................................................... 15 LISTOFTABLES
Table1:SummaryofExtensionMiningProposal .............................................................................. 4 Table2:KeyCharacteristicsoftheProposal. ................................................................................... 10 Table3:ProposedDisturbanceofNorthDepositperGeologicalUnitofSurfaceGeology ........... 11 Table4:ProposedDisturbanceofNorthDepositperGeologicalUnitofSurfaceGeology ........... 11 LISTOFAPPENDICES
Appendix1:ConfirmationPlantSpecimenisnotSauropus
Appendix2:RevisedProposalAreaShapefiles
P a g e | iii ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
1 INTRODUCTION
THEPROPOSAL
AustralianAboriginalMiningCorporationLimited(AAMC)isproposingtodeveloptheExtension
Mining Project (the Proposal) which seeks to mine iron ore from the superficial Channel Iron
Deposits (CID) found above the water table. The Proposal Area is located approximately 70
kilometres (km) north‐west of Newman in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (WA). The
Proposalwillresultintheproductionofapproximately2‐4Mtpaofironore.
AbriefdescriptionoftheProposalisprovidedinTable1below.
Table1:SummaryofExtensionMiningProposal
SummaryoftheProposal
ProposalTitle
ExtensionMiningProposal
ProponentName
AAMCLimited
ShortDescription
TheProposalistomineironorefromthesuperficialChannelIronDepositsabovethewater
table at the Extension Deposit. Some or all of the ore may be upgraded through a
beneficiationprocesswithsolarcellsusedtoconsolidatetailings.Wasterockandtailings
aretobeplacedinsidetheminepits.
The Proposal requires supporting infrastructure including an access road (two options),
internal roads, accommodation camp, ore crushing and processing plant with associated
conveyors and stockyard, solar drying cells, ROM pad, water supply system and other
supportinginfrastructure.
ASSESSMENTBACKGROUNDINFORMATION
AAMCsubmittedtotheOfficeoftheEnvironmentalProtectionAuthority(OEPA)on5December
2014 an Assessment on Proponent Information (API) document (AAMC 2014), outlining the
potential environmental impacts and proposed management measures associated with the
Proposal. An initial set of comments were received from the OEPA on 5 January 2015 and
addressedinarevisedAPIsubmittedon14January2015.
On 22 January 2015, a meeting was held with the OEPA to discuss additional queries on
subterraneanfauna,floraandvegetation.Followingthismeetingaletterwasreceivedfromthe
OEPA on 22 January 2015 seeking additional information on how impacts associated with the
Proposal may be managed. Eight separate queries were outlined in this letter and it was
requestedthattheinformationbeingsoughtshouldbeprovidedintheformofanaddendumto
beattachedtotheexistingAPI.ThisdocumentformstheaddendumtotheAPI.
P a g e | 4 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
2 FLORAANDVEGETATION
HABITATOFSAUROPUSSP.KOODAIDERIDETRITALS
Query 1: Identification of habitat in the mine development envelope suitable for Sauropus sp.
Koodaideridetritals.
Response
SingleSpecimen
ThefloraandvegetationsurveyundertakenbyPhoenixfortheExtensionProject(Phoenix2014a)
identified a single sterile plant of what was thought to be Sauropus sp. Koodaideri detritals
(Sauropus).TheplantwaslocatedinasmallgorgewithintheMineDevelopmentEnvelopebut
outsideoftheorebodyandplanneddisturbancearea.Theplantwassterile,makingidentification
difficult.
FollowingfurtherconsultationwithRioTinto,thesinglespecimenwasprovidedtoMrAndrew
Perkins (DPaW – WA Herbarium) via Mr Jeremy Naaykens (Rio Tinto) for confirmation. Mr
Perkinshasbeenunabletoidentifytheplantspecimen,buthasconfirmedthatitisNOTSauropus
sp.Koodaideridetritals(seeAppendix1).Hereafteritiscalled“UnidentifiedSpecimen”.
AAMCproposestoregularlyreturntotheareawheretheUnidentifiedSpecimenwasfoundto
searchforotherindividualsandtotryandlocateanymaterialthatwouldenableidentificationto
becompleted.
SauropusHabitat
Sauropushabitatislikelytobeconfinedtogullies,valleysandcliffsthatareoutsideoftheorebody.
The only potential sources of impact being direct disturbance from roads or other linear
infrastructurethatmustcrossthesehabitatareas,orindirectdisturbancefromadjacentactivities.
Thepotentialhabitatforthisspeciesisbrieflyreviewedbelow.
Phoenix(2014a)identifiedthatapreferredhabitatforSauropusisinrockyslopes,beneathcliff
lines of detrital iron formations and in rock gullies within the Koodaideri Mining Lease (KML)
area. Vegetation and flora surveys were undertaken by Biota for the proposed Rio Tinto
Koodaideriprojectin2010and2011.Initially,Sauropuswasrecordedfromasinglelocationona
steeprockyhillslope,approximately18kmnorthoftheExtensionMineDevelopmentEnvelope
(Biota2012a).Followingthe2010and2011surveys,adetailedstudyoftheareawhereSauropus
wasfirstidentifiedwasconducted.PreferredhabitatsforSauropuswereidentifiedaspartofthis
detailedstudy.ThekeydriverforSauropusdistributionappearstobeshelterfromfire,withall
knownlocationsbeingbetween500mand700mabovesealevelintheKoodaideriearea(Eco
LogicalAustralia,2013).ItwasdeterminedthatSauropushasapreferencefor:




Habitatwithinthe500‐700mrangeofelevation(andmorecommonlyinthe550‐650m
range);
Smallgulliesandcliffsthatprovidesomepotentialshelterfromfire(oftenevidencedbya
lackofspinifex);
Geological correlation with substrates broadly categorised as belonging to the Joffre
memberoftheBrockmanIronFormation;and
VegetationtypicallydominatedbyEucalyptusleucophloia(andothers).
Theseformalogicalcriteriaforfurthertargetedsurveywork.
P a g e | 5 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
AsatearlyJune2013,596individualsofSauropushavebeenrecordedwithina30kmsectionof
the northern boundary of the Hamersley Ranges as a result of additional surveys (Eco Logical
Australia,2013).
TargetedSurveys
TominimisepotentialimpactsonSauropushabitat,AAMCproposestoundertakethefollowing:

A desktop habitat assessment to identify suitable habitat for Sauropus within the Mine
Development Envelope will be undertaken prior to the commencement of ground
disturbance works. The habitat assessment will be based on the four factors outlined
above;

Where potential Sauropus habitat is identified in areas proposed to be disturbed, a
targetedsurveywillbeundertakenintheseareas;

WherethetargetedsurveyhasdeterminednoSauropusplantsexist,workswillcontinue
intheseareas;and

Where the targeted survey has identified the presence of Sauropus plants, AAMC will
prepare an infrastructure plan that shows the location of the Sauropus plants and
demonstrateshowimpactsareavoidedorminimisedwherepracticable.
ADDITIONALSURVEYS.
Query2:Confirmationof(a)theproponent’scommitmenttoconductFloraandVegetationsurveys
of any unsurveyed areas prior to disturbance, and (b) to conduct further targeted surveys for
Sauropussp.Koodaideridetritalsinanyareastobedisturbedfortheconstructionofinfrastructure.
Response
Item(a):AsdocumentedinAAMC(2014),AAMCproposetoconductFloraandVegetationsurveys
ofanyunsurveyedareaspriortodisturbance.
Item(b)hasbeenaddressedinSection2.1above.
MINEDEVELOPMENTENVELOPEBOUNDARY
Query3:Confirmationastowhethertheminedevelopmentenvelopecanbereducedtominimise
unsurveyed areas in the north east corner. If so, please provide a figure showing the revised
developmentenvelopeandassociatedspatialdata.
Response
AAMCcommitstoreducingtheextentoftheMineDevelopmentEnvelopeintheunsurveyedarea.
Figure1illustratestheoriginalandrevisedMineDevelopmentEnvelope.Duetochangesinthe
sizeoftheMineDevelopmentEnvelope(reducedby48haofunsurveyedarea(Figure2)‐from
848 ha to 795 ha) and Northern Access Road Development Envelope a revised Table of Key
Characteristicsisprovidedbelow(Table2).TheNorthernAccessRoadDevelopmentEnvelope
has also been modified to ensure that it connects to the revised Mine Development Envelope.
ShapefilesfortherevisedMineDevelopmentEnvelopeandNorthernAccessRoadDevelopment
EnvelopeareprovidedinAppendix2,withtherevisedenvelopeboundariesillustratedinFigure
3.
P a g e | 6 714,000
Original Mine
Development Envelope
7,492,000
712,000
7,492,000
710,000
Unidentified Specimen
7,490,000
7,490,000
"
)
"
)
Sida sp. Barlee Range 2
"
)
710,000
Legend
Revised Mine Development Envelope
Original Mine Development Envelope
Mine Study Area
Proposed Pits
7,488,000
7,488,000
Sida sp. Barlee Range 1
712,000
714,000
Priority flora survey records
(Phoenix 2014)
"
)
"
)
Unidentified Specimen
Priority 3
Proposed Infrastructure
0
Ü
500
metres
Extension Project
Mine Study Area and
Location of Priority Flora
(Phoenix 2014)
1,000
Figure 1
Scale: 1:30,000
Date: 2/02/2015
Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 4_Study_Area.mxd
714,000
7,492,000
712,000
7,492,000
710,000
Veg9
Veg8
Veg3
Veg9
Veg8
Veg9
Veg10
Veg9
Veg3
Veg9
Veg11
Veg8
Veg8 Veg9
Veg9
Veg6
Veg1
Veg8 Veg4
Veg4
Veg8
Veg7
Veg4
Veg11
Veg1
Veg4
Veg3
Veg8
Veg4
Veg4
Veg6
Veg4 Veg8
Veg3
Veg4
7,488,000
Veg8
Veg1
7,488,000
Veg3
Veg4
Veg3
Veg4
Veg3
7,490,000
7,490,000
Veg8
710,000
Legend
Mine Development Envelope
Vegetation type
Vegetation 1
Vegetation 2
Vegetation 3
Vegetation 4
Vegetation 5
712,000
714,000
Vegetation 6
Vegetation 7
Vegetation 8
Vegetation 9
Vegetation 10
Vegetation 11
Vegetation 12
Vegetation 13
0
Ü
500
metres
Extension Project
Vegetation Types within
Mine Proposal Area
1,000
Figure 2
Scale: 1:30,000
Date: 29/01/2015
Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 6_Vegetation_Types.mxd
710,000
720,000
710,000
720,000
7,490,000
7,490,000
7,500,000
7,510,000
Hamersley
IBRA Subregion
7,500,000
7,510,000
Fortescue
IBRA Subregion
Legend
Sealed Road
Railway
Proposed pits
Mine Development Envelope
Road Development Envelope
IBRA Subregions
Service Layer Credits: © Harris Corp, Earthstar Geographics LLC Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2015 Microsoft Corporation
0
Ü
2,000
metres
Extension Project
Proposal Area
4,000
Figure 3
Scale:1:150,000
Date: 29/01/2015
Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 2_Project_Layout.mxd
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
Table2:KeyCharacteristicsoftheProposal.
SummaryoftheProposal
ProposalTitle
ExtensionMiningProposal
ProponentName
AAMCLimited
ShortDescription
TheProposalistomineironorefromthesuperficialChannelIronDepositsabovethewater
tableattheExtensionDeposit.Someoralloftheoremaybeupgradedthrougha
beneficiationprocesswithsolarcellsusedtoconsolidatetailings.Wasterockandtailings
aretobeplacedinsidetheminepits.
TheProposalrequiressupportinginfrastructureincludinganaccessroad(twooptions),
internalroads,accommodationcamp,orecrushingandprocessingplantwithassociated
conveyorsandstockyard,solardryingcells,ROMpad,watersupplysystem,contingencyfor
explosivesstorageandothersupportinginfrastructure.
Projectlifespan
Expectedtobeapproximately15years
PhysicalElements
Element
Location
ProposedExtentAuthorised
MineDevelopment
Envelope
Figure1ofAddendum
Report
Clearingnomorethan380hawithina795hamine
developmentenvelope
AccessRoad
Development
Envelope
Figure3ofAddendum
Report
Clearingnomorethan150hawithina4,714haaccessroad
developmentenvelope.
OperationalElements
Element
Location
ProposedExtentAuthorised
WaterUse
Throughoutminearea.
Abstractionofupto0.5GL/yrofgroundwaterforwater
supply.
LOCATIONOFINFRASTRUCTURE
Query4:Confirmationastowhetherthelocationofinfrastructurewithinthemineareaisflexible
andcanbealteredbasedontheresultsofanyadditionalsurveys.
Response
AAMCconfirmsthatwiththeexceptionoftheminepits,thereissomeflexibilityinthelocationof
otherinfrastructureintheminedevelopmentenvelope.Shouldconservationsignificantfeatures
beidentifiedinadditionalsurveys,AAMCwillreviewalternativelocationstoavoidorminimise
anypotentialimpactonthesefeatures.
P a g e | 10 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
3 SUBTERRANEANFAUNA
PROPOSEDDISTURBANCEPERGEOLOGICALUNIT
Query5:Atableshowingtheextentofproposeddisturbance(asapercentage)withineachofthe
relevantgeologicalunitsthatmayprovidetroglofaunahabitat.
Response
Table 3 (North deposit) and Table 4 (West deposit) show the extent of proposed disturbance
withineachoftherelevantgeologicalunitsthatmayprovidetroglofaunahabitat.Thecalculated
disturbances are based on mapping of the surface geology and based on the geological cross
sectionsthroughtheNorthdeposit(Figure4).Theseimpactcalculationsmayvastlyoverestimate
thepercentageofeachgeologicalunitimpactedbytheproposedpitsastheydonotaccountfor
sub‐surfacegeology.Forexample,theore‐bearingHematite‐goethitedeposits(Czr)extendunder
allcolluvialsediments(Czc)intheNorthdepositandthereforetheCzrsurfaceexpression(on
whichthecalculationsinTable3arebased)ismuchsmallerthanitsactualextent.TheCzrunitis
dividedintoCzr1–theeasternsurfaceexpression,andCzr2,thewesternsurfaceexpression.The
calculated17.1%impactonCzr(Northdeposit–Table3)mustbeconsideredgreatlyinflated,but
it is not possible to more accurately estimate the impact on Czr due to the lack of regional
geologicaldatabeyondsurfacegeology.
Theproportionsofthesurfacegeologyimpacted,combinedwiththesubsurfaceconnectivity(see
Section 3.2 below)demonstratethatthelikelihoodof the miningoperationspreventing future
connectivitybetweenareasoftroglofaunahabitatisverylow.
Table3:ProposedDisturbanceofNorthDepositperGeologicalUnitofSurfaceGeology
Colluvium
(Czc)
Area
Impactarea(ha)
Totalcontinuousarea
(incl.beyondimpact)(ha)
Impactareaaspercentage
(%)oftotalcontinuous
area
WeeliWolli
Formation
BandedIron
Formation–BIF
(PLHj)
Haematite‐goethiteonBIF(Czr)
Total
Czr1
Czr2
Czrtotal1
77.1
0.7
6.7
151.2
157.9
235.7
12,087.0
7,261.9
687.5
237.6
925.1
0.64
0.01
0.98
63.62
17.1
1Czr1andCzr2consolidatedbasedonFigure3(seealsochapter3.2below)
Table4:ProposedDisturbanceofNorthDepositperGeologicalUnitofSurfaceGeology
Area
RobePisolite(Czp)
WeeliWolli
FormationBanded
IronFormation–
BIF(PLHj)
Impactarea(ha)
Totalcontinuousarea(incl.beyond
impact)(ha)
Impactareaaspercentage(%)oftotal
continuousarea
19.9
1.5
21.4
561.1
7,261.9
3.5
0.02
P a g e | 11 Total
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
GEOLOGICALCONNECTIVITY
Query6:Additionalinformationthatdescribesthegeologicalconnectivitybetweenthegeological
unitsCzr1andCzr2asshowninFigure3‐1oftheTroglofaunaSurveyreport.
Response
The occurrence of the same troglofauna species of presumably very different ecological
requirementsanddispersalcapabilities(i.e.theclitellatewormEnchytraeus‘marillana’andthe
spiderPrethopalpus‘marillana’)intheCzr1(boresRC121andRC193)andCzr2(multiplebores)
units strongly suggest very good geological connectivity between these geological units. The
geologicalcrosssections(Figure4,locationsshowninFigure5)confirmthisconnectivityasboth
theore‐bearingHematite‐goethitedeposit(Czr),butalsotheunderlyingRobePisolite(PLHj)are
continuous under the colluvial sediment (Czc). Figure 6 illustrates the spatial extent of the
geologicalunitsinquestion.
P a g e | 12 A
A’
30m below average ground level
40m below average ground level
Geological Cross Section 7491450 North
B
B’
30m below average ground level
40m below average ground level
Geological Cross Section 7490500 North
Legend
Geology
Pit Outline
Bores with troglofauna
Czc: Colluvium - partly consolidated quartz
and rock fragments in silt and sand matrix;
old valley-fill deposits
Czr: Hematite-goethite deposits on banded
iron-formation and adjacent scree deposits
Bores without troglofauna
Other drill holes
PLHj: Weeli Wolli Formation - banded ironformation (commonly jaspilitic), pelite, and
numerous metadolerite sills
Extension Project
Geological Cross Sections
Conceptual groundwater level
Figure 4
Scale:1:8 Vert. Exag.
Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
Date: 29/01/2015
File: Sections.cdr
714,000
7,492,000
712,000
7,492,000
710,000
A
!
(
Cross Section 7491450 North
DC067
!
(
!
(
RC193
A'
!
(
!
( RC184
!
(
B
RC250
!
(
Pit 1
!
(
!
( DC045
!
( DC042
RC121
!
(
!
(
Cross Section 7490500 North
!
( DC030
DC026
B'
!
(
!
(
7,490,000
7,490,000
!
(
RC087
Pit 2
DC072
!
(!
(!
( RC016
RC015
RC014
( !
( !
!
(!
(!
(
RC011
RC013
(!
!
( !
(
!
(
Pit 3
7,488,000
!
(
7,488,000
!
(
!
(
710,000
Legend
Mine Development Envelope
Proposed Pits
!
!
(
Bores with troglofauna
Bores without troglofauna
Cross Section Lines
712,000
714,000
Surface Geology
Czc: Colluvium - partly consolidated quartz
and rock fragments in silt and sand matrix;
old valley-fill deposits
Czp: Robe Pisolite - pisolitic limonite
deposits developed along river channels
Czr: Hematite-goethite deposits on banded
iron-formation and adjacent scree deposits
PLHj: Weeli Wolli Formation - banded ironformation (commonly jaspilitic), pelite, and
numerous metadolerite sills
0
Ü
500
metres
Extension Project
Troglofauna survey bores
and bores yielding troglofauna
1,000
Figure 5
Scale: 1:30,000
Date: 30/01/2015
Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 7_Troglofauna_Bores.mxd
Qa
705,000
Qa
710,000
715,000
Czr
7,500,000
7,500,000
Czc
Czc
Czr
PLHb
Qw
Czr
Qa
Qa
Qw
Czc
PLHj
Qa
Qw
PLHb
Czc
Czr
Czp
7,490,000
7,490,000
Czr
Czp
PLHj
Czp
Czc
Qc
Czk
Czp
PLHj
Qa
PLHt
Czc
Qa
Czp
Czk
Czp
PLHt
Czp
PLHj
PLHj
Qa
Czp
Czp
PLHj
Czc
PLHj
Czp
Czc
Czp
PLHj
PLHj
7,480,000
Qa
Czc
Czp
Czc
Czc
Czp
705,000
710,000
Czp
715,000
PLHj
Czc
Czp
7,480,000
Czc
PLHj
Legend
Mine Development Envelope
Qa: Alluvium - unconsolidated silt, sand, and
gravel; in drainage channels and on adjacent
floodplains
Qc: Colluvium-unconsolidated quartz and
rock fragments in soil; locally derived soil,
and scree, and talus deposits
Qw: Alluvium and colluvium-red-brown sandy
and clayey soil; on low slopes and
sheetwash areas
Czc: Colluvium - partly consolidated quartz
and rock fragments in silt and sand matrix;
old valley-fill deposits
Czk: Calcrete-sheet carbonate; found along
major drainage lines
Czp: Robe Pisolite - pisolitic limonite
deposits developed along river channels
Czr: Hematite-goethite deposits on banded
iron-formation and adjacent scree deposits
PLHb: Brockman Iron Formation - banded
iron-formation, chert, and pelite
PLHj: Weeli Wolli Formation - banded ironformation (commonly jaspilitic), pelite, and
numerous metadolerite sills
PLHt: Medium- to coarse-grained
metadolerite sills intruded into Hamersley
Group
0
Ü
1,500
metres
Extension Project
Regional GSWA Geology
3,000
Figure 6
Scale:1:100,000
Date: 2/02/2015
Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
File: 10_Geology.mxd
ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
DEPTHOFPOTENTIALTROGLOFAUNAHABITAT
Query7:Anestimationofthedepthofpotentialtroglofaunahabitat,withparticularreferencetothe
proposedpitvoids.
Response
Thedepthofpotentialtroglofaunahabitatislikelytobelimitedby:


Groundwater;and/or
Rocktypesthatdonotdisplayvuggycharacteristics(littleornovoidspace).
Drillingonsitehasbeenrelativelyshallowwithmostholesonlydrilled20‐30mdeep.Fewdrill
holeshaveintersectedgroundwater.Whereithasbeenintersecteditappearstobearound30‐
40mbeneathsurface.Iftherocktypeissuitable,thedepthoftroglofaunahabitatwouldbeofthe
orderof30‐40m(seeFigure4).Thepitsareplannedtobeminedtoapproximately20mdeep,
likelytobeleavingaround10‐20mofpotentialtroglofaunahabitatabovegroundwater.
Whilsttheiron‐orebearingCID(CzrandCzpgeologicalunits)ismostprospectivefortroglofauna,
onlyafractionofitscontinuousextentisearmarkedformining.Inaddition,theunderlyingrock
oftheWeeliWolliformationalsoappearssuitabletohosttroglofauna(seeSection3.4below).
WhilstthedepthoftheCIDlayersarevariableandthelandscapeisamosaicofmesasanddrainage
lines, the whole site is underlain by the Weeli Wolli formation (see Figure 4). Therefore, two
refugia are likely to be available for troglofauna from the impact area, i.e. CIDs around the
proposedpitsandWeeliWolliformationbelow.
SUITABILITY OF GEOLOGICAL UNITS FOR TROGLOFAUNA
HABITAT
Query8:Ananalysisofthesuitabilityofthegeologicalunitsinthemineandsurroundingareasfor
troglofauna habitat,includingconfirmation as towhether thestructureofthegeologicalunitsis
likelytosupporttroglofauna.
Response
Allgeologicalunitsinthevicinityoftheproposedpitshavepotentialtosupporttroglofauna.Two
geologiesofCIDarepresent,includingHematite‐goethitedeposits(Czr)andRobePisolite(Czp).
CIDsbelong tothe earliestgeologies thatrevealedtroglofaunainthePilbara(Biota 2004)and
havesincebeenrecognisedashighlyprospectivetroglofaunahabitat(Biota2006;Harveyetal.
2008).
Hematite‐goethite(Czr)
DrillcoresfromtheNorthdepositindicatedthattheCIDisporousandcontainsmanyvugsand
fissures that could provide habitat for subterranean fauna (Phoenix 2014b; figure 3‐3). The
potentialofCzrtohosttroglofaunawassubsequentlyconfirmedwheneightoutof14boresinthis
geology in the North deposit recorded a total of seven troglofauna species (Phoenix 2014b).
RecentsurveysinthePilbaraalsoprovidedhightroglofaunadiversityinCzrgeologyatHancock
Prospecting’sMulgaDowns(Phoenix2012)andAscot’sWonmunna(Phoenix2014e).
P a g e | 16 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
RobePisolite(Czp)
SimilartotheCzrdepositoftheNorthdeposit,drillcoresoftheCzpdepositoftheWestdeposit
showed extensive vugginess and fissures to structurally support troglofauna (Phoenix 2014b;
figure3‐2);fourspeciesweresubsequentlycollectedfromsixoutofnineboressampledinCzpin
theWestdepositdemonstratingthesuitabilityofthisgeologyfortroglofauna(Phoenix2014b).
ThepisoliticmesasoftheRobeValleywerethefirsttorecordtroglofaunainthePilbararegion
(Biota2004)andmanystudieshavesubsequentlyfoundrichsubterraneanfaunasinthisgeology,
including most recently in API Management’s WPIOP (Biota 2010), Iron Ore Holdings (IOH’s)
BucklandProject(Bennelongia2013;Phoenix2014d),RedHillIron’sPannawonicaTenements
(Phoenix2014c)andDragonIron’sRockleaProject(Phoenix2014f).
The high prospectivity of Robe Pisolite to host troglofauna has also been recognised by the
regulatorswhodeclaredtwoPriorityEcologicalCommunitiesfrompredominantlythisgeology,
‘SubterraneaninvertebratecommunitiesofmesasintheRobeValleyregion’and‘Subterranean
invertebratecommunityofpisolitichillsinthePilbara’(DPaW2014).
Colluvium(Czc)
Nodrillcoreswereavailabletostructurallyassessthecolluvialdepositsoftheproject;however,
twoboresinCzcweresampledandbothrevealedatotaloffourspeciesoftroglofauna(Phoenix
2014b).
AlluvialandcolluvialdepositshavefrequentlyproducedtroglofaunainthePilbara,includingat
RioTinto’sHopeDowns4(Biota2009),Brockman’sMarillanaIronOreproject(Ecologia2010),
HancockProspecting’sMurrayHills(Ecologia2011)andMulgaDowns(Phoenix2012).
WeeliWolliformation–bandedironformation(PLHj)
NodrillcoredataisavailableforthePLHjgeologicalunitineithertheNorthorWestdeposits.
Banded iron formations (BIF) have continuously produced troglofauna throughout Western
Australia, including the Pilbara, i.e. at IOH’s Buckland satellites (Phoenix 2014d), Red Hill Iron
PannawonicaTenement’s(Phoenix2014c)andRioTinto’sKoodaideri(Biota2012b).Whilstmost
troglofauna in BIF’s of the Pilbara have been found in Brockman Formation, Weeli Wolli
FormationhasrevealedtroglofaunaatIOH’sIronValleyProject(Bennelongia2012).
P a g e | 17 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
4 REFERENCES
AAMC. 2014. Extension Mining Project. Assessment on Proponent Information. Unpublished
reportpreparedforAAMCPtyLtd.
Bennelongia. 2012. Iron Valley Project: Subterranean fauna assessment. Bennelongia
EnvironmentalConsultantsPtyLtd,Jolimont,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforIron
OreHoldingsLtd.
Bennelongia.2013.BungarooSouth:subterraneanfaunaassessment—Finalreport.Bennelongia
Environmental Consultants, Jolimont, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Iron Ore
HoldingsLtd.
Biota.2004.MesaAandBungarooCreekexplorationareas,subterraneanfaunasurvey.Perth,WA.
UnpublishedreportpreparedforRobeRiverIronMiningPtyLtd.
Biota. 2006. Mesa A and Robe Valley mesas troglobitic fauna survey. Subterranean fauna
assessment. Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd, West Leederville, WA. Unpublished
reportpreparedforRobeRiverIronAssociates.
Biota.2009.HopeDowns4troglofaunaassessment.BiotaEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,West
Leederville,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRioTintoonbehalfofHamersleyHMS.
Biota. 2010. West Pilbara Iron Ore Project troglobitic fauna assessment. Biota Environmental
Sciences Pty Ltd, West Leederville, WA. Unpublished report prepared for API
Management.
Biota.2012a.AVegeatationandFloraSurveyoftheKoodaideriStudyAreaBiotaEnvironmental
SciencesPtyLtd,WestLeederville,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRioTintoIron
OrePtyLtd.
Biota.2012b.KoodaideritroglobiticfaunaassessmentphasesI–IV.BiotaEnvironmentalSciences
PtyLtd,WestLeederville,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRioTintoIronOrePtyLtd.
DPaW. 2014. Priority Ecological Communities for Western Australia, Version 21. Species and
Communities Branch, Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth, WA. Available at:
http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants‐animals/threatened‐
species/tecs/Priority_ecological_community_list_20_May2014.pdf
Eco Logical Australia. 2013. Koodaideri Iron ore Mine and Infrastructure project ‐ Public
EnvironmentalReview.ReportpreparedforRioTintoIronOrePtyLtd.StateAssessment
Number:AssessmentNo.1933.EPBCActReferenceNumber:EPBC2012/6422
Ecologia.2010.BrockmanResourcesLtdMarillanaIronOreProjecttroglofaunareport.Ecologia
Environment Pty Ltd, West Perth, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Brockman
ResourcesLtd.
Ecologia.2011.MurrayHillTroglofaunaSurvey.EcologiaEnvironmentPtyLtd,WestPerth,WA.
UnpublishedreportpreparedforHancockProspecting.
Harvey, M. S., Berry, O., Edward, K. L. & Humphreys, G. 2008. Molecular and morphological
systematics of hypogean schizomids (Schizomida: Hubbardiidae) in semiarid Australia.
InvertebrateSystematics22:167–194.
Phoenix.2012.SubterraneanfaunasurveyoftheMulgaDownsProject.PhoenixEnvironmental
SciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforHancockProspectingPty
Ltd.
Phoenix.2014a.FloraandvegetationsurveyfortheExtensionProject.PhoenixEnvironmental
Sciences Pty Ltd, Balcatta, W.A. Unpublished report prepared for Australian Aboriginal
MiningCorporationPtyLtd.
Phoenix.2014b.TroglofaunasurveyfortheExtensionProject.PhoenixEnvironmentalSciences
Pty Ltd, Balcatta, W.A. Unpublished report prepared for Australian Aboriginal Mining
CorporationPtyLtd.
Phoenix. 2014c. Troglofauna survey for the Pannawonica Tenements. Phoenix Environmental
SciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,W.A.UnpublishedreportpreparedforRedHillIronLtd.
Phoenix.2014d.TroglofaunasurveyoftheBucklandsatellites:Rabbit,RoosterandRoosterSouth.
PhoenixEnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,W.A.Unpublishedreportpreparedfor
IronOreHoldingsLtd.
P a g e | 18 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
Phoenix.2014e.TroglofaunasurveyoftheWonmunnaIronOreProject.PhoenixEnvironmental
SciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,WA.UnpublisheddraftreportpreparedforWonmunnaIronOre
Ltd.
Phoenix. 2014f. Subterranean fauna survey for the Rocklea Iron Ore Project. Phoenix
EnvironmentalSciencesPtyLtd,Balcatta,WA.UnpublishedreportpreparedforDragon
Energy.
P a g e | 19 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
5 APPENDICES
Appendix1
Plantidentificationemail–
Sauropusmis‐identification
P a g e | 20 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
From: Perkins, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Perkins@DPaW.wa.gov.au]
Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2015 11:56 AM
To: Naaykens, Jeremy (RTIO)
Cc: Grant Wells (gwells@ggenvironmental.com.au)
Subject: RE: Sauropus
Importance: High
Hi Jeremy, I have been busy looking at the sample Grant dropped off & I am now sure it's not Sauropus sp. Koodaideri detritals. The specimen submitted has tufts of septate on both side of the stem bracts & occasionally in the stem axils ‐ whereas S. sp. Koodaideri detritals stems & stem bracts are glabrous . The stem bracts seem simple in form (no lobes) ‐ whereas S. sp. Koodaideri detritals stem bracts are often trilobed (formed from the reduced leaf plus stipules). What this specimen is, I cannot determine with confidence due to a lack of fertile material. The stem bracts with the septate hairs are most similar to some specimens of Ptilotus schwartzii but the branching pattern of the stems is more indicative of some cladodinous members of the Santalaceae & Fabaceae. In conclusion, I’m ruling out Sauropus sp. Koodaideri detritals for this specimen but I cannot put any further determination due to lack of fertile material. If in the future flowering material is available, I’m keen to check it out. Cheers, Andrew. P a g e | 21 ASSESSMENTONPROPONENTINFORMATION–ADDENDUM
AAMCLtd‐ExtensionMiningProject
Appendix2
RevisedProposalAreaShapefilesandCoordinates
(seeenclosedCD)
P a g e | 22