Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority
Report 1562
November 2015
Hamersley HMS Pty Limited
Baby Hope Proposal
Assessment on Proponent Information Environmental Impact Assessment Process Timelines
Date Progress stages Time (weeks)
07/09/2015 Level of assessment set
01/10/2015 Proponent’s final Environmental Review (API) document received by EPA 5
15/10/2015 EPA meeting 2 11/11/2015 EPA report provided to the Minister for
Environment 4
16/11/2015 Publication of EPA report (3 working days after report provided to the Minister) 3 days
30/11/2015 Close of appeals period 2 Timelines for an assessment may vary according to the complexity of the project and are usually agreed with the proponent soon after the level of assessment is determined. In this case, the Environmental Protection Authority met its timeline objective in the completion of the assessment and provision of a report to the Minister.
Dr Tom Hatton Chairman 11 November 2015 ISSN 1836-0483 (Print) ISSN 1836-0491 (Online) Assessment No. 2066
i
Contents
Page
1. Introduction and background .......................................................................... 1
2. The proposal ..................................................................................................... 2
3. Key environmental factors ............................................................................... 7
3.1 Flora and Vegetation .............................................................................. 8
3.2 Rehabilitation and Decommissioning (Integrating Factor) ............... 10
3.3 Offsets (Integrating Factor) ................................................................. 12
4. Conclusion and recommended conditions ................................................... 14
5. Recommendations .......................................................................................... 14
Tables Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics ..................................................... 2
Table 2: Proposal elements ........................................................................................ 2
Table 3: Assessment of Key Environmental Factors .................................................. 8
Figures Figure 1: Proposal location ......................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Project area conceptual layout .................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Hope Downs 1 Development Envelope ....................................................... 6
Appendices 1. References 2. Other environmental factors identified as preliminary key environmental factors
not requiring assessment. 3. Identified Decision-Making Authorities and Recommended Environmental
Conditions 4. Proponent’s API Environmental Review documentation (on CD)
ii
This page is intentionally blank
1
1. Introduction and background This report provides the advice and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to the Minister for Environment on the outcomes of its environmental impact assessment of the proposal by Hamersley HMS Pty Limited to develop and operate mine pits and associated infrastructure in the Baby Hope Project Area as an amendment to the existing Hope Downs operations. The Minister has nominated Hamersley HMS Pty Limited as the proponent responsible for the proposal. Section 44 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) requires that the EPA prepare a report on the outcome of its assessment of a proposal and provide this assessment report to the Minister for Environment. The report must set out:
• what the EPA considers to be the key environmental factors identified in the course of the assessment; and
• the EPA’s recommendations as to whether or not the proposal may be implemented, and if the EPA recommends that implementation be allowed, the conditions and procedures to which implementation should be subject.
The EPA may also include any other information, advice and recommendations in the assessment report as it thinks fit. The aims of environmental impact assessment and the principles of environmental impact assessment considered by the EPA in its assessment of this proposal are set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) Administrative Procedures 2012. The proponent has submitted an Assessment on Proponent Information (API) Environmental Review document and supporting documents (including technical studies). The document describes the proposal, outcomes of consultation, environmental studies undertaken, and the proponent’s assessment of impacts on environmental factors and application of the mitigation hierarchy to manage those impacts (Appendix 4). This report provides the EPA advice and recommendations in accordance with section 44 of the EP Act.
2
2. The proposal The proponent, Hamersley HMS Pty Limited, proposes to develop and operate the Baby Hope proposal, including iron ore mine pits and associated waste dumps, as an amendment to the existing Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine (Hope Downs 1), which is located 75 kilometres (km) north-west of Newman, Western Australia. (Figure 1). The proponent refers to the existing project as Hope Downs 1 as the proponent also operates the Hope Downs 4 project. The approved Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine comprises open cut mine pits and associated infrastructure, including rail infrastructure. The proposal is subject to the Iron Ore (Hope Downs) Agreement Act 1992, and is authorised under Ministerial Statement 584 and Ministerial Statement 893. The proposed amendments to Hope Downs 1 which comprise the Baby Hope proposal include three above watertable open pits, waste rock dumps, stockpiles and haul roads (Figure 2). The Baby Hope Area is situated within an area that the proponent has defined as the Hope Downs 1 Development Envelope, however this is not formally defined in the existing Ministerial Statements for the approved Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine. The main characteristics of the proposed amendment are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 below. A detailed description of the proposal is provided in the proponent’s Assessment on Proponent Information (API) Environmental Review Document (Rio Tinto 2015a) which is included as Appendix 4. Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics
Proposal Title Baby Hope Proposal Proponent name Hamersley HMS Pty Limited Short Description
The proposal is to amend the Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine described in Ministerial Statement 584, to develop and operate additional above water table open pits and associated infrastructure including waste rock dumps, stockpiles and haul roads within the Baby Hope Area.
Table 2: Proposal elements
Element Location Authorised Extent Additional pits and associated infrastructure
Figure 2 and Figure 3 Clearing of up to 800 hectares (ha) (including up to 54 ha of Riparian Vegetation) in the 1,208 ha Baby Hope Area, within the 25,959 ha Hope Downs 1 Development Envelope.
3
The potential impacts of the proposal on the environment identified by the proponent and their proposed management are summarised in Section 5 of the proponent’s API Environmental Review Document (Appendix 4, Rio Tinto 2015a). In assessing this proposal, the EPA notes that the proponent has sought to avoid, minimise, and rehabilitate environmental impacts associated with the proposal by:
• using existing infrastructure at adjacent operations to minimise the amount of clearing required for this proposal;
• avoiding known priority flora locations as far as practicable;
• avoiding clearing of riparian vegetation as far as practicable;
• progressively rehabilitating areas no longer required; and
• using waste rock from the Baby Hope proposal to backfill existing pits. Subsequent to the referral of the Baby Hope proposal, the proponent modified their proposal in consultation with the EPA by reducing the project area and eliminating the northern waste rock dump from the proposal. This waste rock dump will be constructed under the existing clearing allowance for Hope Downs 1. The change to the proposal reduces the clearing required from 1,000 ha to 800 ha. During the preparation of the Environmental Review (API) document, the proponent consulted with government agencies and key stakeholders. The agencies and stakeholders consulted, the issues raised and proponent’s response are detailed in Table 3-1 of the proponent’s Environmental Review document (Appendix 4, Rio Tinto 2015a). The EPA considers that the consultation process has been appropriate and that reasonable steps have been taken to inform the community and stakeholders on the proposed development.
4
Figure 1: Proposal location
5
Figure 2: Project area conceptual layout
6
Figure 3: Hope Downs 1 Development Envelope
7
3. Key environmental factors The EPA has identified the following key environmental factors during the course of its assessment of the proposal:
1. Flora and Vegetation – Clearing of up to 800 ha of native vegetation in ‘good to excellent’ condition within the 1,208 ha Baby Hope area in the Hamersley IBRA subregion.
2. Rehabilitation and Decommissioning (Integrating factor) – the proposal will be located on State Agreement Act tenure, so the Department of Mines and Petroleum is unable to regulate rehabilitation and decommissioning for these areas under the Mining Act 1978.
3. Offsets (Integrating Factor) – to counterbalance the significant residual impacts to native vegetation in ‘good to excellent’ condition.
The EPA’s assessment of the proposal’s impacts on the key environmental factors is provided in Table 3. This table outlines the EPA’s conclusions as to whether or not the proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s objective for a particular factor and, if so, the recommended conditions and procedures that should apply if the proposal is implemented. In preparing this assessment report, the EPA has had regard for the object and principles contained in s4A of the EP Act. When the level of assessment was determined in September 2015, the EPA identified Subterranean Fauna as a preliminary key environmental factor. However, through the course of the assessment the EPA has determined that this factor is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment as the proponent has demonstrated that Troglofauna habitat extends outside of the proposal area. This factor is discussed in Appendix 2. Other environmental factors which the EPA considered not to be key environmental factors are discussed in the proponent’s Environmental Review (API) document (Appendix 4, Rio Tinto 2015a). The EPA considers that impacts to these factors do not require management under Part IV of the EP Act.
8
Tabl
e 3:
Ass
essm
ent o
f Key
Env
ironm
enta
l Fac
tors
In
here
nt Im
pact
En
viro
nmen
tal
Aspe
ct
Miti
gatio
n ac
tions
to
ad
dres
s re
sidu
al im
pact
s Pr
opos
ed
regu
lato
ry
mec
hani
sms
for
ensu
ring
miti
gatio
n
Out
com
e to
de
mon
stra
te
that
th
e pr
opos
al
mee
ts
EPA
obje
ctiv
e
3.1
Flor
a an
d Ve
geta
tion
To m
aint
ain
repr
esen
tatio
n, d
iver
sity
, via
bilit
y an
d ec
olog
ical
func
tion
at th
e sp
ecie
s, p
opul
atio
n an
d co
mm
unity
leve
l. C
onte
xt
• Th
e pr
opos
ed d
evel
opm
ent i
s lo
cate
d en
tirel
y w
ithin
the
Ham
ersl
ey IB
RA
sub-
regi
on.
• Th
e pr
opos
al a
rea
is w
ithin
the
exis
ting
Hop
e D
owns
1
Dev
elop
men
t Env
elop
e. E
xist
ing
land
use
s in
clud
e m
iner
al
expl
orat
ion,
min
ing
and
trans
port.
• Th
e pr
opon
ent h
as c
arrie
d ou
t flo
ra a
nd v
eget
atio
n su
rvey
s si
nce
2009
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
EPA’
s G
uida
nce
Sta
tem
ent N
o.
51 T
erre
stria
l Flo
ra a
nd
Veg
etat
ion
Sur
veys
for
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
in W
este
rn
Aus
tralia
.
Key
(Sur
vey)
Fin
ding
s
• Ve
geta
tion
in th
e pr
opos
al a
rea
is c
onsi
dere
d to
be
in ‘g
ood
to
exce
llent
’ con
ditio
n.
• N
o Th
reat
ened
Flo
ra, P
riorit
y Ec
olog
ical
Com
mun
ities
or
Dire
ct c
lear
ing
of N
ativ
e Ve
geta
tion
for
min
e pi
ts a
nd
asso
ciat
ed
infra
stru
ctur
e in
clud
ing
was
te
rock
dum
ps,
stoc
kpile
s an
d ha
ul ro
ads.
Avoi
d
• Pi
ts a
nd w
aste
dum
ps
wou
ld b
e de
velo
ped
outs
ide
the
100
year
AR
I flo
odpl
ain
to a
void
im
pact
s to
ripa
rian
vege
tatio
n an
d Pe
bble
M
ouse
Cre
ek.
Min
imis
e
• Im
pact
s to
kno
wn
Prio
rity
Flor
a lo
catio
ns
have
bee
n m
inim
ised
in
the
conc
eptu
al d
esig
n of
th
e pr
opos
al.
• Ex
istin
g pr
oces
sing
in
frast
ruct
ure
at H
ope
Dow
ns 1
wou
ld b
e us
ed,
min
imis
ing
clea
ring
requ
irem
ents
for
infra
stru
ctur
e.
• W
aste
Roc
k w
ould
be
back
fille
d to
exi
stin
g H
ope
Dow
ns 1
pits
w
here
pra
ctic
able
, in
• C
lear
ing
of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
and
ripar
ian
vege
tatio
n w
ould
be
limite
d th
roug
h th
e ke
y ch
arac
teris
tics
tabl
e of
the
reco
mm
ende
d M
inis
teria
l St
atem
ent.
• R
ecom
men
ded
cond
ition
8 w
ould
re
quire
the
prop
onen
t to
prep
are
and
impl
emen
t a
cons
olid
ated
Min
e C
losu
re P
lan
that
ad
dres
ses
reha
bilit
atio
n of
cl
eare
d ar
eas
for t
he
Hop
e D
owns
1
Dev
elop
men
t En
velo
pe, i
nclu
ding
th
e Ba
by H
ope
prop
osal
.
Hav
ing
parti
cula
r reg
ard
to:
• th
e ab
senc
e of
Th
reat
ened
Eco
logi
cal
Com
mun
ities
, Dec
lare
d R
are
Flor
a, a
nd P
riorit
y Ec
olog
ical
Com
mun
ities
in
the
proj
ect a
rea;
• th
e w
ides
prea
d na
ture
an
d lo
w n
umbe
rs o
f Pr
iorit
y Fl
ora
iden
tifie
d in
th
e pr
ojec
t are
a;
• th
e us
e of
exi
stin
g in
frast
ruct
ure
and
back
fillin
g of
exi
stin
g m
ine
pits
to m
inim
ise
clea
ring;
and
• th
e si
gnifi
cant
resi
dual
im
pact
of c
lear
ing
of u
p to
800
ha
of v
eget
atio
n in
‘g
ood
to e
xcel
lent
’ co
nditi
on,
the
Baby
Hop
e pr
opos
al
can
be m
anag
ed to
mee
t
9
Inhe
rent
Impa
ct
Envi
ronm
enta
l As
pect
M
itiga
tion
actio
ns
to
addr
ess
resi
dual
impa
cts
Prop
osed
re
gula
tory
m
echa
nism
s fo
r en
surin
g m
itiga
tion
Out
com
e to
de
mon
stra
te
that
th
e pr
opos
al
mee
ts
EPA
obje
ctiv
e D
ecla
red
Rar
e Fl
ora
have
bee
n re
cord
ed in
the
Baby
Hop
e Ar
ea.
• Fo
ur P
riorit
y Fl
ora
spec
ies,
co
nsis
ting
of o
ne P
riorit
y 1
spec
ies,
one
Prio
rity
2 sp
ecie
s,
one
Prio
rity
3 sp
ecie
s an
d on
e Pr
iorit
y 4
spec
ies,
hav
e be
en
reco
rded
in lo
w n
umbe
rs w
ithin
th
e pr
ojec
t are
a. A
ll fo
ur s
peci
es
have
bee
n re
cord
ed o
utsi
de th
e pr
ojec
t are
a an
d ar
e re
lativ
ely
wid
espr
ead
thro
ugho
ut th
e Pi
lbar
a ar
ea. (
Biot
a 20
14).
• Tw
o ve
geta
tion
units
in th
e pr
ojec
t are
a ha
ve b
een
iden
tifie
d as
ripa
rian
vege
tatio
n as
soci
ated
w
ith P
ebbl
e M
ouse
Cre
ek, a
tri
buta
ry o
f Wee
li W
olli
Cre
ek.
Impa
cts
• Pe
rman
ent c
lear
ing
of u
p to
80
0 ha
of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
in
‘goo
d to
exc
elle
nt’ c
ondi
tion,
in
clud
ing
up to
54
ha o
f rip
aria
n ve
geta
tion.
orde
r to
min
imis
e th
e cl
earin
g re
quire
men
ts fo
r ab
ove
grou
nd w
aste
ro
ck d
umps
.
Reh
abilit
ate
• Ar
eas
dist
urbe
d ar
eas
for t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
of
was
te ro
ck d
ump,
st
ockp
iles
and
othe
r in
frast
ruct
ure
wou
ld b
e re
habi
litat
ed u
sing
loca
l na
tive
vege
tatio
n.
Offs
et
• An
offs
et w
ould
be
prov
ided
for c
lear
ing
of
nativ
e ve
geta
tion
iden
tifie
d as
bei
ng in
‘g
ood
to e
xcel
lent
’ co
nditi
on.
• Be
ds a
nd b
anks
pe
rmits
und
er th
e R
ight
s in
Wat
er a
nd
Irrig
atio
n A
ct 1
914
as a
pplic
able
to
man
age
clea
ring
of
ripar
ian
vege
tatio
n.
• R
ecom
men
ded
cond
ition
9 w
ould
re
quire
the
prop
onen
t to
prov
ide
an o
ffset
for
sign
ifica
nt re
sidu
al
impa
cts
on ‘g
ood
to
exce
llent
’ con
ditio
n ve
geta
tion.
the
EPA’
s ob
ject
ive
for
Flor
a an
d Ve
geta
tion
prov
ided
that
the
follo
win
g co
nditi
ons
are
impo
sed:
• a
cond
ition
requ
iring
the
prop
onen
t to
prep
are
an
upda
ted
Min
e C
losu
re
Plan
for H
ope
Dow
ns 1
w
hich
incl
udes
the
Baby
H
ope
prop
osal
(con
ditio
n 8)
; and
• an
Offs
et c
ondi
tion
(con
ditio
n 9)
to
coun
terb
alan
ce th
e si
gnifi
cant
resi
dual
im
pact
of t
he a
dditi
onal
cl
earin
g of
up
to 8
00 h
a ‘g
ood
to e
xcel
lent
’ co
nditi
on v
eget
atio
n.
10
Inhe
rent
Impa
ct
Envi
ronm
enta
l As
pect
M
itiga
tion
actio
ns
to
addr
ess
resi
dual
impa
cts
Prop
osed
re
gula
tory
m
echa
nism
s fo
r en
surin
g m
itiga
tion
Out
com
e to
de
mon
stra
te
that
th
e pr
opos
al
mee
ts
EPA
obje
ctiv
e
3.2
Reh
abili
tatio
n an
d D
ecom
mis
sion
ing
(Inte
grat
ing
Fact
or)
To e
nsur
e th
at p
rem
ises
are
dec
omm
issi
oned
and
reha
bilit
ated
in a
n ec
olog
ical
ly s
usta
inab
le m
anne
r. C
onte
xt
• Th
e pr
opos
al is
sub
ject
to th
e Iro
n O
re (H
ope
Dow
ns)
Agr
eem
ent A
ct 1
992,
and
th
eref
ore
wou
ld n
ot b
e su
bjec
t to
regu
latio
n un
der t
he M
inin
g A
ct
1978
. In
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e G
uide
lines
for P
repa
ring
Min
e C
losu
re P
lans
(May
201
5),
Reh
abilit
atio
n an
d D
ecom
mis
sion
ing
for t
his
prop
osal
is th
eref
ore
asse
ssed
by
the
EPA.
• Th
e pr
opos
al w
ould
resu
lt in
th
ree
abov
e w
ater
tabl
e m
ine
pit
void
s, w
ith n
o pe
rman
ent p
it la
kes.
• Th
e pr
opos
ed la
nd u
se fo
r the
pr
opos
al a
rea
post
-min
ing
wou
ld
be a
cha
nge
to p
asto
ralis
m a
nd a
re
turn
to n
ativ
e ec
osys
tem
.
Key
(Sur
vey)
Fin
ding
s
• M
iner
al w
aste
cha
ract
eris
atio
n co
nduc
ted
by th
e pr
opon
ent
indi
cate
s th
at m
ost o
f the
Cle
arin
g of
na
tive
vege
tatio
n.
Alte
ratio
n of
la
ndfo
rms
to
crea
te a
min
e pi
t.
Dra
inag
e fro
m
was
te la
ndfo
rms
Avoi
d
• Th
e pr
opos
al is
abo
ve
the
wat
er ta
ble,
avo
idin
g po
tent
ial i
mpa
cts
to
grou
ndw
ater
and
cr
eatio
n of
pit
lake
s.
Min
imis
e
• Ex
istin
g or
e pr
oces
sing
in
frast
ruct
ure
and
faci
litie
s at
adj
acen
t op
erat
ions
wou
ld b
e us
ed to
min
imis
e de
com
mis
sion
ing
requ
irem
ents
for t
his
prop
osal
.
Reh
abilit
ate
• Ar
eas
dist
urbe
d fo
r co
nstru
ctio
n of
in
frast
ruct
ure
and
final
w
aste
dum
p la
ndfo
rms
wou
ld b
e re
habi
litat
ed
usin
g na
tive
spec
ies.
The
prop
onen
t has
pr
epar
ed a
Clo
sure
Pl
an a
ddre
ssin
g th
e Ba
by H
ope
prop
osal
(R
io T
into
201
5b).
This
pl
an is
con
side
red
suffi
cien
t to
man
age
the
early
sta
ges
of th
e pr
opos
ed o
pera
tions
, ho
wev
er c
losu
re
crite
ria in
clud
ed in
the
plan
wou
ld re
quire
re
visi
on b
ased
on
the
resu
lts o
f stu
dies
co
nduc
ted
durin
g th
e op
erat
ions
per
iod.
Rec
omm
ende
d co
nditi
on 8
wou
ld
requ
ire th
e pr
opon
ent
to im
plem
ent t
he M
ine
Clo
sure
pla
n pr
ior t
o in
corp
orat
ing
the
Baby
H
ope
amen
dmen
t are
a an
d op
erat
ions
into
a
revi
sed
Min
e C
losu
re
Plan
for H
ope
Dow
ns 1
w
ithin
2 y
ears
of t
he
Hav
ing
parti
cula
r reg
ard
to:
• th
e pr
opos
al o
ccur
ring
on S
tate
Agr
eem
ent A
ct
tene
men
ts;
• up
to 8
00 h
a of
di
stur
bed
vege
tatio
n re
quiri
ng re
habi
litat
ion;
an
d
• th
e lo
w ri
sk o
f aci
d fo
rmin
g m
ater
ial w
ithin
th
e pr
opos
ed m
ine
pit,
the
prop
osal
can
be
man
aged
to m
eet t
he E
PA’s
ob
ject
ive
for R
ehab
ilitat
ion
and
Dec
omm
issi
onin
g
subj
ect t
o:
• re
com
men
ded
cond
ition
8
bein
g im
pose
d,
requ
iring
the
prop
onen
t to
inco
rpor
ate
the
Baby
H
ope
prop
osal
into
a
revi
sed
Hop
e D
owns
1
min
e cl
osur
e pl
an.
11
Inhe
rent
Impa
ct
Envi
ronm
enta
l As
pect
M
itiga
tion
actio
ns
to
addr
ess
resi
dual
impa
cts
Prop
osed
re
gula
tory
m
echa
nism
s fo
r en
surin
g m
itiga
tion
Out
com
e to
de
mon
stra
te
that
th
e pr
opos
al
mee
ts
EPA
obje
ctiv
e m
ater
ial t
o be
enc
ount
ered
can
be
cla
ssifi
ed a
s no
n-ac
id
form
ing,
and
the
risk
of a
cid
drai
nage
bei
ng g
ener
ated
dur
ing
or fo
llow
ing
the
oper
atio
n fro
m a
ll de
posi
ts is
low
.
• M
ine
pits
wou
ld b
e lo
cate
d ou
tsid
e of
the
Pebb
le M
ouse
C
reek
floo
dpla
in. W
aste
dum
ps
wou
ld b
e de
sign
ed s
o th
at
dist
urba
nce
to s
urfa
ce w
ater
flow
al
ong
Pebb
le M
ouse
Cre
ek is
m
inim
ised
.
Impa
cts
• Im
pact
s to
sur
face
wat
er re
gim
es
as a
resu
lt of
failu
re to
des
ign
appr
opria
te p
ost-
clos
ure
surfa
ce
wat
er c
ontro
ls.
• Im
pact
s to
sur
face
wat
er q
ualit
y du
e to
inad
equa
te m
ine
plan
ning
an
d/or
dec
omm
issi
onin
g ac
tiviti
es.
issu
e of
this
sta
tem
ent.
12
Inhe
rent
Impa
ct
Envi
ronm
enta
l As
pect
M
itiga
tion
actio
ns
to
addr
ess
resi
dual
impa
cts
Prop
osed
re
gula
tory
m
echa
nism
s fo
r en
surin
g m
itiga
tion
Out
com
e to
de
mon
stra
te
that
th
e pr
opos
al
mee
ts
EPA
obje
ctiv
e
3.3
Offs
ets
(Inte
grat
ing
Fact
or)
To c
ount
erba
lanc
e an
y si
gnifi
cant
resi
dual
env
ironm
enta
l im
pact
s or
unc
erta
inty
thro
ugh
the
appl
icat
ion
of o
ffset
s.
The
clea
ring
of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
in
‘goo
d to
exc
elle
nt’ c
ondi
tion
in th
e Pi
lbar
a IB
RA
bior
egio
n is
co
nsid
ered
to b
e si
gnifi
cant
whe
n co
nsid
ered
in a
cum
ulat
ive
cont
ext.
(EPA
16e
adv
ice
on c
umul
ativ
e im
pact
s of
dev
elop
men
t in
the
Pilb
ara
Reg
ion)
.
The
prop
osal
is lo
cate
d in
the
Ham
ersl
ey IB
RA
subr
egio
n. O
nly
13%
of t
he H
amer
sley
sub
regi
on is
cu
rren
tly re
serv
ed fo
r con
serv
atio
n.
Follo
win
g th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of a
ll m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s, th
e pr
opos
al
wou
ld h
ave
a si
gnifi
cant
resi
dual
im
pact
of c
lear
ing
of u
p to
800
ha
of
‘goo
d to
exc
elle
nt’ c
ondi
tion
nativ
e ve
geta
tion.
Con
sist
ent w
ith th
e W
A E
nviro
nmen
tal O
ffset
s G
uide
lines
(2
014)
, a s
igni
fican
t res
idua
l im
pact
re
latin
g to
cum
ulat
ive
impa
cts
may
re
quire
an
offs
et.
Con
serv
atio
n ar
eas
in th
e Pi
lbar
a bi
oreg
ion
tota
l app
roxi
mat
ely
six
perc
ent o
f the
are
a, w
ith th
e re
mai
nder
mos
tly c
row
n la
nd
Cle
arin
g of
up
to
800
ha o
f nat
ive
vege
tatio
n in
‘g
ood
to
exce
llent
’ co
nditi
on.
The
prop
onen
t has
co
mm
itted
to p
rovi
ding
an
offs
et in
line
with
cur
rent
po
licie
s an
d gu
idel
ines
.
Rec
omm
ende
d co
nditi
on 9
requ
ires
the
prop
onen
t to
prov
ide
an o
ffset
for t
he
clea
ring
of u
p to
800
ha
of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
in
‘goo
d to
exc
elle
nt’
cond
ition
.
The
prop
osal
can
be
man
aged
to m
eet t
he E
PA’s
ob
ject
ives
for F
lora
and
Ve
geta
tion
and
Offs
ets
prov
ided
that
reco
mm
ende
d co
nditi
on 9
is im
pose
d to
co
unte
rbal
ance
the
resi
dual
im
pact
of c
lear
ing
of u
p to
80
0 ha
of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
in ‘g
ood
to e
xcel
lent
’ co
nditi
on.
13
Inhe
rent
Impa
ct
Envi
ronm
enta
l As
pect
M
itiga
tion
actio
ns
to
addr
ess
resi
dual
impa
cts
Prop
osed
re
gula
tory
m
echa
nism
s fo
r en
surin
g m
itiga
tion
Out
com
e to
de
mon
stra
te
that
th
e pr
opos
al
mee
ts
EPA
obje
ctiv
e co
vere
d w
ith m
inin
g te
nem
ents
and
pa
stor
al le
ases
. As
such
, the
po
tent
ial f
or tr
aditi
onal
land
ac
quis
ition
and
man
agem
ent o
ffset
s ar
e lim
ited.
The
EPA
has
de
term
ined
that
a p
ossi
ble
solu
tion
is th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f a s
trate
gic
regi
onal
con
serv
atio
n in
itiat
ive
for
the
Pilb
ara.
The
Sta
te G
over
nmen
t is
cur
rent
ly c
onsi
derin
g ho
w to
es
tabl
ish
this
con
serv
atio
n in
itiat
ive.
The
curre
nt E
PA p
ositi
on is
to a
pply
an
offs
et o
f $75
0 pe
r hec
tare
for
clea
ring
of ‘g
ood
to e
xcel
lent
’ co
nditi
on v
eget
atio
n in
the
Ham
ersl
ey IB
RA
subr
egio
n.
Impa
cts
Loss
of u
p to
800
ha
of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
in ‘g
ood
to e
xcel
lent
’ co
nditi
on.
14
4. Conclusion and recommended conditions The EPA has concluded that the proposal can be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objectives, provided that there is satisfactory implementation by the proponent of the conditions in Ministerial Statement 584 as amended by Ministerial Statement 893, and further amended by the recommended conditions set out in Appendix 3. Matters addressed in the conditions include:
• a new condition (8) requiring the submission of a mine closure plan in accordance with relevant guidance for Hope Downs 1 which incorporates the Baby Hope proposal; and
• a new condition (9) requiring the proponent to contribute funds to a government established conservation fund to mitigate the significant residual impact associated with clearing of up to 800 ha of native vegetation in ‘good to excellent’ condition.
5. Recommendations That the Minister for Environment notes:
1. that the proposal being assessed is to develop and operate the Baby Hope proposal, including iron ore mine pits and associated waste dumps as an amendment to the existing Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine;
2. the key environmental factors identified by the EPA in the course of its assessment set out in Section 3;
3. the EPA has concluded that the proposal may be implemented to meet the EPA’s objectives, provided the implementation of the proposal is carried out in accordance with the recommended conditions and procedures set out in Appendix 3 and summarised in Section 4; and
Appendix 1
References
Biota (2014) Baby Hope Downs Flora and Vegetation Survey, Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd, December 2014. Biota (2015) Baby Hope Downs Troglofauna Survey Phase 2, Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd, July 2015 DMP/EPA (2015) Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans, prepared by the Department of Mines and Petroleum and the Environmental Protection Authority, May 2015 Rio Tinto (2015a) Baby Hope Proposal S38 referral, Environmental Review Document, prepared by Rio Tinto iron ore on behalf of Hamersley HMS Pty Limited, September 2015. Rio Tinto (2015b) Baby Hope Mine Closure Plan, RTIO-HSE-0245210, prepared by Rio Tinto iron ore on behalf of Hamersley HMS Pty Limited, August 2015.
Appendix 2
Other environmental factors identified as preliminary key environmental factors not requiring detailed assessment
Inhe
rent
Impa
ct
Envi
ronm
enta
l As
pect
M
itiga
tion
actio
ns
to
addr
ess
resi
dual
impa
cts
Prop
osed
re
gula
tory
m
echa
nism
s fo
r en
surin
g m
itiga
tion
Out
com
e to
de
mon
stra
te
that
th
e pr
opos
al
mee
ts
EPA
obje
ctiv
e
Subt
erra
nean
Fau
na
To m
aint
ain
repr
esen
tatio
n, d
iver
sity
, via
bilit
y an
d ec
olog
ical
func
tion
at th
e sp
ecie
s, p
opul
atio
n an
d as
sem
blag
e le
vel.
Con
text
• Th
e pr
opos
ed p
its a
re a
bove
th
e w
ater
tabl
e an
d w
ould
not
im
pact
sty
gofa
una,
but
will
impa
ct o
n tro
glof
auna
.
• Th
e ar
ea to
be
exca
vate
d fo
r m
ine
pits
is a
ppro
xim
atel
y 35
0 he
ctar
es o
ver t
hree
pits
. The
av
erag
e de
pth
of th
e pi
ts is
ex
pect
ed to
be
appr
oxim
atel
y 60
met
res.
• Sa
mpl
ing
for t
rogl
ofau
na w
as
cond
ucte
d by
the
prop
onen
t in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e EP
A’s
EAG
12
– C
onsi
dera
tion
of
subt
erra
nean
faun
a in
en
viro
nmen
tal i
mpa
ct
asse
ssm
ent i
n W
este
rn
Aust
ralia
(201
3)
Key
Surv
ey F
indi
ngs
• N
ine
spec
ies
of tr
oglo
faun
a w
ere
iden
tifie
d du
ring
the
prop
onen
t’s s
urve
ys o
f the
Bab
y H
ope
prop
osal
are
a.
• Tw
o of
the
iden
tifie
d sp
ecie
s ar
e cu
rren
tly o
nly
know
n fro
m
Exca
vatio
n of
m
ine
pits
, pl
acem
ent o
f m
ine
infra
stru
ctur
e su
ch a
s w
aste
ro
ck d
umps
.
Min
imis
e
The
dist
urba
nce
foot
prin
t ha
s be
en d
esig
ned
to
min
imis
e cl
earin
g to
that
re
quire
d fo
r saf
e co
nstru
ctio
n an
d op
erat
ion.
Was
te ro
ck w
ould
be
back
fille
d to
exi
stin
g pi
ts in
th
e H
ope
Dow
ns 1
D
evel
opm
ent E
nvel
ope
whe
re p
ossi
ble,
redu
cing
th
e re
quire
men
t for
was
te
rock
dum
ps w
hich
cou
ld
furth
er im
pact
trog
lofa
una.
Cle
arin
g lim
ited
thro
ugh
the
key
char
acte
ristic
s ta
ble
of th
e re
com
men
ded
Min
iste
rial S
tate
men
t.
Hav
ing
parti
cula
r reg
ard
to:
• th
e di
strib
utio
n of
the
maj
ority
of t
rogl
ofau
na
spec
ies
reco
rded
ou
tsid
e of
the
dist
urba
nce
foot
prin
t; an
d
• th
e lik
ely
exte
nsio
n of
ha
bita
t for
Dra
culo
ides
sp
. BH
D2
and
the
unid
entif
ied
Palp
igra
di
beyo
nd th
e di
stur
banc
e fo
otpr
int,
the
EPA
cons
ider
s th
at th
e pr
opos
al c
an b
e m
anag
ed
to m
eet t
he E
PA’s
obj
ectiv
e fo
r Sub
terra
nean
Fau
na.
Subt
erra
nean
Fau
na is
not
co
nsid
ered
to b
e a
Key
Envi
ronm
enta
l Fac
tor f
or
this
pro
posa
l
Inhe
rent
Impa
ct
Envi
ronm
enta
l As
pect
M
itiga
tion
actio
ns
to
addr
ess
resi
dual
impa
cts
Prop
osed
re
gula
tory
m
echa
nism
s fo
r en
surin
g m
itiga
tion
Out
com
e to
de
mon
stra
te
that
th
e pr
opos
al
mee
ts
EPA
obje
ctiv
e w
ithin
the
prop
osed
pit
outli
ne:
Dra
culo
ides
sp.
BH
D2
and
an
unid
entif
ied
Palp
igra
di.
• D
racu
loid
es s
p. B
HD
2 ha
s be
en
iden
tifie
d fro
m tw
o lo
catio
ns,
both
with
in th
e pr
opos
ed p
it ou
tline
but
loca
ted
two
kilo
met
res
apar
t. •
Dra
culo
ides
sp.
BH
D4
occu
rs
both
with
in a
nd o
utsi
de th
e pr
opos
al a
rea
and
was
loca
ted
in a
sim
ilar g
eolo
gica
l uni
t to
Dra
culo
ides
sp.
BH
D2.
The
w
ider
dis
tribu
tion
of th
is s
peci
es
sugg
ests
that
hab
itat f
or
Dra
culo
ides
sp.
BH
D2
is li
kely
to
ext
end
beyo
nd th
e pr
opos
al
area
.
• Th
e un
iden
tifie
d Pa
lpig
radi
was
co
llect
ed fr
om th
e ed
ge o
f the
pr
opos
ed p
it in
an
area
of
exte
nsiv
e po
tent
ial t
rogl
ofau
na
habi
tat.
Im
pact
s
• Ex
cava
tion
resu
lting
in re
mov
al
of tr
oglo
faun
a ha
bita
t. •
Alte
ratio
ns to
sur
face
to
pogr
aphy
from
pla
cem
ent o
f m
ine
infra
stru
ctur
e.
Appendix 3
Identified Decision-making Authorities and
Recommended Environmental Conditions
Identified Decision-making Authorities
Section 44(2) of EP Act specifies that the EPA’s report must set out (if it recommends that implementation be allowed) the conditions and procedures, if any, to which implementation should be subject. This Appendix contains the EPA’s recommended conditions and procedures. Section 45(1) requires the Minister for Environment to consult with decision-making authorities, and if possible, agree on whether or not the proposal may be implemented, and if so, to what conditions and procedures, if any, that implementation should be subject. The following decision-making authorities have been identified for this consultation:
Decision-making Authority Approval 1. Minister for State Development Iron Ore (Hope Downs) Agreement Act
1992 2. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 3. Minister for Environment Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 4. Department of Environment
Regulation Works Approval and Licence
5. Department of Mines and Petroleum
Dangerous Goods Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 Chief Dangerous Goods Officer Mine Safety Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 District Inspector, Resources Safety Branch State Mining Engineer
Note: In this instance, agreement is only required with DMAs 1, 2 and 3, since these DMAs are Ministers.
Statement No. xxx
RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
STATEMENT THAT A PROPOSAL MAY BE IMPLEMENTED (Environmental Protection Act 1986)
HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE MINE, 75 KM NORTH-WEST OF NEWMAN
PILBARA REGION BABY HOPE PROPOSAL
Proposal: Amendment to the Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine described
in Ministerial Statement 584, to develop and operate the Baby Hope deposit and associated infrastructure as described in Schedule 1 of this statement.
Proponent: Hamersley HMS Pty Limited Australian Company Number 115 004 129
Proponent Address: 152-158 St Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000 Assessment Number: 2066
Report of the Environmental Protection Authority: 1562
Pursuant to section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) it has been agreed that the proposal described and documented in Schedule 1 of this statement may be implemented, subject to the implementation conditions set out below.
Pursuant to section 45B of the EP Act, the implementation of the Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine Proposal described in Ministerial Statement 584 as amended by this proposal is subject to the implementation conditions in Ministerial Statement 584 dated 1 February 2002, as amended by Ministerial Statement 893 dated 12 April 2012, and the following additional implementation conditions:
8 Rehabilitation and decommissioning 8-1 The proponent shall ensure that all areas within the Hope Downs 1
Development Envelope (delineated in Figure 2 and defined by the geographic coordinates in Schedule 2) are rehabilitated and decommissioned in an ecologically sustainable manner, through the implementation of the mine closure plans required by conditions 8-2 and 8-3.
8-2 Unless and until the proponent is notified in writing by the CEO that the mine closure plan submitted under condition 8-3 satisfies the requirements of condition 8-4 and meets the objective specified in condition 8 1, the proponent shall implement the Baby Hope Mine Closure Plan (17 August 2015, RTIO-HSE-0245210) and the Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine Closure Plan (February 2006, RTIO-HSE-0015596).
8-3 Within two years of this statement being issued, the proponent shall prepare and submit a consolidated mine closure plan for the Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine and the Baby Hope proposal to the CEO.
8-4 The proponent shall prepare the mine closure plan required by condition 8-3 in accordance with the Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans, May 2015 and any updates, to the requirements of the CEO on advice of the Department of Mines and Petroleum.
8-5 After receiving notice in writing from the CEO that the mine closure plan submitted to meet the requirements of condition 8-3 satisfies the requirements of condition 8-4 and meets the objective specified in condition 8-1, the proponent shall: (1) implement the mine closure plan required by condition 8-3; and (2) continue to implement the mine closure plan required by condition 8-3
until the CEO has confirmed by notice in writing that the proponent has demonstrated that the objective specified in condition 8-1 has been met.
8-6 The proponent shall review and revise the mine closure plan required by condition 8-3 at intervals not exceeding three years, or as otherwise specified by the CEO.
8-7 The proponent shall implement the latest revision of the mine closure plan, which the CEO has confirmed by notice in writing, satisfies the requirements of condition 8-4 and meets the objective specified in condition 8-1.
9 Offsets 9-1 In view of the significant residual impacts and risks as a result of
implementation of the proposal, the proponent shall contribute funds for the clearing of ‘good to excellent’ condition native vegetation in the Hamersley IBRA subregion, calculated pursuant to condition 9-2. This funding shall be provided to a government-established conservation offset fund or an alternative offset arrangement providing an equivalent outcome as determined by the Minister.
9-2 The proponent’s contribution to the initiative identified in condition 9-1 shall be paid biennially, the first payment due two years after commencement of the additional ground disturbance defined in Table 2 of Schedule 1. Subject to condition 9-7, the amount of funding will be $750 AUD (excluding GST) per hectare of ‘good to excellent’ condition native vegetation cleared within the Baby Hope Area (delineated in Figure 1 and defined by the geographic coordinates in Schedule 2) within the Hamersley IBRA subregion.
9-3 The clearing of 4,883 ha of native vegetation previously approved under Ministerial Statement 584 is exempt from the requirement to offset under condition 9-2.
9-4 Within twelve months of the date of this statement, the proponent shall prepare an Impact Reconciliation Procedure to the satisfaction of the CEO.
9-5 The Impact Reconciliation Procedure required pursuant to condition 9-4 shall: (1) include a methodology to identify clearing of ‘good to excellent’
condition native vegetation subject to this condition in the Hamersley IBRA subregion;
(2) require the proponent to submit spatial data identifying areas of ‘good to excellent’ condition native vegetation that have been cleared within the Baby Hope Project Area delineated in Figure 1;
(3) include a methodology for calculating the amount of clearing undertaken during each biennial time period; and
(4) state dates for the commencement of the biennial time period and for the submission of results of the Impact Reconciliation Procedure, to the satisfaction of the CEO.
9-6 The proponent shall implement the Impact Reconciliation Procedure required by condition 9-4.
9-7 The real value of contributions described in condition 9-2 will be maintained through indexation to the Perth Consumer Price Index (CPI), with the first adjustment to be applied to the first contribution.
Schedule 1 Table 1: Summary of the Proposal
Proposal Title Baby Hope Proposal Short Description The proposal is to amend the Hope Downs Iron Ore Mine
described in Ministerial Statement 584, to develop and operate above water table open pits and associated infrastructure including waste rock dumps, stockpiles and haul roads within the Baby Hope Area.
Table 2: Location and authorised extent of physical and operational elements Element Location Authorised Extent Additional pits and associated infrastructure
Figure 1, Figure 2 and geographic coordinates in Schedule 2
Clearing of up to 800 ha (including up to 54 ha of Riparian Vegetation) in the 1,208 ha Baby Hope Area, within the 25,959 ha Hope Downs 1 Development Envelope.
Table 3: Abbreviations and Definitions
Acronym or Abbreviation
Definition or Term
CEO The Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Public Service of the State responsible for the administration of section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, or his delegate.
EPA Environmental Protection Authority EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986 ha Hectare
Figures (attached) Figure 1 Baby Hope Project Area (This figure is a representation of the coordinates
in Schedule 2. Figure 2 Hope Downs 1 Development Envelope (This figure is a representation of
the coordinates in Schedule 2.
Figure 1 – Baby Hope Project Area
Figure 2 – Hope Downs 1 Development Envelope
Schedule 2 Coordinates defining the Baby Hope Project Area are held by the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, Document Reference Number 2015-0001265082. Coordinates defining the Hope Downs 1 Development Envelope are held by the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority, Document Reference Number 2015-1445928780631.
Appendix 4
Proponent’s API Environmental Review documentation
Provided on CD in hardcopies of this report and on the EPA’s website at www.epa.wa.gov.au
