Appendix 10-B Visual Impact Assessment J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd Prepared by Bioscope Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd 29 August 2016 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Revision History Date 21 September 2015 Version 0 Author S. Finucane Reviewer D. Temple-Smith 28 March 2016 1 S. Finucane D. Temple-Smith 5 April 2016 2 S. Finucane S. Bateman 29 July 2016 3 S. Finucane D. Temple-Smith 5 August 2016 4 S. Finucane S. Bateman 29 August 2016 5 S. Finucane D. Temple-Smith Purpose Draft LVIA report, for client review and input Final draft VIA report for client review Final draft VIA report for independent peer review and regulator review Revised VIA report for client review Revised VIA report for closeout of independent peer review Final report Cover Photograph Photographer: Sonia Finucane Photograph used with permission from the photographer Limitations Bioscope Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd (Bioscope Environmental) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of Mineral Resources Limited. It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. It was prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the proposal dated 29 April 2015. The methodology adopted and sources of information used by Bioscope Environmental are outlined in this report. Bioscope Environmental has made no independent verification of this information beyond the agreed scope of works and Bioscope Environmental assumes no responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions. No indications were found during our investigations that information contained in this report as provided to Bioscope Environmental was false. This report is based on the information reviewed at the time of preparation. Bioscope disclaims responsibility for any changes that may have occurred after this time. This report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This report does not purport to give legal advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners. Bioscope Environmental This publication is copyright. Apart from the limited exceptions permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced or communicated by any process without written permission from the author. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) proposes to develop the J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project (the Proposal), approximately 100 km north-northeast of Southern Cross, within the Shire of Yilgarn, Western Australia (WA). The Proposal comprises construction, operation and closure of: Open pits and Waste Rock Landforms (WRLs) at J5 and Bungalbin East. Areas required for the temporary storage of cleared vegetation and topsoil/subsoil. Access tracks and haul roads. Supporting mine infrastructure and other facilities. Ore from the J5 and Bungalbin East pits will be transported via the J4 haul road to the Carina operations for dry crushing and screening before loading on trains at the Mt Walton rail-siding. A total of 30 km of bituminised haul roads will connect the mine operations to the J4 haul road. The Proposal is located within and adjacent to the Helena-Aurora Ranges (HAR), within the Mt Manning – Helena-Aurora Ranges Conservation Park (MMHARCP). The MMHARCP was gazetted in 2005 and is vested in the Conservation and Parks Commission. The park managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) for the purpose of “recreation by members of the public as is consistent with the proper maintenance and restoration of the nature environment, the protection of indigenous flora and fauna, and the preservation of any feature of archaeological, historical or scientific interest“. It offers a relatively undisturbed natural environment that provides visitors with an opportunity to experience a remote, outback experience within a varied landscape that contains diverse native flora and fauna. Activities typically conducted in the park include tourism and recreation including four-wheel driving, camping, hiking and nature appreciation. The scenic qualities of the MMHARCP emanate primarily from the distinctive rock formations and rugged ridgelines of the HAR, and contrasting vegetation patterns in the park. The HAR’s high level of visibility and the complexity of the landform and its habitats contribute to the overall “sense of place” experienced by visitors to the MMHARCP. Despite this, the park has relatively low visitation rates. The Proposal is being assessed by the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as a Public Environmental Review (PER) under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and as a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Proposal is being assessed under the Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of WA. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page ii One of the preliminary key environmental factors for this Proposal is “Amenity”. The EPA’s objective for this factor is to ensure that impacts to Amenity are reduced as low as reasonably practicable. The Environmental Scoping Document issued by the EPA nominates the relevant aspects of the Proposal as: clearing of native vegetation; and mining construction, operation and closure. “Amenity” covers a range of topics including visitor access and use, noise, air quality, light and visual landscape. This report addresses only visual amenity. EPA Guidance Statement No 33 outlines broad principles and some of the factors to be considered during Visual Impact Assessment (VIA). It does not prescribe methodologies for this type of study, but states that practitioners should use a “recognised methodology”, generally one acceptable to the Department of Planning or DPaW. The 2007 Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia manual is one such methodology having being produced by the Western Australian Planning Commission and Department of Planning and Infrastructure with input from DPaW, Main Roads WA and other agencies that manage landscapes and landforms in WA. The methodology utilised for this VIA is based broadly on the protocols outlined in this manual. The Proposal will result in localised changes to the existing landscape character during the construction, operation and closure of development areas. Some of these changes will be temporary, but others will result in the permanent conversion of parts of the area to a mining landscape character. Aspects of the Proposal that could result in visual impacts include: Progressive clearing of native vegetation over pit areas and the WRL footprints, along roads and other linear corridors, and over areas required for supporting infrastructure. Altered landforms due to mining excavation and WRL development. Altered surface drainage patterns in localised areas. Dust generation during construction and operation of the Proposal as a result of earthworks, ore haulage, waste rock disposal and other transport activities, and during rehabilitation and closure earthworks. Installation and use of lighting for safety and security of the operations. Alterations to the contour of ridgelines and crests will occur as a result of mining activities, with open pits being developed over a total area of 207.45 ha and WRLs being developed over a total area of 185.1 ha adjacent to the HAR. These changes will result in permanent, but localised, changes to the scenic amenity of these areas. There will be views of the J5 and Bungalbin East mines from the four main access routes and two regional viewpoints (Mt Manning and Mt Dimer) assessed in this study. However, the extent of the visual impact will depend on the position of the viewer in the landscape, the distance between the viewer and the mine(s), and the screening effect of landform and vegetation. Therefore, the visual impact rating varies across the MMHARCP from Not Evident to Blending to Prominent. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 The Proposal ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 The Mt Manning - Helena-Aurora Ranges Conservation Park .............................................. 1-1 1.3 Environmental Assessment Process .................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Structure of this Report....................................................................................................... 1-7 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Relevant Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 VIA Definitions .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Study Area Definition .......................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Approach to this Study ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.5 Desktop Analysis ................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.5.1 Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.5.2 Identification of Landscape Analysis Criteria....................................................................... 2-6 2.5.3 Selection of Study Sites ...................................................................................................... 2-7 2.6 Field Assessments ............................................................................................................. 2-10 2.7 Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................................................. 2-10 2.8 Data Analysis and Impact Assessment ............................................................................... 2-11 2.8.1 Landscape Characterisation.............................................................................................. 2-11 2.8.2 Photographic Montages and Viewshed Modelling ............................................................ 2-12 2.8.3 Impact Assessment and Management .............................................................................. 2-14 Visual Landscape Character ....................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Regional Setting .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Regional Landscape Character Type .................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Landscape Characteristics of the Helena-Aurora Ranges ..................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Lithology ............................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.3.2 Landforms .......................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.3 Waterforms ..................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.3.4 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4 Landscape Character Units ................................................................................................ 3-15 3.4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.4.2 Western Range LCU ......................................................................................................... 3-17 3.4.3 Central and Eastern Ranges LCU ....................................................................................... 3-17 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page ii 3.4.4 Plains LCU ........................................................................................................................ 3-18 3.4.5 Drainage Lines LCU........................................................................................................... 3-19 3.5 Scenic Qualities ................................................................................................................. 3-19 3.6 Visual Receptors and Viewing Points ................................................................................. 3-21 3.6.1 Key Visual Receptors ........................................................................................................ 3-21 3.6.2 Access and Travel Routes ................................................................................................. 3-22 3.6.3 Vantage Points and Viewing Locations ............................................................................. 3-23 3.7 View Experience ............................................................................................................... 3-25 3.7.1 J5 ..................................................................................................................................... 3-25 3.7.2 Bungalbin East ................................................................................................................. 3-26 3.7.3 Travel Routes ................................................................................................................... 3-26 3.7.4 Mt Manning ..................................................................................................................... 3-30 3.7.5 Mt Dimer ......................................................................................................................... 3-31 Visual Impacts and Management .............................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Relevant Aspects................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Visual Management Objectives ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Existing Disturbance and Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-1 4.4 Predicted Visual Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4.1 Construction and Operations Impacts ................................................................................ 4-2 4.4.2 LCUs................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4.3 View Experience................................................................................................................. 4-7 4.5 Cumulative Visual Impacts ................................................................................................ 4-12 4.6 Visual Management Zones, Strategy and Techniques ........................................................ 4-13 4.6.1 Definition of Amenity Management Zones ....................................................................... 4-13 4.6.2 Construction and Operations Stages ................................................................................ 4-13 4.6.3 Decommissioning and Closure Stage ................................................................................ 4-14 4.7 Residual Visual Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4-16 4.8 Monitoring and Contingency Measures ............................................................................. 4-17 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 5-1 References ................................................................................................................. 6-1 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page iii List of Appendices A Visual Impact Assessment Stakeholder Engagement Register List of Tables 1-1 Mining Tenure held by Polaris Metals Limited relevant to the Proposal 1-2 ESD Required Work for the Amenity Factor 2-1 Data Sources 2-2 Selected Landscape and Landform Analysis Criteria 2-3 Study Site Distance Zones 2-4 Visual Impact Assessment Sites 3-1 Kalgoorlie Plain Regional Landscape Character 3-2 Lithology of the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-3 Elevation Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-4 Slope Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-5 Aspect Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-6 Topographic Position Index Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-7 Solar Radiation Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-8 Wetness Index Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-9 Vegetation Height Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-10 Visual Landscape Summary 3-11 Visual Quality Classification of the Helena-Aurora Ranges and Surrounding Plains 3-12 Local and Regional Vantage Points and Viewing Locations 4-1 Visual Impact Categories 4-2 Visual Impact Summary for LCUs 4-3 Visual Impact Summary for View Experience 4-4 Area of Disturbance within the Helena-Aurora Ranges 4-5 Areas of Disturbance within the Local Assessment Unit List of Flowcharts 2-1 Visual Landscape Evaluation and Impact Assessment Process 2-2 Approach to the Joint Assessment of Landform and Visual Impacts J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page iv List of Figures 1-1 Regional Location 1-2 Land Tenure 2-1 Study Area 2-2 Local Field Assessment Sites 2-3 Regional Field Assessment Sites 3-1 J5 Conceptual Geomorphology 3-2 Bungalbin East Conceptual Geomorphology 3-3 Lithology of the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3-4 Elevation 3-5 Slope 3-6 Aspect 3-7 Topographic Position Index 3-8 Solar Radiation 3-9 Wetness Index 3-10 Vegetation Height 3-11 Landscape Character Units 3-12 View Experience – J5 3-13 View Experience – Bungalbin East 3-14 View Experience – Koolyanobbing Track 3-15 View Experience – Bullfinch-Evanston Track & Marda Track 3-16 View Experience – Gus Luck Track and Mt Dimer Track 3-17 View Experience – Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track 3-18 View Experience – Mt Manning Track 3-19 View Experience – Mt Manning 3-20 View Experience – Mt Dimer 4-1 Existing Disturbance Area 4-2 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 26 4-3 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 3 4-4 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 16 4-5 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 16 – No Vegetation 4-6 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 14 4-7 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 8 4-8 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 9 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page v 4-9 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 11 4-10 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 19 4-11 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 22 4-12 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 21 4-13 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 21 – No Vegetation 4-14 Visual Impact Modelling - Site 20 4-15 J5 & BE Mine Perspective – Pre-mining 4-16 J5 & BE Mine Perspective – During Mining 4-17 J5 & BE Mine Perspective – Post Mining 4-18 J5 Mine Perspective – Pre-mining 4-19 J5 Mine Perspective – During Mining 4-20 J5 Mine Perspective – Post Mining 4-21 Bungalbin East Mine Perspective – Pre-mining 4-22 Bungalbin East Mine Perspective – During Mining 4-23 Bungalbin East Mine Perspective – Post Mining 4-24 Amenity Management Zones List of Plates 3-1 Western Range LCU looking generally west from Site 4. 3-2 Rounded hills at Site 13 in the Western Range LCU. 3-3 Western Range LCU viewed from Site 26 on the Koolyanobbing Track. 3-4 A “monolith” at Site 15. 3-5 Rounded hills at Site 3 in the Western Range LCU obscured by vegetation. 3-6 View of the Western Range LCU from Site 2 on the Marda Track obscured by vegetation. 3-7 Bungalbin Hill within the Central and Eastern LCU, as viewed from Site 3. 3-8 The Central and Eastern Ranges LCU, as viewed from Mt Dimer (Site 31). 3-9 View of the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU above vegetation near Site 6. 3-10 View of the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU partially screened by vegetation near Site 8. 3-11 Gravelly soils at Site 16. 3-12 Cliff faces and outcropping northwest of Site 24. 3-13 Caves to the northeast of Site 12 (the former campsite at Bungalbin East). 3-14 Broad Valley and Sandplain landforms of the Plains LCU to the south of the HAR, viewed from Site 12. 3-15 Undulating Plains in the Plains LCU to the north of the HAR, looking northeast from Site 15. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page vi 3-16 Drainage Lines LCU dissecting the Plains LCU, as viewed from Site 53. The Central and Eastern Ranges LCU is visible in the background. 3-17 Drainage Lines LCU dissecting the Plains LCU, as viewed from Site 16. The Western Ranges LCU is visible in the background. 3-18 Exploration area east of J5, at Site 13. 3-19 Excavated material adjacent to an exploration costean at Site 11. 3-20 Campsite at Site 8 on the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track. 3-21 Former Bungalbin East campsite at Site 12. Photographer for Plates 3-1 to 3-7, 3-9 to 3-13, 3-15 and 3-17 to 3-21: Sonia Finucane. Photographer for Plates 3-8, 3-14 and 3-16: David Temple-Smith. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 1-1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Proposal Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) proposes to develop the J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project (the Proposal), approximately 100 km north-northeast of Southern Cross, Western Australia (Figure 1-1). The Proposal comprises construction, operation and closure of: Open pits and Waste Rock Landforms (WRLs) at J5 and Bungalbin East. Areas required for the temporary storage of cleared vegetation and topsoil/subsoil. Access tracks and haul roads. Supporting mine infrastructure and other facilities. Ore from the J5 and Bungalbin East pits will be transported via the J4 haul road to the Carina operations for dry crushing and screening. The ore will then be loaded onto trains at the Mt Walton rail-siding. A 30 km bituminised haul road will connect the mine operations to the J4 haul road. The Proposal will be developed on the following leases within the Shire of Yilgarn (Figure 1-2): Mining leases M77/1095-I, M77/1096-I and M77/1097 (pending). Miscellaneous licences L72/253, L72/254, L72/269 and L72/270. General purpose lease G77/124 (pending). The Proposal occurs within, and adjacent to, the Helena-Aurora Ranges (HAR). The HAR comprises Banded Iron Formations (BIFs) and basalts, and is surrounded by an outwash plain derived from these geological units (Gibson et al., 1997). This landscape feature is located within the Mt Manning – Helena-Aurora Ranges Conservation Park (other than A class) (MMHARCP) (Figure 1-2). See Section 1.2 for information on the park. 1.2 The Mt Manning - Helena-Aurora Ranges Conservation Park The conservation value of the HAR and adjacent Mt Manning Range was recognised in the 1960s70s. The Mt Manning Range Nature Reserve (class C) was created in 1979, but Mt Manning itself was excluded from the Nature Reserve to allow mining as this area had already been designed a Mining Act Ministerial Temporary Reserve. It had been recommended that the HAR be included in an expansion of the Mt Manning Range Nature Reserve, but instead the Government decided to create the MMHARCP (Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC], 2012). The MMHARCP was gazetted in 2005 and included the Mt Manning Range (which had previously been excluded from the Mt Manning Range Nature Reserve) as well as the HAR. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 1-2 The MMHARCP is vested in the Conservation and Parks Commission (CPC). The CPC was established in May 2016 following changes to the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (CALM Act) in late 2015, and replaces the Conservation Commission of WA and the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority to become the vesting body for conservation lands, forest and marine reserves and to provide advice to the Western Australian Government on conservation matters. It has a formal planning role for the management of regional parks, enabling the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) to manage these ecologically significant areas in cooperation with landowners (Anon, 2016). The MMHARCP is managed by the DPaW for the purpose of “recreation by members of the public as is consistent with the proper maintenance and restoration of the nature environment, the protection of indigenous flora and fauna, and the preservation of any feature of archaeological, historical or scientific interest“. It offers a relatively undisturbed natural environment that provides visitors with an opportunity to experience a remote, outback experience within a varied landscape that contains diverse native flora and fauna (DEC, 2008). It is used for tourism and recreation including four-wheel driving, camping, hiking and nature appreciation (DEC, 2008). The MMHARCP is accessible from locations such as Kalgoorlie, Southern Cross and Perth. Access to the MMHARCP is via unsealed tracks from the south (Koolyanobbing Track), west (the Marda Track leading from the Bullfinch-Evanston Road), east (the Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track) and north-east (Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track). Visitors accessing the MMHARCP from the west and south must cross mine haul roads associated with the Windarling and J4 mines. A number of tracks within the park are historical or current mining exploration tracks. Not all tracks are maintained on a regular basis and some are not maintained at all. Visitors to the MMHARCP include private individuals and families, commercial tour groups, conservation groups such as the Wilderness Society and recreational four-wheel drive groups such as the FJ Cruiser Club of Australia. Despite the range of visitor types, annual visitor numbers are low. Data from traffic counters deployed in two separate locations by DPaW during 2013-2015 indicate that an average of 340 vehicles access the MMHARCP annually, corresponding to an annual average visitation of 1,362 persons. Visitation generally occurs during the cooler months of the year April to October) due to the lack of water sources, remoteness of the area and higher temperatures during summer months. Wetter periods also likely to be avoided due to a higher risk of tracks become waterlogged and impassable to four-wheel drive vehicles (DEC, 2008). There are no formal visitor facilities such as toilets or camp grounds within the MMHARCP, but two frequently-used campsites are located in the vicinity of the HAR. The first of these is a signposted campsite located on the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track to the north of the HAR. The second is located at Bungalbin East, but it is understood that the DPaW has now prohibited camping at this location. The presence of fire pits elsewhere on the HAR (including J5) and the surrounding plains suggest ad hoc use of the area for camping. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 1-3 The MMHARCP is classified as an ‘other than A class’ reserve, which means that activities such as mining can be carried out with the approval of the Minister for Mines in consultation with the minister responsible for the reserve. In the case of the MMHARCP, the responsible minister is the WA Minister for Environment. Mineral exploration at the HAR first occurred in 1969 and 1970 when BHP undertook exploration drilling for iron ore at Bungalbin Central and Bungalbin East. Portman Resources NL, in a joint venture with Heron Resources (Heron), then undertook exploration drilling for iron ore at J5 in the Mt Jackson Range during 2005 and 2006. Heron’s iron ore assets, which included various exploration and mining tenements in the Mt Jackson Range and the HAR, were subsequently acquired by Polaris Metals NL (Polaris) in 2006. In turn, MRL acquired Polaris in 2010. Polaris’ tenements within the MMHARCP and relevant to the Proposal are listed in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: Mining Tenure held by Polaris Metals Limited relevant to the Proposal Tenement Mining Lease 77/580 Mining Lease 77/1095-I Mining Lease 77/1096-I Mining Lease 77/1097 Miscellaneous Licence 77/253 Miscellaneous Licence 77/270 Miscellaneous Licence 77/269 General Purpose Lease 77/124 Date of Grant 15 June 1993 9 May 2011 9 May 2011 Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Area (ha) 702.45 997.95 992.35 998 581 108.25 70.42 437.70 MRL’s Aurora Village is located south of the Proposal on Mining Lease 77/580 and provides support for the company’s exploration activities within the MMHARCP and the operation of the nearby J4 mine. The camp will continue to be used during the construction phase for the Proposal. 1.3 Environmental Assessment Process On 16 May 2014, Polaris referred the Proposal to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 38, Part IV, of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. On 1 December 2014, the EPA set the level of assessment for the proposal at Assessment of Proponent Information – Category B (API-B). EPA Report 1537 was published on 12 January 2015 (EPA, 2015a) and was appealed. The Western Australian Minister for Environment subsequently directed the EPA to assess the Proposal at a Public Environmental Review (PER) level of assessment. Polaris referred its Proposal to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DotE) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Proposal is a controlled action under the EPBC Act and is being assessed under the Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of WA. Subsequent to submission of these referrals, the proponent for the Proposal was changed to MRL. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 1-4 An Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) has been prepared in relation to the environmental assessment of the Proposal. The ESD identifies the preliminary key environmental factors or issues to be assessed and addresses the requirements of both the WA EPA and the Commonwealth DotE. The ESD was authorised by the EPA Chairman on 27 August 2015. The ESD identifies Amenity as one of the preliminary key environmental factors for the Proposal. The EPA’s objective for this factor is to ensure that impacts are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable (EPA, 2015b). No definition for Amenity is provided in the ESD, but a number of aspects that need to be considered are identified including land use and access, noise and vibration, dust, light spill, and visual amenity. This Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) report addresses only visual amenity, though reference is made where appropriate to the way in which visual amenity can be affected by dust, light spill and alterations to landform (Table 1-2). The remaining aspects associated with the Amenity factor will be assessed more fully in the PER and associated documents. Table 1-2: ESD Required Work for the Amenity Factor Required Work as defined in the ESD 42 43 44 Work completed in this VIA Characterise the land use and amenity values of the Conservation Park particularly noting the sensitive receptors and important areas for human use that could be affected by noise, dust and light-spill emissions, visual amenity issues and alterations to the landforms from mining. The visual amenity values of the Conservation Park are described in Section 3 (Visual Landscape Character). Assessment of other amenity values such as land use and issues such as noise is beyond the scope of this study. Include relevant maps to show the locations of the sensitive receptors likely to be affected by the proposal. Characterise the environment by providing baseline data on noise, dust and light-spill emissions at sensitive receptor sites, as identified above, that could be affected by noise, dust and light-spill emissions. Characterise the environment by providing a description of the visual landscape character and scenic quality values, and provide maps of the visual landscape units that may potentially be visually affected. This should include, but not be limited to landforms, vegetation and any waterways, and can be undertaken by way of 3 dimensional modelling and/or photographs. A map of known campsites is provided as Figure 4-1. Reference is made in this report to dust and light-spill emissions in relation to visual impact only. Noise does not affect visual amenity, so is not considered in this report. A description of visual landscape character is provided in Sections 3.2-3.4. Scenic qualities are described in Section 3.5. Visual impacts are described in Section 4. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 1-5 Table 1-2 (cont.) Required Work as defined in the ESD 45 Identify and discuss the potential sources and impacts of noise, dust and light-spill and alteration to landforms from the proposal. Work completed in this VIA Potential sources of light-spill and dust from the Proposal are identified in Section 4.4. Impacts on visual amenity due to dust and light-spill are discussed in Section 4.4. Impacts due to alterations to landforms are also discussed in Section 4.3 and 4.4 where relevant to visual amenity. 46 47 48 Design and undertake a visual impact assessment (VIA) for before, during and after the proposed mining activities, to assess the impacts of the proposal on visual amenity in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission (2007) Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia: a manual for evaluation, assessment, siting and design, and in consultation with Parks and Wildlife. The VIA should identify and describe the aspects of the proposal which may potentially affect the visual landscape character and scenic quality values both temporarily and permanently, using agreed (by EPA, in consultation with Parks and Wildlife) reference and vantage points of surrounding areas including travel routes and use area's viewer positions and perceptions. A peer review of the VIA information by a suitably qualified individual with appropriate experience and expertise is also required. It is noted that separate reports have been prepared in relation to landform impacts (Bioscope Environmental, 2016a), noise (Herring Storer Acoustics, 2016) and dust (Pacific Environment Limited, 2016). VIA design is based on Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia manual. DpaW has been consulted on a number of occasions in relation to the design and outcomes of this VIA. A discussion of vantage points and important places is provided in Section 3.6. Potential sources of visual impact resulting from implementation of the Proposal are outlined in Section 4. Consultation on selection of study sites with the EPA and DPaW has been conducted by DPaW. See Section 2.7 and Appendix A for further information. Independent peer review of this report was completed by Ecoscape. This report has been revised to address the peer reviewer’s comments, where relevant. A close-out report has been prepared to demonstrate how these comments were addressed in this report and has been provided to MRL under separate cover. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 1-6 Table 1-2 (cont.) Required Work as defined in the ESD 49 Predict the residual amenity impacts from the proposal on the landscape and sensitive receptors and important areas for human use after considering and applying avoidance and minimisation measures. Impact predictions are to include, but not be limited to: a) the likely extent, severity and duration of the impacts from noise, dust, light-spill, and alterations to the landscape, landform and to amenity; and b) simulations/modelling of the predicted residual impacts from the proposal, including changes to the landscape from the agreed reference and vantage points. Include the cumulative impacts on amenity from the proposal and other currently approved developments. 50 51 Demonstrate how the EPA's objective for this factor can be met. Identify management and mitigation measures for the proposal including closure and rehabilitation outcomes to ensure residual impacts are not greater than predicted. The PER is to include: a) A description of the management and mitigation measures; b) Develop management zones, prescriptions and strategies for managing visual landscape character relative to each stage of the proposed operation; and c) Environmental management plans outlining the environmental outcomes/objectives; other key regulatory requirements; management actions; monitoring (including methodology, frequency, location and rational); trigger criteria; contingency actions; review; reporting; and consultation. Work completed in this VIA Management measures relevant to visual impacts are outlined in Section 4.6. Potential residual visual impacts are outlined in Section 4.7. Assessment of other amenity values and the potential of the impact of noise and dust were not part of the scope of this study. Noise has no impact on visual amenity so is not addressed in this report. Refer to Herring Storer Acoustics (2016). Bioscope Environmental is not aware of any other mining developments that have been approved, or that are reasonably foreseeable, within the Conservation Park, so cumulative impacts have not been considered further in this report. This is addressed in the PER. Development of an environmental management plan for visual amenity is beyond the commissioned scope of work for this study, though recommendations for management and mitigation measures are provided in relation to visual impacts in Section 4.6. An environmental management plan for all of the components of Amenity (including includes management of visual impacts) has been prepared (Bioscope Environmental, 2016b). This plan will be appended to the PER. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 1-7 1.4 Structure of this Report This report describes the objectives, methodology and outcomes of this VIA. Section 2 outlines the methodology utilised in this study. This VIA was conducted in conjunction with a Landform Impact Assessment (LIA) and this is reflected in the design of the study methodology. The outcomes of the LIA are reported separately (Bioscope Environmental, 2016a). Section 3 describes the visual landscape character of the HAR and its local and regional setting. This section includes data in relation to landforms, waterways and vegetation of the HAR and surrounding plains. Information is also provided on known vantage points in surrounding areas, travel routes and areas of important for human use. Section 4 assesses the potential visual impacts of the Proposal and outlines proposed management measures. The report conclusions are presented in Section 5. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-1 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Relevant Guidelines In developing the approach adopted for this VIA, it was recognised that WA does not have a single model for landscape planning in the context of the State’s current planning system (Western Australian Planning Commission [WAPC] and Department of Planning and Infrastructure [DPI], 2007). However, reference is made to the assessment and management of visual impacts in a number of documents including: EPA Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors No 6 (Rehabilitation of Terrestrial Ecosystems) which was published in 2006 (EPA, 2006). EPA Guidance Statement No 33 (Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development) which was published in May 2008 (EPA, 2008). Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia. A Manual for Evaluation, Assessment, Siting and Design (WAPC and DPI, 2007). Reading the Remote: Landscape Characters of Western Australia (Department of Conservation and Land Management [CALM] et al., 1994). CALM’s 1989 Policy Statement No. 34 on Visual Resources Management on Lands and Waters Managed by CALM. Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans, which were first published by the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) in 2011 and updated in May 2014 (DMP and EPA, 2014). 2.2 VIA Definitions The terms used in this VIA report are defined below. Landscape The term “landscape” is defined by EPA (2015c) as “all the features of an area that can be seen in a single view, which distinguish one part of the earth’s surface from another part”. The EPA recognises that landscapes can be either natural (largely unaffected by human activity) or human (created or significantly modified by human activity), and that natural landscapes consist of a variety of landforms (EPA, 2015c). The appearance of a landscape is strongly influenced by the underlying geology, landforms, soils, ecology, land uses and other factors, all of which can influence the way in which landscape is experienced and valued (Institute of Environmental Assessment and The Landscape Institute, 1995, in EPA, 2008). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-2 Landscape Character Types Landscape Character Type (LCTs) are distinct types of landscape that are relatively homogenous in character. They commonly share similar combinations of geology, topography, land cover and historical land use (Tudor, 2014). LCTs consist of Landscape Character Units (LCUs). See below. Landscape Character Units LCUs are similar to LCTs in that they also comprise homogenous patterns of characteristics, but LCUs are smaller units than LCTs. LCUs are characterised based on landform, waterform, vegetation and land use (e.g. natural, rural or built) as well as individual landscape features (WAPC and DPI, 2007). Visual Amenity EPA (2008) defines “visual amenity” as visual landscape character that is valued by the community and notes that protection of visual amenity of the surrounding environment is important to the sense of well-being and quality of life of the community. Visual Landscape Character The term “visual landscape character” refers to the appearance of the basic landscape elements (landform, vegetation, water bodies and human land use) that makes an area identifiable or unique (WAPC and DPI, 2007). A range of descriptors can be used to define visual landscape character. These included in “Reading the Remote” are form, line, colour, texture and scale (CALM et al., 1994). Visual Catchment Visual catchment is defined as the extent of potential visibility to or from a specific area, feature or proposal. Viewshed A viewshed or “seen area” is defined as the land that is actually visible from a point or series of points, such as a lookout, road or campsite. Normally, the extent of area that can be viewed is limited by landform, vegetation and distance (WAPC and DPI, 2007). Distance Zones Distance can affect an observer’s perception of the landscape and features viewed. Therefore, distance zones are used to measure visibility in terms of distance from the observer to the landscape and are based on the amount of colour and textural detail that is visible to the observer (WAPC and DPI, 2007). The distances zones adopted for this VIA are as defined by WAPC and DPI (2007). These are as follows: Foreground: from the viewer to 500 m. Middle-ground: 500 m to 6.5 km. Background: 6.5 to 16 km and beyond. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-3 2.3 Study Area Definition The indicative footprint for the Proposal is shown on Figure 2-1 and contains the physical elements listed in Section 1.1 (i.e. the open pits, WRLs and other areas required for the construction, operation and closure of the J5 and Bungalbin East mines). This footprint includes the Potentially Affected Landforms (PALs) defined in the ESD. The boundary of the HAR used in this VIA report is as defined in the ESD (see Figure 2-1). The ESD states that this landform boundary was determined based on geology and morphology, and comprises the area having a slope of five degrees or greater together with an additional 50 m buffer to allow for lower resolution source data. Based on the ESD boundary of the HAR, this landform comprises six main areas. For ease of reference, these are designated as L1-L6. See Figure 2-1. To characterise the significance of the HAR landform in a local context, the ESD defines a Local Assessment Unit (LAU). The boundary of the LAU in relation to the HAR and the MMHARCP (in which the HAR is located) is shown on Figure 2-1. To provide regional context, the EPA defined a regional study area boundary (see Figure 2-1). According to the ESD, this regional study area is confined to the Mount Manning area with a focus on indicative areas of BIFs and is derived from data from the Geological Survey of Western Australia (GSWA) and land systems spatial data from the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia (DAFWA). However, MRL has used a wider regional study area boundary for assessment of the Proposal. 2.4 Approach to this Study EPA Guidance Statement No 33 (EPA, 2008) outlines broad principles and some of the factors to be considered during VIA. It does not prescribe methodologies for this type of study, but states that practitioners should use a “recognised methodology”, generally one acceptable to the Department of Planning or DPaW. The 2007 Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia manual is one such methodology having being produced by the WAPC and DPI with input from DPaW, Main Roads WA and other agencies that manage landscapes and landforms in WA. The methodology utilised for this VIA is based broadly on the protocols outlined in WAPC and DPI (2007). This manual outlines two overlapping stages as follows: 1. Visual landscape evaluation, which aims to: Define the scope and context of the assessment. Describe the visual landscape character. Evaluate how the visual landscape character is viewed, experienced and valued by stakeholders. Develop strategies for managing visual landscape character. Integrate these strategies into the project planning system. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-4 2. Visual impact assessment, which aims to: Identify visual management objectives. Describe the proposed development. Predict the potential visual impacts. Outline visual management measures. Develop recommendations and options for monitoring. The relationship between these stages is illustrated in Flowchart 2-1. In developing the VIA methodology, reference was also made to Reading the Remote: Landscape Characters of Western Australia (CALM et al., 1994). Flowchart 2-1: Visual Landscape Evaluation and Impact Assessment Process Visual landscape evaluation Visual impact assessment Define scope and set context Determine visual management objectives Describe visual landscape character Describe proposed development Describe potential visual impacts Evaluate how visual landscape character is viewed, experienced and valued Develop strategies for managing visual landscape character Develop visual management measures Prepare final recommendations and monitor options Implementation Existing planning mechanisms Planning outcomes Development options Consultation and review Source: Visual Landscape Planning Manual (WAPC and DPI, 2007) J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-5 MRL commissioned Bioscope Environmental to conduct a VIA for the proposal in conjunction with the LIA (Bioscope Environmental, 2016a). The relationship between landform and visual impact assessments was considered in developing the methodology to minimise or eliminate duplication. Given the degree of overlap between the visual landscape evaluation, visual impact assessment and landform impact assessment, the study tasks were designed to address the requirements of both this VIA and the LIA. Flowchart 2-2 illustrates the relationship between this VIA and the LIA. Flowchart 2-2: Approach to the Joint Assessment of Landform and Visual Impacts Determine landform and visual management objectives Define scope and set context Desktop Analysis Describe construction, operation and closure of proposed development Describe landform and visual landscape character Evaluate how landform and visual landscape character are viewed, experienced and valued Evaluate EPA position on landform and visual impact assessment Select visual and landform evaluation criteria Site Assessment Describe potential landform impacts Describe potential visual impacts Visual Data Analysis and Impact Assessment Landform Data Analysis and Impact Assessment Develop visual management strategies and measures Develop landform management strategies and measures VIA Report (this report) LIA Report J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-6 2.5 Desktop Analysis 2.5.1 Data Sources The study commenced with collation and review of the data and information listed in Table 2-1. This information was used to establish landscape analysis criteria used during the field assessment (Section 2.6) and data analysis (Section 2.8). Table 2-1: Data Sources Type of Data Topography Soils and landforms Flora, vegetation and fauna Surface drainage patterns Tenements Landholders Geological and exploration information Roads, tracks and drill lines Aboriginal and European heritage sites Landscape character types Viewing locations, view experience and stakeholder values Aerial photography 2.5.2 Data Source MRL, NASA SRTM, Geoscience Australia MRL, Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia MRL, Department of Parks and Wildlife MRL, Landgate, Department of Water MRL, Department of Mines and Petroleum MRL, Department of Parks and Wildlife, Landgate MRL, Department of Mines and Petroleum MRL, Landgate MRL, Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Heritage Council Public websites and other publicly available information Public websites and other publicly available information MRL, Landgate, Geosage ELS 2000 Identification of Landscape Analysis Criteria A number of factors can be used to describe landscape, but some of these are constrained by limitations such as incomplete datasets, limited public availability of existing databases and the risk of subjective interpretation. To reduce subjectiveness, it was proposed that the factors selected for this assessment be measurable, preferably with data already held by Polaris or in public databases. A large number of factors were tabled and discussed during a workshop attended by personnel from MRL, CAD Resources and Bioscope Environmental on 18 May 2015. During this workshop, seven factors were selected for use as landscape analysis criteria. The factors are: Elevation. Slope. Aspect. Topographic Position Index (TPI). Wetness Index. Solar Radiation. Vegetation Height. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-7 Definitions for these criteria are provided in Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Selected Landscape and Landform Analysis Criteria Criterion Elevation Slope Aspect Topographic Position Index Wetness Index Vegetation Height Solar Radiation Definition The relative height above sea level of the landform features at and around the site The angle of the landform. Provides an indication of steepness and roughness (steeper slopes are usually rougher). Slope position is the position of the slope relative to the features above and below it, and is utilised to identify the valleys, ridges, upper and lower slopes. Compass orientation of the face of the slope. Useful for determining position relative to sun and wind conditions (north facing - more sun; south facing - less sun). Classifies the landscape into a number of categories such as Valleys, Lower Slopes, Gentle Slopes, Steep Slopes (greater than 25° in this case), Upper Slopes and Ridges. Representation of the water movement across the slope faces. Provides an indication of how the water will track into gullies etc. Determined by using the difference between the ground returns and non-ground (vegetation in this area) returns collected during the LiDAR survey in 2011. The result is the height of the vegetation across the survey area. Measure of the amount of solar radiation against the slope faces at specific times of the year or generally. Takes into account sun position throughout the year. Source: CAD Resources 2.5.3 Selection of Study Sites During the desktop analysis, preliminary selection of study sites was made through consideration of the factors outlined in Table 2-2. Groundtruthing of these sites and selection of additional study sites occurred during the field assessments conducted in 2015 and 2016 (see Section 2.6). A total of 53 sites was selected through this process (Figures 2-2 and 2-3). When assessing visual impacts, a key consideration in the selection of study sites is “visual accessibility”. This is assessed based on those locations from which people will, and will not, be able to observe components of the Proposal. These include fixed point locations such as campsites and open viewing areas such as regional roads used to access or bypass the HAR. Factors affecting visual accessibility at these locations include: duration of exposure, which can be influenced by travel speed and direction of travel, availability of camping facilities and lookouts, and other aspects; foreground closure (i.e. visual barriers such as vegetation cover, topographic features and man-made structures); J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-8 the extent to which opportunities to view the area of interest are confined to key travel routes and roads in the immediate vicinity of the area; and other factors such as traffic density, foreground interest and distraction, weather conditions and other land uses in the area. As indicated in Section 2.2, the distances zones adopted for this VIA are as defined by WAPC and DPI (2007). These are as follows: Foreground: from the viewer to 500 m. Middle-ground: 500 m to 6.5 km. Background: 6.5 to 16 km and beyond. MRL engaged with the EPA and DPaW in January and February 2016 in relation to the location of the initial study sites (Sites 1-26). Following this consultation process, two additional study sites (Sites 27 and 28) were selected for inclusion in the background distance zone. Subsequent to DPaW’s review of an earlier version of this report in June 2016, a meeting was held with the DPaW on 16 June 2016 and additional study sites (Sites 29-53) were selected. The study sites and their distance zones (based on distance between the study site and either J5 or Bungalbin East) are listed in Table 2-3 and illustrated in Figures 2-2 and 2-3. A number of these sites provide views for more than one distance zone. Table 2-3: Study Site Distance Zones Site No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Foreground (up to 500 m from Proposal Area) Distance Zones Middle-ground (500 m – 6.5 km from Proposal Area) Background (more than 6.5 km from J5 or Bungalbin East) J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-9 Table 2-3 (cont.) Site No 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Foreground (up to 500 m from Proposal Area) Distance Zones Middle-ground (500 m – 6.5 km from Proposal Area) Background (more than 6.5 km from J5 or Bungalbin East) J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-10 2.6 Field Assessments An initial three-day site visit (including travel) was conducted by environmental personnel from MRL and Bioscope Environmental on 1-3 July 2015. Field observations and data in relation to both this VIA and the LIA were recorded at 26 sites within and adjacent to the Project Area in relation to: Weather conditions. Landscape character units and features (landform, waterform, vegetation, disturbance and land use features). Visual aspects of landscape character (scale, enclosure, diversity, texture, form, line, colour, balance, movement and pattern). Photographs were taken during the site assessment using a Nikon D7000 camera fitted with a Nikon 18-200 mm lens. Photographs to be used in photographic montages for visual impact assessment were taken using a 70 mm focal length. The weather was overcast on 1-2 July 2015, but good conditions were experienced on 3 July. A second site visit was conducted on 23 February 2016 by environmental personnel from MRL to take photographs at two additional sites (Sites 27 and 28). The camera used for these photographs was the same as used during the July 2015 site visit. The weather ranged from fine to cloudy with rainy patches during this site visit. The third site visit was conducted on 28-30 June 2016 by an environmental officer from MRL and a cartographer from CAD Resources to take photographs and collect data at Sites 29-53. The camera used for these photographs was the same as used during the July 2015 site visit. The weather was fine on 28 June 2016, partly cloudy to overcast with patchy rain on 29 June, and fine on 30 June. 2.7 Stakeholder Engagement MRL recognises that successful project development requires active stakeholder engagement and that this is a key component of the environmental assessment process. “Stakeholders” include both internal and external stakeholders who are likely to affect, to be affected by, or to have an interest in a proposed project. Early engagement with stakeholders enables proponents to better understand and manage their expectations and the potential risks associated with the construction, operation and closure of mining operations. MRL has engaged with the following stakeholders are relevant to this VIA: OEPA. DPaW. Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and environmental groups. Recreational groups. Commercial tour operators. Community members. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-11 Stakeholder engagement conducted by MRL in relation to this VIA included face to face meetings and correspondence with the OEPA and DPaW, and telephone interviews with three NGOs (HARA, Wilderness Society and Wildflower Society), four recreational groups (Adventure 4WD, WA 4WD Association, Eastern Goldfields 4WD Club and All Tracks 4WD Club), three community members known to use the HAR for recreational purposes (comprising a Perth-based individual and two Southern Cross residents), and a commercial tour operator (Coates Wildlife Tours). A visitor use survey was utilised by MRL to guide these interviews which included questions on the frequency and purpose of park visitation, duration of stay and activities undertaken. In essence, the focus was on how visitors access the MMHARCP, where they went to view the landscape, and what landscape features they valued. Most interviews also included substantial unstructured conversations that covered many aspects not included in the survey questionnaire. See Sections 3.6, Section 3.7 and Appendix A for further information. 2.8 Data Analysis and Impact Assessment Data from desktop data analysis (Section 2.5) and the field assessment (Section 2.6) were analysed in relation to the criteria identified in Section 2.5.2 to determine the extent of the potential visual impact arising from the Proposal. 2.8.1 Landscape Characterisation To facilitate characterisation of the HAR in relation to the selected landscape criteria defined in Section 2.5.2, MRL supplied CAD Resources with the data from two LiDAR surveys conducted on 2126 November 2011 and 22 June 2013. These data were supplied as point (xyz) data processed into a continuous surface for analysis. The analysis methods described below were chosen to best describe the HAR. An initial elevation model was generated and then categorised into 20m elevation bands describing the range of heights throughout the HAR. Following this, the surface was processed to classify the landform by its slope using the gradient, or rate of maximum change in z-value, from each cell of the surface. This slope model was then categorised into five bands to describe the range. The next step was to determine the aspect of the surface. Aspect identifies the downslope direction of the maximum rate of change in value from each cell to its neighbours, and gives a result as the compass direction. Following processing of aspect data, the TPI was investigated to classify the site into various classes of slopes, ridges and valleys. This was conducted by examining the cell position in relation to those that surround it and thereby determining its relative position and slope. This procedure was developed by Weiss (2001) and Jenness (2006). See also Guisan et al. (1999) and Jones et al. (2000). A Wetness Index was developed over the HAR to show the accumulation of flow relative to the landform slope and catchment areas. The purpose of this is to show the hydrological process at work in the region and identify areas of flow accumulation relative to the range and proposed disturbance areas. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-12 Determination of incoming solar radiation was conducted based on methods from the hemispherical viewshed algorithm developed by Rich (1990) and Rich et al. (1994) and further developed by Fu and Rich (2002). This analysis was developed for the Spring Equinox and summarised across a number of categories to show which faces of the range are subject to the most or least amount of sun. A final model was run as a result of both the ground and non-ground (vegetation in this area) returns collected during the LiDAR survey in 2011. Using these data, CAD Resources was able to determine the difference between these two datasets and as a result determine the height of the vegetation. The result has been categorised to show the way the vegetation heights vary across the slopes and elevations. The data have also been incorporated into the visual impact assessment of the Proposal. A simplified map of the LCUs was generated using the high resolution LiDAR TPI. The components are defined as follows: Western Range: This category comprises the Ridges, Lower Slopes, Mid Slopes, Upper Slopes and Steep Slopes data for L1-L3 as defined by the TPI. Polygons of less than one hectare were removed and the remaining polygons were generalised slightly with a 10m buffer. Minor data edits were undertaken to remove small island "holes" within the polygons to reduce the detail of the TPI data. Central and Eastern Ranges: as for the Western Range, but for L4-L6. Drainage Lines: This category comprises those areas calculated by the Wetness Index of value 18 to 25 (i.e. the upper extent of the cumulative processing) with a buffer of 25m applied. The confluence area of the drainage to the south west of the HAR was incorporated using the Wetness Index values of greater than 12 to better capture the full extent of the drainage area in this location. Plains: This category comprises those areas not defined as above. In generating the LCU map, reference was also made to the regional landform mapping within the LAU by Newbey (1985). 2.8.2 Photographic Montages and Viewshed Modelling A viewshed is defined as the land visible from a point or series of points, such as a lookout, road or campsite (WAPC and DPI, 2007). Photographic montages were prepared by CAD Resources to illustrate the viewsheds for 11 of the 53 study sites visited during the field assessments (Table 2-4). In selecting these sites, it was recognised that: The J5 and Bungalbin East areas are not directly visible from a number of the study sites. The sites selected for viewshed analysis provide representative views of these areas. A number of tracks currently provide access to the HAR. It is expected that most of these will remain open to public access during the life of the Proposal, but a number of local road J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-13 closures will occur to ensure public safety. Potential road closures were considered in selecting the sites for viewshed analysis. There are no officially-designated campsites within the HAR and visitors to the MMHARCP can select their own campsites. It is apparent that regular use has been made of the Bungalbin East campsite at Site 12, but is understood that the DPaW has now prohibited camping at this location. It appears that regular use is also made of the campsite at Site 8 as this location is identified in the camping and day trip guide for the HAR produced by the Wilderness Society and Helena and Aurora Ranges Advocates Inc (HARA) (undated). It is understood that signage has now been added by DPaW to designate this as a campsite. There are no formal look-outs or other facilities within the MMHARCP, and visitor use of the HAR is not restricted to defined tracks and exploration gridlines. Hikers and other visitors can access off-road areas at numerous locations across the HAR and throughout the park. It is not practical to prepare photograph montages for all possible views given such variable access, but representative viewsheds have been selected. Modelling was conducted for these sites to demonstrate visual conditions before, during and following cessation of mining. Table 2-4: Visual Impact Assessment Sites Site No. 3 8 9 11 14 16 19 20 21 Comments This site was selected for viewshed analysis as it looks towards Bungalbin Hill. This site was selected for viewshed analysis as it is used as a campsite by visitors to the MMHARCP. This site is located on the track to Pittosporum Rocks and the Hunt Range. This site is located on the northern side of the HAR, off the Pittosporum Rocks Track. This site is located adjacent to the J5 area and provides views of the proposed mine site. This site is located adjacent to the J5 area and provides direct views of the proposed mine site. It provides a long view of the western portion of the HAR and encompasses nearly all of the area visible from that site (including the J5 site) in a single view. Modelling of the viewshed before, during and after mining with no vegetation was also conducted for this site. This site is located at the junction of the southern access track and the Mt Dimer track, southwest of the Bungalbin East mine site. This site was selected as it is located at a high point in the landscape and offers views of the eastern portion of the HAR. This site is located at an informal campsite on the Mt Dimer track. Modelling of the viewshed before, during and after mining with no vegetation was also conducted for this site. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 2-14 Table 2-4 (cont.) Site No. 22 26 Comments This site is located on the Mt Dimer track and offers direct views of the Bungalbin East mine site. Modelling of the viewshed before, during and after mining with no vegetation was also conducted for this site. This site is located approximately 6.5 km southwest of Bungalbin Hill and includes views of the areas to the west of the hill including the J5 area. This site was selected as it offers one of the first views of the HAR when approached from the south and covers a wider area of the range to the west of the hill. The 2007 Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia manual states that the most basic form of viewshed analysis identifies an area of landscape that would be visible assuming that it has no vegetation cover or built structures, and assesses the visual impact that would occur based on landform alone and not taking into account potential screening by vegetation (WAPC and DPI, 2007). However, the manual also states that vegetation should be mapped (or at least described) if it is relevant to a particular assessment because it affects viewer experience. Vegetation is very relevant to this VIA as it strongly affects viewer experience by enhancing it and by restricting it (by screening the landform, thereby limited viewing opportunities). However, modelling of the viewsheds before, during and after mining at J5 (Site 16) and Bungalbin East (Site 21) have been included for completeness. Most of the viewshed analysis focuses on views towards the HAR. However, views from campsites at J5 (Site 15) and Bungalbin East (Site 12) have been included in this assessment as these specific views will be lost if the Proposal is implemented. 2.8.3 Impact Assessment and Management An assessment of the visual impacts that could arise from implementation of the Proposal was conducted using the data and information outlined above. This assessment considered the likely extent, severity and duration of direct and indirect impacts, and whether these impacts would be temporary or permanent. Following this initial assessment, environmental management measures were developed to mitigate, manage and monitor the predicted visual impacts. The extent of potential visual impacts was then assessed. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-1 VISUAL LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 3.1 Regional Setting The HAR occurs in the region covered by the Bungalbin 1:100,000 geological map sheet (Chen and Wyche, 2003), which encompasses an area in the central part of the Southern Cross GraniteGreenstone Terrane of the Yilgarn Craton. The Yilgarn Craton is described by Markey and Dillon (2010) as “a sizeable area of Archaean bedrock that harbours a series of metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary mineral belts embedded in granitoids“. Much of the Yilgarn Craton has weathered into gently undulating plains overlain by deeply weathered regolith (Markey and Dillon, 2011). The Bungalbin region (as mapped by Chen and Wyche, 2003) covers a series of greenstone belts1 separated by large areas of granitoid rocks of mainly monzogranitic composition. Greenstone belts of mafic volcanics and BIF are common in the northern and eastern parts of the Yilgarn Craton and outcrop as isolated ranges, elongate ridges and discrete, prominent hills above plains of weathered Cainozoic sediments (Markey and Dillon, 2011). From a distance, these features appear as dominant focal points, but have a more commanding presence when viewed in close proximity. The terrain is dissected by scattered chains of salt lakes that can become linked after heavy rains (CALM et al., 1994). “Banded Iron Formation” is a sedimentary rock of biochemical origin. BIFs were formed in sea water as the result of oxygen being released by photosynthetic bacteria. The oxygen combined with dissolved iron in the sea water to form insoluble iron oxides. The iron oxides precipitated out, forming a thin layer on the ocean floor. Each band is assumed to be the result of cyclic variability of the oxygen content of the sea water. The BIFs of the HAR formed during the Archaean, approximately 3.0 Ga (Chen and Wyche, 2003). The BIF consists of alternating layers of iron oxides (magnetite [Fe3O4] or hematite [Fe2O3]), chert, jasper and shale. The width of the alternating layers can be from a few millimetres to several metres, with the formation itself being tens to hundreds of metres in both width and thickness. The colour of the BIF is related to its bands with the iron oxide bands ranging from a steel grey-blue to red, and the chert bands ranging from white through to black, grey or yellow. The dark, blood-red bands are jasper (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.). Formation of the HAR was a complex process involving three deformational events to give the current land surface. The HAR underwent thrust faulting in the first deformational stage which caused a repetition of the HAR BIF units in the Bungalbin Syncline. By the close of the third deformational event, the HAR had been uplifted, refolded and slightly rotated to reach its current northwest dipping current position (Chen and Wyche, 2003). 1 The southeastern portion of the Marda-Diemals Greenstone Belt, the northern portion of the Hunt Range Greenstone Belt, the southern end of the Mount Manning Greenstone Belt and a small portion of the Yerilgee Greenstone Belt. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-2 Following uplifting, the BIF ranges were subject to weathering processes that eroded the lateritic duricrust that had formed above the BIF. The BIF is resistant to erosion and forms the hills and ridges that remain after other materials have been eroded away (Chen and Wyche, 2003; HARA, undated). The current surface of the HAR is a mixture of goethite and hematite-weathered BIF covered in part by a laterite derived from the underlying weathered BIF. The more siliceous parts of the BIF have not weathered and these account for the steep flanks of the range as well as the main ridgeline. In areas of structural weakness, the BIF has been altered to massive goethite with some hematite. The main concentrations of these areas are the J5 and Bungalbin East iron deposits (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.). 3.2 Regional Landscape Character Type The HAR and surrounds occur within the Kalgoorlie Plain Landscape Character Type (CALM et al., 1994). A detailed description of the landforms, waterforms, vegetation and land uses of this region is provided in CALM et al. (1994) and summarised in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: Kalgoorlie Plain Regional Landscape Character Landscape Character Landform Visual Aspect Form Line Colour Texture Scale Waterform Vegetation Form Line Colour Texture Form Line Colour Description Level to gently inclined landform; conspicuous low hills and ranges; low windformed dunes; blocks and conical mullock hills. Level horizon. Blue grey horizon; rust and blue grey streaked granite; soils from soft peach to warm rosy pink reds to vivid coppers; burnt red ironstone. Craggy summmits; stony hills with rock-peppered surfaces; rugged peaks; rocky edges. Long, mostly uninterrupted views under big skies over the almost level terrain. Shallow depressions and floodways; rock pools; salt flats. Tortuous linear chains of salt lakes. Silver; blue; milky; transparent. Smooth mirrored surface. Slender, whippy trunks; Flat topped trees; rounded broombushes; sheaths of discarded bark; low bushy heath. Strong diagonal line of mallees and salmon gum trunks and branches; strong horizontal layer from three definite vegetation layers; fluid line of trunks. Shimmering glossy leaves; silver grey, cream to pale salmon pink and warm peach of salmon gum trunks; olive bronze to copper trunks; dark stumps; light silvery brown; dark leaved mallees; dull greens; grey discarded twigs and branches; soft silver and gold grasses; dull red; profusion of vividly-coloured wildflowers; bright yellow wattle blossoms; pale grey Smokebush; bright tangerine Grevilleas. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-3 Table 3-1 (cont.) Landscape Character Vegetation Visual Aspect Texture Scale Land Use Form Line Colour Texture Description Scrubby undergrowth; smooth glossy trunks; flaking bark; dusty and furry leaves; soft grasses and Smokebush; spiky Honeymyrtle. Mallee and salmon gum woodland encloses and channels long views, and depth of view into woodland extensive; heath vegetation channels views and visual penetration into heath is minimal. Pyramid mullock heaps; corrugated iron; form of historical buildings. Horizontal flat-topped man-made hills; angular poppetheads and headframes; tall slender funnels of nickel smelter; waterpipe; geometric line of roofing and building materials. Red dust; silver grey waterpipe; rusting metal; shades of roofing and building materials; greying fence posts; iron railings. Rough, scaly, rusting metal; mullock heaps and rubble-strewn ground; roofing and building materials; flaking paint. Source: CALM et al. (1994) The region in which the Proposal is located is typically characterised by an expansive, gently inclined landform which appears to be level in many areas, but is interrupted by conspicuous hills and low ranges such as the HAR. From a distance, these features appear as dominant focal points, but have a more commanding presence when viewed in close proximity. The terrain is dissected by scattered chains of salt lakes that can become linked after heavy rains (CALM et al., 1994). The region’s vegetation is considered by CALM et al. (1994) to be one of the intrinsic visual components of this landscape. Located within the Great Western Woodlands, the vegetation of the area comprises a mosaic of woodland, mallee, grassland, shrubland and unvegetated areas (Watson et al., 2008). Perhaps the most visually dominant vegetation type is the tall eucalypt woodlands which tend to enclose and channel long views. Views which penetrate deeply into the woodlands are generally obscured, in part or in full, by the upper canopy while mid-section views are interrupted by slender tree trunks (CALM et al., 1994). The lower storey within woodland areas is variable in colour and texture, and can include the softer greys of saltbush. The woodlands are interspersed with patches of low bushy heath that allow broader views over the gently undulating landscape (CALM et al., 1994). In Spring, assuming that there have been good winter rains, the large diversity of flora species for which the Great Western Woodlands is known (Watson et al., 2008) becomes evident in a profusion of vividly-coloured wildflowers that appear among the green-grey health (CALM, 1994) or as colourful vistas (Watson et al., 2008). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-4 3.3 Landscape Characteristics of the Helena-Aurora Ranges 3.3.1 Lithology A landform can be defined through the combination of its geology (composition) and morphology (form) (EPA, 2015b). The relationship between the landforms at J5 and Bungalbin East and their underlying geology is illustrated in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. The lithology of the HAR is outlined below. The current surface of the HAR comprises a mixture of goethite and hematite-weathered BIF covered in part by a laterite derived from the underlying weathered BIF (see Table 3-2 and Figure 33). Indeed, the most common lithological unit within the HAR is Siliceous BIF at 38.4%. This is also the most common unit occurring within the Bungalbin East pit area (37.6%) and the second most common unit within the J5 pit area (29.1%). The more siliceous parts of the BIF have not weathered and these account for the steep flanks of the range as well as the main ridgeline. In areas of structural weakness, the BIF has been altered to massive goethite with some hematite (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.). The main concentrations of these occur at the J5 and Bungalbin East deposits, with Goethite Mineralisation being the third most common unit at these sites (at 14.8% and 20.8%, respectively). It is noted that this unit only covers a small area within the wider HAR (2.7%). The most common unit within the J5 pit area is Colluvium Scree (32.0%), which is the second most common unit within the Bungalbin pit area (23.9%) and the HAR (21.1%). Table 3-2: Lithology of the Helena-Aurora Ranges Lithological Unit Banded Iron Formation (Siliceous BIF) Colluvium Scree Jasperlite-rich BIF Description HAR Millimetre to metre scale beds of alternating silica and ironstone (magnetite, hematite, and commonly goethite). Many variations of BIF are found across the range including abundant red jaspilite, pale cherts and enriched bodies of goethite and sometimes hematite. Loose, unconsolidated sediments that have been deposited at the base of hill slopes by rain-wash, sheet wash, slow continuous downslope creep, or a variable combination of these processes. The colluvium is typically composed of subangular to well-rounded pebble to cobble sized BIF, basalt, jasperlite and chert. An iron-rich, chalcedonic quartz which occurs in the BIF and banded chert horizons. 38.4% Area J5 Pit Bungalbin Area East Pit Area 29.1% 37.6% 21.1% 32.0% 23.9% 13.8% 0.0% 0.3% J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-5 Table 3-2 (cont.) Lithological Unit Goethite Mineralisation Alluvium Welded Detritals Canga and Scanga Tuff Goethite-rich BIF Magnetite-rich BIF Hematite Mineralisation Bedded Goethite Basalt Description HAR Total replacement of BIF through chemical weathering occurring as bands/horizons within altered BIF, iron-rich basalt, and canga. Goethite is the principal iron mineralisation type. Loose, unconsolidated silt, clay, sand and gravel. Alluvium is restricted to areas where clear drainage channels are present. Late stage detrital material comprising clasts of host rock (BIF and chert dominant) in a recemented, siliceous, fine grain matrix. Typically found as a thin ‘veneer’ at the base of the nonmineralised BIF sections of the range. Pisolitic detrital units re-cemented in a hard, iron rich matrix, formed by the chemical and mechanical weathering of bedded iron deposits. Scanga is interpreted as a canga with high silica content either within the matrix or clasts. This unit is generally identified down slope (at the base) of bedded iron deposits. A soft, fine grain, sometimes porphyritic unit predominantly found in low lying saddles and occasionally on the flanks of the range. A goethite-rich BIF generally occurring on the margins of the main deposits. Silica still remains although iron is dominant. It has also been observed within highly mineralised rock. Magnetite iron ore widely distributed as bands in the BIF and as interstitial crystals in mafic and ultramafic rocks. Weathering product of magnetite occurring as beds/horizons within altered BIF, iron-rich basalt, and canga. Generally total replacement of BIF by goethite +/- hematite and/or limonite. Minor patchy silica still remains in parts. This rock type is the primary unit comprising the Bungalbin East mineralisation. The goethite beds typically comprise a steep scarp profile on the south eastern flanks of the range. A volcanic rock occurring as tholeiitic and highMg types in the foothills of the range. Rare, small occurrences on the flanks of the range. 2.7% Area J5 Pit Bungalbin Area East Pit Area 14.8% 20.8% 0.2% 0.0% 2.4% 5.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 8.4% 2.8% 1.7% 0.0% 4.7% 1.1% 5.4% 5.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Source: Reynolds and Scarlett (2016) and CAD Resources This unit is mapped on Figure 3-3 as Goethite Mineralisation 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-6 As a result of its geological setting and lithology, the HAR is characterised by fractured rock surfaces, fissures and depressions, and is surrounded by outwash plains dissected by drainage lines. The characteristics of these landforms are described in Sections 3.3.2 to 3.3.4 and mapped in Figures 3-4 to 3-10. 3.3.2 Landforms Elevation The HAR has a similar range of elevations to those of Mount Manning, Mount Jackson and Die Hardy ranges (Bioscope Environmental, 2016a), but provides a dominant visual focus within the MMHARCP as it represents a high point in a relatively wide area of undulating plains. Although the highest point at the HAR is 702 mAHD, only a very small portion of the range (0.3%) occurs within the highest band of elevation (680-702 mAHD) (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-4). Indeed, around one third of the range occurs within the 480-520 mAHD band (35.5%) and around one third occurs at 520-560 mAHD (30.6%). The landforms surrounding the J5 pit are generally of lower elevation than the wider HAR, with approximately 73% of the area being 480-520 mAHD (Table 3-3). Maximum elevations at J5 are 520540 mAHD. In contrast, the landforms surrounding the Bungalbin East pit are generally of higher elevation than at J5, with 77.9% of the pit area occurring at 540-640 mAHD. Of the landforms occurring in this elevation band within the Bungalbin East pit area, 29.4% are 540-580 mAHD and 47.5% are 580-640 mAHD. Maximum elevations are between 680 mAHD and 702 mAHD (0.5%). Landforms within the indicative footprints for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure mainly occur in areas of lower elevation (Figure 3-4). Slope Slope data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-5. Nearly 51% of the HAR has a slope of up to 10°, 28.7% has a slope of 10-20° and 15.3% has a slope of 2030°. The Bungalbin East pit area is also characterised by slopes in these categories with 24.4% of the area having a slope of up to 10°, nearly 35.0% having a slope of 10-20° and 29.1% having 20-30° slopes. In contrast, nearly 59% of the J5 pit area has a slope of up to 10° and 35.4% has a slope of 10-20°, but only 4.5% of the area has a slope of 20-30°. Landforms within the indicative footprints for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure mainly occur in areas with more gentle slopes (Figure 3-5). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-7 Table 3-3: Elevation Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges Elevation 430 - 440 mAHD 440 - 460 mAHD 460 - 480 mAHD 480 - 500 mAHD 500 - 520 mAHD 520 - 540 mAHD 540 - 560 mAHD 560 - 580 mAHD 580 - 600 mAHD 600 - 620 mAHD 620 - 640 mAHD 640 - 660 mAHD 660 - 680 mAHD 680 - 702 mAHD Total Source: CAD Resources Area within the Helena-Aurora Ranges ha % 0.23 0.01 50.92 1.48 296.43 8.59 505.78 14.66 719.43 20.85 642.48 18.62 414.79 12.02 258.56 7.49 186.37 5.40 142.39 4.13 113.01 3.27 71.98 2.09 39.13 1.13 9.50 0.28 3,451 100 Area within J5 Pit ha % 0 0.00 0.51 0.84 14.57 23.93 26.04 42.77 18.20 29.88 1.57 2.58 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 60.9 100 Area within Bungalbin East Pit ha % 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 9.51 6.49 14.41 9.83 16.53 11.28 26.58 18.14 31.13 21.24 22.61 15.42 15.92 10.86 4.72 3.22 4.40 3.00 0.76 0.52 146.6 100 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-8 Table 3-4: Slope Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges Slope 00 to 05 degrees 05 to 10 degrees 10 to 15 degrees 15 to 20 degrees 20 to 25 degrees 25 to 30 degrees 30 to 35 degrees 35 to 40 degrees 40+ degrees Total Source: CAD Resources Area within the Helena-Aurora Ranges ha % 718.90 20.83 1,062.88 30.80 561.62 16.27 426.30 12.35 313.74 9.09 214.72 6.22 104.59 3.03 29.22 0.85 19.09 0.55 3,451 100 Area within J5 Pit ha % 9.38 15.41 26.51 43.54 16.44 27.00 5.08 8.35 1.84 3.02 0.88 1.44 0.40 0.66 0.17 0.28 0.18 0.30 60.9 100 Area within Bungalbin East Pit ha % 12.02 8.20 23.80 16.24 26.03 17.76 25.25 17.23 24.29 16.57 18.36 12.53 9.20 6.27 3.60 2.46 4.03 2.75 146.6 100 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-9 Aspect Aspect is an important consideration in VIA as it affects the direction in which a viewer can face and therefore the landscape views available to that viewer. Aspect data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-6. These data indicate that the dominant aspect for these areas is southeast to southwest at 42.3% (HAR), 53.9% (J5) and 62% (Bungalbin East). It is noted that 21% of the J5 pit area has a northeast aspect, compared to 10.8% of the HAR and 3.6% of the Bungalbin East pit area. Landforms within the indicative footprints for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure have variable aspects (Figure 3-6). Topographic Position Index Data in relation to the topographic position (or slope position) are provided in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-7. The TPI classifies the landscape into a number of categories such as Valleys, Lower Slopes, Gentle Slopes, Steep Slopes (greater than 25°), Upper Slopes and Ridges. The classification works by using the difference between a cell elevation value and the average elevation of the neighbourhood (100m in this case) around that cell. Positive values mean the cell is higher than its surroundings while negative values mean it is lower. The degree to which it is higher or lower, plus the slope of the cell, can be used to classify the cell into slope position. If it is significantly higher than the surrounding neighbourhood, then it is likely to be at or near the top of a hill or ridge. Significantly, low values suggest the cell is at or near the bottom of a valley. TPI values near zero could mean either a flat area or a mid-slope area, so the cell slope can be used to distinguish the two. The data provided in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-7 indicate that the HAR is dominated by Gentle Slopes with nearly 75% of the area falling into this category. The J5 and Bungalbin East pit areas are also dominated by Gentle Slopes (at 74.9% and 45.5%, respectively), but Steep Slopes (18.2%) and Upper Slopes (18.9%) also commonly occur with the Bungalbin East pit area. Landforms within the indicative footprints for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure are characterised primarily by Gentle Slopes (Figure 3-7). Solar Radiation Solar radiation refers to the amount of sunlight received by the HAR. This plays an important role in the visual appearance of the ranges. For example, strong sunlight can cause areas to appear “washed out” of colour while shadows can add depth to a landscape, though it is noted that it can be difficult to distinguish certain landscape features where these occur in heavy shadow. Solar radiation data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-7 and Figure 38. The higher levels of solar radiation are received by gentler slopes. The lowest levels are recorded in areas with steep slopes such as the tops of ridges, breakaways and cliff faces on the more southfacing components of the HAR (see the lighter areas shown on Figure 3-8). With their steep slopes, they receive less direct sunlight and tend to have more shadowed areas. Landforms within the indicative footprints for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure receive high levels of solar radiation (Figure 3-8). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-10 Table 3-5: Aspect Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges Aspect Flat (-1) North (337.5 to 22.5) North East (22.5 to 67.5) East (67.5 to 112.5) South East (112.5 to 157.5) South (157.5 to 202.5) South West (202.5 to 247.5) West (247.5 to 292.5) North West (292.5 to 337.5) Total Source: CAD Resources Area within the Helena-Aurora Ranges ha % 0.03 0.00 508.47 14.73 372.86 10.80 293.54 8.51 419.87 12.17 602.19 17.45 438.69 12.71 389.94 11.30 425.61 12.33 3,451 100 Area within J5 Pit ha % 0 0.00 5.84 9.58 12.76 20.95 5.69 9.34 7.59 12.47 12.93 21.23 12.3 20.20 2.3 3.78 1.48 2.44 60.9 100 Area within Bungalbin East Pit ha % 0 0.00 9.9 6.75 5.32 3.63 16.37 11.17 41.89 28.58 32.96 22.49 15.61 10.65 11.74 8.01 12.77 8.71 146.6 100 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-11 Table 3-6: Topographic Position Index Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges TPI (Slope Position) Valleys Lower Slopes Gentle Slopes Steep Slopes Upper Slopes Ridges Total Source: CAD Resources Area within the Helena-Aurora Ranges ha % 20.83 0.60 224.33 6.50 2,584.71 74.90 309.08 8.96 244.43 7.08 67.63 1.96 3,451 100 Area within J5 Pit ha % 0.41 0.67 4.64 7.63 45.63 74.93 1.24 2.03 7.06 11.60 1.92 3.15 60.9 100 Area within Bungalbin East Pit ha % 3.33 2.27 16.66 11.37 66.70 45.50 26.70 18.22 27.65 18.87 5.53 3.77 146.6 100 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-12 Table 3-7: Solar Radiation Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges Solar Radiation Less than 3,500 WM/m2 3,500 to 3,800 WM/m2 3,800 to 4,100 WM/m2 4,100 to 4,400 WM/m2 4,400 to 4,700 WM/m2 More than 4,700 WM/m2 Total Source: CAD Resources Area within the Helena-Aurora Ranges ha % 183.85 5.33 201.48 5.84 392.19 11.36 1,191.2 34.52 1,137.82 32.97 344.56 9.98 3,451 100 Area within J5 Pit ha % 2.04 3.35 2.82 4.64 11.38 18.70 21.09 34.64 21.54 35.38 2.00 3.29 60.9 100 Area within Bungalbin East Pit ha % 22.80 15.55 22.07 15.06 31.57 21.54 37.18 25.37 20.95 14.30 12.01 8.19 146.6 100 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-13 3.3.3 Waterforms There are no permanent or semi-permanent water bodies within the HAR or in adjacent areas. Instead, drainage lines are ephemeral and tend to be relatively narrow and shallow. The Wetness Index data provided in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-9 indicate that is a high level of run-off in areas with steep slopes such as the tops of ridges, breakaways and cliff faces on the more southfacing components of the HAR. These areas rank lower on the Wetness Index (see the darker areas shown on Figure 3-9). This run-off is received by drainage lines within the HAR, which in turn drain to waterways on the plains surrounding the HAR. Consequently, these areas rank higher on the Wetness Index (see the orange-red areas shown on Figure 3-9). 3.3.4 Vegetation Vegetation across the HAR and in surrounding areas has been surveyed by ecologia Environment (2016). In total, 45 vegetation units were identified and mapped. The vegetation types in the J5 and Bungalbin East pit areas are dominated by Eucalyptus, Banksia and Allocasuarina woodlands over mixed shrublands and tussock grasslands. These vegetation types commonly occur across the HAR. In contrast, the sandplains and other plains surrounding the HAR include Acacia shrublands, Allocasuarina woodlands, Eucalyptus woodlands, Atriplex shrublands, and Eremophila and Olearia shrublands (ecologia Environment, 2016). Vegetation height data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-9 and Figure 3-10. Vegetation height is important as it can have a masking or screening effect. The data provided in Table 3-9 and Figure 3-10 indicate that vegetation in the J5 and Bungalbin East pit areas is of similar heights to the vegetation occurring across the wider HAR. Most of the vegetation in these areas is 2-5 m tall, with 46.7% of the vegetation at the J5 pit, 45.7% of the vegetation at the Bungalbin East pit and 43.5% of vegetation in the wider HAR area occurring in this category. Vegetation 5-10 m tall is also reasonably common in these areas with 28.0% of the vegetation at the J5 pit, 21.9% of the vegetation at the Bungalbin East pit and 22.9% of vegetation in the wider HAR occurring in this category. Vegetation heights within the indicative footprints for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure are also quite variable (Figure 3-10). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-14 Table 3-8: Wetness Index Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges Wetness Index 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 8 to 10 10 to 12 12 to 14 14+ Total Area within the Helena-Aurora Ranges ha % 4.15 0.12 272.34 7.89 1798.06 52.10 1060.45 30.73 252.98 7.33 51.19 1.48 9.99 0.29 2.02 0.06 3,451 100 Area within J5 Pit ha % 0.35 0.57 9.29 15.26 39.79 65.35 10.12 16.63 1.08 1.77 0.23 0.38 0.03 0.05 0 0.00 60.9 100 Area within Bungalbin East Pit ha % 4.30 2.93 53.86 36.74 75.83 51.73 9.35 6.38 2.37 1.62 0.79 0.54 0.08 0.05 0 0.00 146.6 100 Source: CAD Resources Table 3-9: Vegetation Height Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges Vegetation Height 0 to 0.5m 0.5 to 1m 1 to 2m 2 to 5m 5 to 10m 10m + Total Source: CAD Resources Area within the Helena-Aurora Ranges ha % 158.18 4.58 430.54 12.48 566.48 16.42 1500.55 43.48 790.64 22.91 4.81 0.14 3,451 100 Area within J5 Pit ha % 2.38 3.91 4.93 8.10 8.06 13.23 28.42 46.68 17.06 28.02 0.04 0.06 60.9 100 Area within Bungalbin East Pit ha % 6.49 4.43 15.87 10.83 24.03 16.40 67.01 45.72 32.09 21.90 1.08 0.73 146.6 100 J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-15 3.4 Landscape Character Units 3.4.1 Overview Detailed mapping of local landscape characteristics and the regional landform mapping by Newbey (1985) were utilised to identify the following LCUs within the LAU: Western Range. Central and Eastern Ranges. Plains. Drainage Lines. These LCUs are mapped on Figure 3-11 and described in Sections 3.4.2-3.4.5. In summary, the Plains LCU (as mapped) covers the largest area of the LAU (Table 3-10). This unit is broad, open and relatively flat, and occupies a lower position in the landscape. The terrain is gently undulating and includes a number of low ridges and other elevated features, but none of these are as visually dominant in the LAU as the Western Range LCU and the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU. The LCU provides open views where lower shrublands occur, but views become partially or completely enclosed where the vegetation is higher and/or denser. Western Range LCU and the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU are both described in Table 3-10 as being elevated with generally broad, open views that become partially enclose by woodlands and taller shrublands. However, the Western Range LCU is visually different to the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU as it has a generally lower elevation and has hills that are generally more rounded than those in the Central and Eastern Ranges (see Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3). The Western Range LCU (as mapped) covers the smallest area of the LAU (Table 3-10). The Drainage Lines LCU covers an area about three times the size of the Western Range LCU, but smaller than the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU (Table 3-10). Its presence low in the landscape is similar to that of the Plains LCU, though it can be distinguished visually from elevated areas based on changes in vegetation patterns. Where vegetation is taller and/or denser, views become more enclosed and can be obscured. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-16 Table 3-10: Visual Landscape Summary LCU Western Range Central and Eastern Range Plains Drainage Lines Unmapped Area Total View Experience Elevated with generally broad, open views. Partially enclosed by woodlands and the taller shrublands. Elevated with generally broad, open views. Partially enclosed by woodlands and the taller shrublands. Broad, open and relatively flat. Lower position in the landscape. Open views across lower shrubland communities, but partially enclosed by woodlands. Lower position in the landscape. Incised to broad drainage features. Taller and denser vegetation encloses views. Indicative Area (ha) Infrastructure WRL and Roads Indicative Area within LAU (ha) Pit(s) 727.66 54.74 16.98 4.07 75.79 2,723.57 146.14 0.07 1.22 147.44 24,514.79 6.59 167.92 187.58 362.08 0.08 21.06 21.14 185.06 213.92 606.45 2,120.48 4,733.27 34,819.76 207.45 Total J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-17 3.4.2 Western Range LCU The Western Range LCU comprises L1-L3 and is generally natural in appearance. A number of tracks and exploration gridlines traverse this LCU and a number of informal campsites are present. J5 is located at the eastern end of L3 (Figure 3-11). This LCU is visually different to the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU (see Section 3.4.3) as it is lower in height and the hills are generally more rounded than those in the Central and Eastern Ranges (Plates 3-1 to 3-4). When viewed from a distance, the Western Range LCU appears as a rolling blue feature with curved lines just visible above the plains vegetation (Plate 3-3). However, closer views reveal a more textured landscape dotted with rugged rocky outcrops in shades of reddish brown. The visually irregular nature of these outcrops depends on their resistance to weathering processes. Those rock types more susceptible to weathering have a lower profile and more rounded appearance than those that are resistant to weathering. The 10 m high “monolith” at J5 (Site 15) is an example of more resistant rocky material (Plate 3-4). Closer views of the Western Range LCU, such as those provided along the Marda Track, reveal a ridgeline vegetation in muted greens with patches of grey shrubs (Plate 3-4). As the hills in this LCU are relatively low, views of this portion of the HAR are often obscured by vegetation (Plates 3-5 and 3-6). Weathering processes are also responsible for the textured appearance of the gravelly soils that occur along the ridgeline. These are defined by Soil Water Consultants (SWC) as SMU 1: Skeletal Gravels (SWC, 2016). With increasing distance downslope, the thickness of the surface gravels gradually increases due to colluvial deposition, resulting in the formation of SMU2: Shallow – Deep Gravels. With the majority of the coarser textured particles (i.e. gravels) deposited in upslope areas, the soils become predominately fine textured as distance downslope increases. These finer textured soils have been defined by SWC (2016) as SMU 3: Deep Alluvial Clays and effectively form the plain soils surrounding the outcropping ridges (SWC, 2016). 3.4.3 Central and Eastern Ranges LCU The central portion of the HAR comprises the largest continual area of the ranges and includes Bungalbin Hill (at the western end of L4) and the Bungalbin East mine (at the eastern end of L4). Two smaller areas of the HAR occur to the northeast of L4 and are termed L5 and L6. These three areas of the HAR have a generally higher elevation than the western portion (see Section 3.3.2) and collectively comprise the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU. The Central and Eastern Ranges LCU is generally natural in appearance though access tracks, historical exploration disturbances and campsites are present in this LCU. Due to its elevation, this LCU is quite visible even when viewed from a distance (Plates 3-7 and 3-8). At a distance, this LCU is J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-18 bluish in colour, but in closer proximity, the palette becomes dominated by the muted greens and olives of the open eucalypt woodland and acacia shrublands. The discontinuous canopy of the woodlands opens up in places to allow clear views of the HAR though at some locations it screens or obscures the view of the range (Plates 3-9 and 3-10). Rugged bedrock exposures and rocky outcrops are common on the steep slopes and crests of the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU. Additional texture is added by the gravelly soil that occurs along and downslope of the ridgelines (Plate 3-11) and which becomes increasingly fine-textured as distance downslope increases (SWC, 2016). Small cliff faces and caves are also present in some areas, more on south and east facing slopes (Plates 312 and 3-13). 3.4.4 Plains LCU The Plains LCU surrounds the Western Range and Central and Eastern LCUs. It is generally natural in appearance, but is traversed by the four major access tracks to the HAR (the Koolyanobbing Track, Marda Track, Mt Dimer Track and Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track) as well as minor tracks. A number of informal campsites occur within this LCU as well as the more established campsite at Site 8. The Plains LCU has been described by Newbey (1985) as containing Broad Valleys, Sandplains and Undulating Plains (Greenstone). The visual character of this LCU is illustrated in Plates 3-14 and 315. The Broad Valley landform (Plate 3-14) comprises the choked remnant of a former drainage system which was active under a higher rainfall regime than occurs now. The valley floors occur 20-50 m below the surrounding Sandplain landform and are flat to gentle-concave with slopes of less than 2°. Newbey (1985) notes that the soils of this landform have an intricate history of in situ weathering, colluvial, alluvial and aeolian actions, and that valley carbonates have been largely leached from the surrounding Sandplain (Newbey, 1985). The Sandplain landform comprises the almost flat upland plain and the upper and middle valley slopes (Plate 3-15). Newbey (1985) defines the dividing line between Sandplain and Broad Valley as the change from erosional to colluvial valley slopes. Sandplain slopes rarely exceed 2° and the internal relief is rarely more than 15 m (Newbey, 1985). Newbey (1985) notes that Sandplain soils have developed over a long period of time and have been laterized to some extent. Extensive sand sheets with a major component of colluvium from slightly higher places on the Sandplain have developed in some places, and, occasionally, vegetated remnants of small dunes from drier periods are present (Bowler [1976] notes that the last major dry period appears to have occurred about 15,000 years ago). These dunal remnants provide a small degree of variety in this visual landscape. There are no definitive drainage lines, but flows may occur over short distances following heavy and intense falls of rain (Newbey, 1985). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-19 The last of the landform units within the Plains LCU mapped by Newbey (1985) is the Undulating Plains (Plate 3-15). The landform type comprises low rises and ridges interspersed with colluvial flats that range from 50 m to 500 m in width and are drained by channels up to 1 m deep and 5 m wide. Most rises and ridges are less than 5 m above the flats and have slopes that rarely exceed 10°. Soils on the colluvial flats rarely exceed 1 m in thickness, are shallow on the rises and skeletal amongst bedrock exposures on the ridges (Newbey, 1985). The vegetation of the Plains LCU is dominated by eucalyptus woodland and acacia shrubland that include medium to large shrubs interspersed occasionally with large trees in varying density. The shrubland tends to be lower and denser than the woodland, though both have canopies with muted colours of khaki and light brown. The more gravelly soils typically have red to coffee browns hues, while the sandy soils are lighter in colour. 3.4.5 Drainage Lines LCU As stated in Section 3.3.3, there are no permanent or semi-permanent water bodies within, or the vicinity of, the HAR. Consequently, the presence of this LCU within the wider landscape is defined more by vegetation patterns than the presence of water. For example, the correlation between vegetation height and the water-gaining drainage lines is evident when the Wetness Index map (Figure 3-9) is compared to the vegetation height map (Figure 3-10). The creeks within the Drainage Lines LCU are ephemeral, relatively narrow and shallow. However, there is often a higher level of soil moisture in the drainage lines which can support denser and often taller vegetation (as well as different plant species) that enhances the visibility of these features as they traverse the Plains LCU (Plates 3-16 and 3-17). 3.5 Scenic Qualities High scenic quality, particularly scenery with natural landscapes, is often a primary reason that people choose to visit conservation parks and similar areas (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2000). Scenic quality is based on landscape character and scenic integrity, as defined below: Landscape character is the overall visual impression of attributes that provides a landscape with an identity and sense of place. The combination of physical, biological and cultural attributes is what makes each landscape identifiable and distinct (USDA, 2000). Scientific integrity is a measure of the wholeness or completeness of the landscape, including the degree of visual deviation from the landscape character valued by viewers (USDA, 2000). The HAR landscape comprises distinctive rock formations and rugged landforms that rise above the undulating plains. The key scenic qualities of the HAR and surrounds were identified in consultation with key stakeholders and are summarised in Table 3-11. This classification is based on the frame of reference provided in CALM et al. (1994). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-20 Table 3-11: Visual Quality Classification of the Helena-Aurora Ranges and Surrounding Plains Scenic Quality High Moderate Low Landform Bungalbin Hill. Central portion and eastern portions of the HAR where views of the rugged ridgetops are evident above or through vegetation. Assemblages of small caves, particularly in the eastern part of the central portion of the HAR. Small monolith at J5. Cliff faces. Western portion of the HAR where views of the range are partially obscured by vegetation. Expanses of similar landforms such as foothills which are often visually obscured by denser vegetation and which provide few landmarks. Waterform Nil Nil Incised valleys. Shallow drainage lines in the foothills and on adjacent plains. Vegetation Seasonal wildflower displays, mainly in the months of September and October. Stands of vegetation (woodlands, mallees) that create distinctive forms, colours or spacing in comparison to surrounding vegetation. Vegetation stands that exhibit the range of size, form, colour, texture and spacing that occur commonly in the surrounding landscape. Extensive areas of similar vegetation with limited variation in colour and texture. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-21 The landforms and vegetation within the MMHARCP are predominantly intact, but are not in pristine condition. Regional mineral exploration for iron ore by BHP began in the 1950s and subsequently included areas of the HAR. Exploration drilling at J5 by Portman Iron Ore (now Cliffs Natural Resources) was also conducted in 2005-06, prior to the gazettal of the MMHARCP. Existing disturbance within the park includes historical exploration gridlines and access tracks, drill pads, sumps, drill holes, costeans, samples and sample bags, drums and other refuse (Plates 3-18 and 319). It is estimated that 16.2 ha of disturbance is present within the HAR. Within the LAU, which has an approximate area of 34,820 ha, there are approximately 151 ha of existing disturbance. This includes tracks and disturbances associated with camping and other recreational activities (Plates 320 and 3-21). 3.6 Visual Receptors and Viewing Points 3.6.1 Key Visual Receptors Visual impacts relate to the changes made to the composition of available views of landscapes. The significance of these impacts depends on the type and extent of modification to the existing landscape, whether these are temporary or permanent modifications, and people’s responses to these changes. For the purposes of this assessment, key visual receptors comprise visitors travelling through the area without stopping as well as those who make day trips or stay for longer periods. The sensitivity of these receptors to changes in visual amenity depends on a range of factors including: their level of interest in the visual environment; magnitude of the change in visual amenity and duration of the change (temporary or permanent); duration of the viewing opportunity (e.g. short or prolonged viewing opportunities); number of viewers and their distance/angle of view of the affected area; extent of screening/filtering of the view, where relevant; the extent to which the change or modification to the landscape can be integrated within the existing landscape and views; and effectiveness of proposed mitigation and management measures. Much of the Proposal is located within the MMHARCP (No. 48470) which, as discussed in Section 1.2, is managed by the DPaW. EPA (2015a) states that the MMHARCP was created to facilitate recreational activities consistent with the conservation of flora and fauna, and the preservation of archaeological, historical or scientific features. Interestingly, a camping and day trip guide produced by the Wilderness Society and HARA states that the area is not managed for recreational use (Wilderness Society and HARA, undated). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-22 MRL obtained information on visitor use of the MMHARCP during engagement with the DPaW and other stakeholders (see Appendix A). In summary, the MMHARCP is a destination for commercial tours, recreational groups and others visiting the Great Western Woodlands, particularly during peak wildflower viewing during the months of September-October. Based on information collated during MRL’s stakeholder engagement program, key activities include four-wheel driving, sightseeing, wildflower viewing, bird/wildlife viewing, bushwalking/hiking, camping, photography, picnicking/barbequing, and relaxing. Around half of the four-wheel drive enthusiasts mentioned the “tread lightly” philosophy. Nearly all of those consulted during MRL’s stakeholder engagement program for this VIA participated in most of the activities listed above (Appendix A). However, visiting Aboriginal/cultural sites is not a popular activity. Reasons for this include lack of interest and cultural sensitivity (i.e. not wishing to visit these places in the absence of an appropriate guide). High-energy activities such as rock climbing, abseiling and cycling were also not popular activities within the MMHARCP. Camping trips are organised by a range of organisations including the Wilderness Society in conjunction with the HARA (Wilderness Society and HARA, 2015). Visitors are able to select their own campsites and a number of these were located during the field assessments including the former Bungalbin East campsite (Plate 3-18), a campsite north of the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track (Plate 3-17), and informal ad hoc campsites within and adjacent to the HAR (see Section 4.3). Most of the campsites observed during the field assessments were clean and tidy at those times, but litter and domestic waste were observed at the Bungalbin East campsite. It is understood that the DPaW now prohibits camping at this site. Despite being readily accessible from Perth, Kalgoorlie and Southern Cross, the MMHARCP has relatively low visitation rates. Data from two vehicle counters installed by the DPaW (one to the southwest of the Bungalbin East campsite and the other close to the campsite on the northern side of the HAR) indicate that the number of vehicles recorded within the park averages between the low 100s to just over 200 vehicles in a six-month period during 2013-15. Based on assumptions made regarding the number of people in each vehicle, this corresponds to around 160-200 visitors every six months or so (Bioscope Environmental, 2016b). During the MRL stakeholder engagement program, it was found that the serenity of the area and the fact that it does not have high visitation rates are drawcards for most of the stakeholders consulted, as is the relative ease of access from Perth. 3.6.2 Access and Travel Routes A number of unsealed tracks provide access to the MMHARCP and the HAR itself (Figure 2-3). These are: the Koolyanobbing Track, which provides access from the south; the Marda Track, which provides access from the west leading from the Bullfinch-Evanston Road); J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-23 the Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track, which provides access from the east; and the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track, which provides access from the northeast. The Koolyanobbing Track is the main access route used by those consulted during MRL’s stakeholder engagement program for this VIA (Appendix A). In general, these stakeholders could identify this access route by name, but there was very little name recognition for the other tracks other than by professional tour guides and environmental groups (NGOs). These groups were very familiar with the area and provided precise information, but the majority of those consulted did not have detailed knowledge of the area and generally stay on the tracks and in vehicles until they get into the HAR where most will drive as far as possible and then walk to a high vantage point (see Section 3.6.3). 3.6.3 Vantage Points and Viewing Locations The main viewing locations and vantage points (including tracks to and within the MMHARCP) identified by the DPaW and other key stakeholders (see Section 2.7 and Appendix A) are listed in Table 3-12. The significance levels used in Table 3-12 are as identified by WAPC and DPI (2007). These are: Level 1: national/State significance. WAPC and DPI (2007) indicates that examples of these include: o State highways and other main roads (sealed or unsealed) with high levels of vehicle usage; o designated tourist routes and scenic drives; o recreation, conservation, cultural or scenic sites, areas, viewpoints and lookouts of State or national significance, including their access routes; o walk, cycle or riding tracks of national or State significance; o towns, settlements or residential areas; and o views of national or State importance. Level 2: regional significance. Examples provided by WAPC and DPI (2007) include: o main roads with moderate levels of regional usage (sealed or unsealed); o recreation, conservation, cultural or scenic sites, areas, viewpoints and lookouts of regional or high local significance, including their access routes; o walk, cycle or riding tracks of national or State significance; and o views of regional importance. Level 3: local significance. Examples of these are identified by WAPC and DPI as: o all remaining roads with low levels of regional usage; o locally significant tracks or roads; o recreation and other use areas of local significance; o walk, cycle or riding tracks of local significance; and o views of local importance. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-24 Table 3-12: Local and Regional Vantage Points and Viewing Locations Significance Level Level 1 Level 2 Location MMHARCP Bungalbin East former campsite Campsite on the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track (Site 8) J5 lookout Bullfinch-Evanston Road/Marda Track Koolyanobbing Track Mt Manning Mt Manning Track Level 3 Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track Pittosporum Rocks Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track Mt Dimer Description Designated tourist site of state/regional significance. This location has been used as an informal campsite for many years. It is understood that the DPaW recently prohibited camping at this location, but it is still accessible to visitors and is used as a lookout. Informal camping area on northern side of the HAR. Although an informal campsite, it is understood that the DPaW recently installed a sign identifying this site as a camping ground. Informal lookout on a ridge top in the western portion of the HAR. The Bullfinch-Evanston Road is a major unsealed road leading to Mt Jackson, the Die Hardy Range and the town of Menzies. The Marda Track is a local unsealed track between the Bullfinch-Evanston Road and the western entry to the MMHARCP and the HAR. Minor unsealed track between Koolyanobbing and Mt Dimer, leading to the southern entry to the MMHARCP and the HAR Regional high point and scenic location of high local significance. The Mt Manning Track provides access to this location, but this does not extend beyond the base of the range. Unsealed track between the BullfinchEvanston Road, and the western entry points to the Mt Manning Range Natures Reserve and the MMHARCP (Mt Manning). Local unsealed track between Pittosporum Rocks and the northeastern entry to the MMHARCAP and the HAR. This track is designed as 4WD only on local maps (see, for example, Wilderness Society and HARA [undated]). Scenic site of local significance Minor unsealed track between Jaurdi Station and the eastern entrance to the MMHARCP and the HAR Regional high point and scenic site of local significance. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-25 WAPC and DPI (2007) recognises that the significance level of access routes increases with: the importance of the views including type, features and rarity; the volume of use of roads and trails; the degree of sensitivity of viewers (such as tourists); the degree to which viewing the landscape is integral to the enjoyment of the travel route or site; and the duration of view, e.g. glimpses along the roads compared to long, uninterrupted views from a key viewing location. Regional vantage points to view the HAR include Mt Manning and Mt Dimer as well as major access routes to the MMHARCP. As indicated in Section 3.6.2, the Koolyanobbing Track is the main access route used by those consulted by MRL. The majority of those consulted generally stay on the tracks and drive as far as possible, then walk to a high vantage point such as the Bungalbin East former campsite, the J5 campsite and Bungalbin Hill. Most of those consulted by MRL could not name the high points of the HAR, but it was evident that a key objective of these visitors is to get up as high as possible into the range and observe panoramic views from accessible locations. These include the Bungalbin East former campsite, J5 lookout and Bungalbin Hill, but it is recognised that other high points are readily accessible. In addition to the views, high points are favoured for provision of mobile telephone connections. 3.7 View Experience The view experiences from J5 and Bungalbin East are described in Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2. These are as experience by the field personnel conducting the third field assessment (see Section 2.6). Other visitors may have difference experiences. NGO/environmental groups consulted by MRL for this VIA noted that they liked the views from J5 to Bungalbin East, and vice versa (Appendix A). In general, south and east facing views are favoured. There was recognition within this stakeholder group that the southerly views differed from the northerly views. As indicated in Section 3.7.3, the main viewing locations and vantage points in relation to the HAR are the main access tracks to and within the MMHARCP, Mt Manning and Mt Dimer. The view experiences for these routes and locations are described in Sections 3.7.3 to 3.7.5. 3.7.1 J5 The Western Range of the HAR (L1-L3) is readily accessible by vehicles from the Marda Track. Although this section of the range is relatively low in elevation compared with the Central and Ranges (L4-L6), there are nonetheless expansive views in most directions from key vantage points. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-26 The outcropping ironstone comprises the highest part of the ridgeline in the Western Range. Site 15 is located just north of, and beneath, the tallest and largest ironstone outcrop on the ridgeline of L3. Consequently, views from Site 15 to the south of the HAR are completely obscured though there are sweeping views over open eucalypt woodland northeast along the flanks of the Central and Eastern Ranges, north towards Mt Manning in the background and west along the northern flanks of the Western Range. Site 53 is located a relatively short distance from Site 15 at the eastern extent of the ironstone outcrop, yet affords expansive views towards most points of the compass with the exception of views to the west, which are obscured by the range itself. From this site, the view across eucalypt woodland and acacia shrubland to the Koolyanobbing Range (some 40 km away) is uninterrupted. The rolling summits of the central portion of the HAR, including Bungalbin Hill, dominate the skyline to the east of the site (Figure 3-12). The view in this direction comprises an open woodland of sandplain mallee mixed with a tall open shrubland of granite wattle interspersed occasionally with orange-brown rocky outcrops and cliffs. To the north of Site 53, the views are similar to those from Site 15. 3.7.2 Bungalbin East The HAR in the vicinity of the Bungalbin East deposit is readily accessible via an unsealed four-wheel drive track that branches off the Pittosporum Rocks Track and leads to the top of the range. This portion of the HAR contains some of the tallest summits of the range and consequently provides expansive views that stretch to the horizon. Site 48 is located at the former Bungalbin East camping area (DPaW has now prohibited camping at this location) at a point directly above a cliff-line on the southern side of the HAR. This site provides expansive views to the north-northeast along the rocky ramparts and overhangs of the adjacent ridgeline, east over the Great Western Woodlands towards Hunt Range, Mt Dimer and beyond, and south-southeast towards the Finnerty Range and the Koolyanobbing Range (Figure 3-13). There are generally no views to the northwest, west or southwest from Site 48 as they are obscured by the HAR itself. In contrast, Site 49 (which is located only a short distance to the north of Site 48) provides some views to the west (Figure 3-13). 3.7.3 Travel Routes Koolyanobbing Track The Koolyanobbing Track traverses eucalyptus woodland in the south near Koolyanobbing. Heading north along this track, the vegetation transitions to extensive acacia shrubland on granite sandplains then eucalypt woodland in the vicinity of Aurora mine. Within the granite sandplains, shrubs of Acacia sp. frequently overhang the edges of the track, limiting visibility of the adjacent landscape. Occasional larger eucalypt trees are also present in this area. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-27 The MMHARCP entrance is located at Site 38 (Figure 3-14). The view from this site is generally representative of the view experience within the granite sandplains. There are no views of the HAR looking north from this viewpoint, as shown in Figure 3-14. The view experience is predominantly small scale and enclosed by vegetation with muted colours of khaki and light brown. Typical species are Acacia neurophylla, Acacia beauverdiana and Acacia resinomarginea. The first view of the HAR heading north along the Koolyanobbing Track occurs well within the boundary of the MMHARCP. During the July 2015 field assessment, this occurred at Site 26. However, during the June 2016 site assessment, this occurred at Site 52 as recent track maintenance had pushed over some of the larger acacia shrubs that overcrowd the edge of the track, revealing recently burnt areas with vegetation of smaller stature. As this vegetation is relatively low there are views across the sandplain to the HAR, which appears low on the horizon (Figure 3-14). From Site 52 northward along the Koolyanobbing Track, there are only occasional glimpses of the HAR. For example, at Site 25 glimpses of the range occur through the surrounding woodland (Figure 3-14). Bullfinch-Evanston Road and Marda Track Heading north from Bullfinch, the Bullfinch-Evanston Road traverses low-lying sandplains interspersed with linear chains of salt lakes associated with the extensive Lake Deborah system. Middle and background views are generally not available from the road due to the height of surrounding vegetation. Immediately north of Lake Deborah, the Bullfinch-Evanston Road traverses medium woodland of York Gum, Salmon Gum and Gimlet with an open, simple character. However, all views beyond the foreground are obscured by large trees in every direction. Site 39 is a typical example of this view experience (Figure 3-15). Site 40 on the Bullfinch-Evanston Road provides a fleeting glimpse of the HAR to the east (Figure 315). This site marks a transition from medium woodland to the acacia shrubland that typifies the granite sandplains. Accordingly, the vegetation in this area is a mixture of medium to large shrubs interspersed occasionally with large trees that are dense in some areas and sparse in others. Site 41 occurs further north along the Bullfinch-Evanston Road within the granite sandplains. It affords an expansive view over acacia shrubland to the HAR and parts of the Jackson Range, which appear low on the horizon (Figure 3-15). The landscape character at this site can be described as smooth in texture, having rolling form with muted colour and generally harmonious balance. There are no further views of the HAR whilst travelling in a northerly direction to the junction of the Bullfinch-Evanston Road with the Marda Track. The Jackson Range tends to dominate the view experience in this regard, although it is only evident occasionally through eucalypt woodland in proximity to that range and beyond as far as the Die Hardy Range. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-28 The Marda Track extends from Marda Dam near Mt Jackson along the length of Jackson Range in an easterly direction as far as the HAR. It initially traverses eucalypt woodland of York Gum, Salmon Gum and Gimlet on the northern side of the range. Site 44 provides the first glimpse of the western section of the HAR from the Marda Track as it is situated adjacent to a locally elevated ridgeline that parallels the Jackson Range to the south. The landscape around this site is large and open with diverse vegetation in the form of trees, shrubs and groundcover. However, the vegetation adjacent to the track is more enclosed and channels long views of the HAR (see Figure 3-15). It appears discordant due to the views in the middle distance being juxtaposed with tall trees in the immediate foreground. A more extensive, although partially obscured, view of the central portion of the HAR occurs at Site 46 from within a brachychiton mixed open woodland/acacia closed shrubland (Figure 3-15). Between Sites 44 and 46, the Marda Track passes immediately to the north of MRL’s J4 iron ore mine. There is no visual evidence of this mine rom this track other than some basic signage, the gated closure of the pre-mine track alignment over the Jackson Range and the demarcation of several Aboriginal heritage places. East of Site 46, the Marda Track affords glimpses of the HAR before the track traverses the range in the vicinity of Site 2 (Figure 2-2). The track then continues eastward along the southern side of the range within tan wattle (Acacia hemiteles) tall open shrubland. This shrubland affords glimpses of the low ridgeline of L1-L3 adjacent to the track such as those present at Site 1 (Figure 3-15). At times, the muted green of the ridgeline shrubland is indiscernible from the canopy of the tall open shrubland beneath, being similar in colouration. Towards the eastern end of L3, the higher and more extensive ridgeline associated with J5, Bungalbin Central and Bungalbin Hill becomes noticeable (relative to the viewer’s position at J5), where it tends to dominate the view experience. However, at Site 14 (which is effectively at the junction of the Marda Track, the Pittosporum Rocks Track and the Koolyanobbing Track), the acacia tall open shrubland of the drainage line encloses the view experience to the extent the neither the western nor central portions of the HAR are particularly evident (Figure 3-15). Gus Luck Track and Mt Dimer Track There are distant views of the HAR from elevated positions within the Finnerty Range, ranging from clear vistas to obscured views (e.g. see Site 29 on Figure 3-16. It should be noted that Site 29 does not occur on the Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track, but is located on an access track to MRL’s Carina mine operation and therefore is closed to the public). However, where the Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track traverses the eucalypt woodland (Salmon Gum, York Gum and Gimlet) immediately west of the Finnerty Range, view of the HAR are limited. This extensive woodland occurs at a lower elevation in the landscape and, whilst large in scale and open, does not generally afford any views beyond the foreground (relative to the viewer’s position on the track). Site 30 provides an example of this view experience (Figure 3-16). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-29 From the junction of the Gus Luck Track with the Mt Dimer Track, the latter heads west toward Vector Resources’ Mt Dimer gold mine and then towards the central portion of the HAR. The track diverts to the south of the Mt Dimer gold mine, emerging from the eucalypt woodland onto an area of higher elevation with an acacia open shrubland of turpentine mulga with mixed casuarina trees (she-oak). Site 28 (at the Mt Dimer go-around) provides the first view of the HAR along the Mt Dimer Track (Figure 3-16). This site is surrounded by low to medium acacia shrubs, but is relatively open as a result of recent fire. In the middle-ground (relative to the viewer on the track) the muted green canopy of the eucalypt woodland provides diversity against a rolling background in which the HAR is visible. Further west of Site 28, the Mt Dimer Track splits in two, with one branch extending west-southwest towards the Aurora gold mine and the other north then west to towards Bungalbin East. The southern branch of the track traverses eucalypt woodland for its entire length until it meets the Koolyanobbing Track. Whilst the woodland is relatively open beneath the tall trees of York Gum, Salmon Gum and Gimlet, it affords no views of the HAR due to the largely enclosed canopy. The northern branch of the Mt Dimer Track traverses open eucalypt woodland of Salmon Gum and Gimlet over bladder saltbush, old man saltbush and silver emu bush. The open woodland permits glimpses of the ridgeline of the HAR between gaps in the discontinuous green canopy upon approach to Bungalbin East, such as at Site 21 (Figure 3-16). In proximity to the HAR, the range becomes visually evident as a landform looming beyond the canopy, but again only glimpses are occasionally available due to the tall but chaotic timber of the open woodland. Sites 19 and 22 provide examples of this view experience (Figure 3-16). This view experience continues along the Mt Dimer Track as it winds its way around the southern flanks of the HAR, to the junction with the Koolyanobbing Track just to the south of Bungalbin Hill. Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track Pittosporum Rocks comprise a small, low, bare granite outcrop situated about two kilometres west of Hunt Range. It is surrounded by scattered eucalypt trees and an acacia shrubland in varying shades of green that becomes progressively more closed with distance from the Rocks. Site 32 provides an example of the view experience from Pittosporum Rocks, being large in scale, smooth in texture and rolling in form as the eye settles on the slate blue HAR in the background (Figure 3-17). Heading southwest along the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track from Site 33, the view of the HAR becomes obscured by the enclosed acacia shrubland before becoming briefly visible again in the direction of travel in proximity to Site 33 (Figure 3-17). This view experience continues for most of the length of the track, with glimpses of the HAR occurring occasionally immediately southwest of Site 34 and then more frequently between Site 35 and Site 47 (Figure 3-17). All of these sites occur within Acacia shrubland, some of which shows evidence of recent fire (where the shrubland is typically less dense and often lower in height). It is noted that Site 34 itself, which is located at a MMHARCP entry point, provides no views of the HAR (Figure 3-17). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-30 As the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track approaches the HAR, the ridgeline becomes progressively more visually evident within the landscape and the slate blue colouration typical of the background view gives way to red coffee browns and muted greens of the soil, rocks and vegetation. Site 47 is the final location, in this direction of travel, from which a clear view of the HAR can be obtained before the acacia shrubland gives way to eucalypt open woodland in proximity to the range. This woodland tends to obscure views of the HAR in part or in full in some areas. For example, at Site 8 (a campsite located on the northern side of the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track), views of the HAR are partially obscured by eucalypt trees and understory species (Figure 3-17). However, the HAR is more visible where the vegetation opens up. See, for example, Site 6 on Figure 3-17. The Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track is lined with Eucalypt open woodland until its junction with the Marda Track and Koolyanobbing Track immediately east of the J5 deposit. The open woodland affords lingering glimpses of the foreboding steep flanks and ridgeline of the HAR through the canopy of soft green leaves. Mt Manning Track The Mt Manning Track departs the Bullfinch-Evanston Road in an easterly direction in the vicinity of the Die Hardy Range (Figure 3-18). In this location, the track traverses medium woodland of York Gum, Salmon Gum and Red Mallee with restricted views resulting from the enclosed canopy. Further east along the Mt Manning Track, the woodland transitions to acacia mixed open shrubland on sandy soils, marking a gradual descent from an elevated breakaway associated with the Die Hardy Range to the lower country between the Die Hardy and Mt Manning ranges. Site 42 provides a vast view experience east to the Mt Manning Range in the middle ground and south to the HAR in the background (Figure 3-18). The rolling, dominant hills of the Mt Manning Range appear as blue-green whilst the impressive extent of the HAR is clearly evident in slate blue across an undulating green carpet of acacia shrubland and eucalypt woodland. The view experience from Mt Manning is described in Section 3.7.4. 3.7.4 Mt Manning The ridgeline of the Mt Manning Range is only accessible on foot from an unsealed vehicular access track that leads to the base of the range. At the base of the range, from the unsealed track there are views of the surrounding acacia mixed open shrubland against the dominant backdrop of the rounded hills and sloping ridgeline of the Mt Manning Range. Site 43 is located at the top of the western extremity of the Mt Manning Range. The elevation gain relative to the access track below provides the visitor with vast and expansive views of the HAR, the Mt Jackson Range and the Die Hardy Range, as well as views to the north and north-west that take in the western side of the Mt Manning Range (Figure 3-19). This view is characterised by the muted shades of smooth green vegetation generally in the mid-ground with angular to rolling slate blue hills in the background. In the foreground, there is a diversity of colourful vegetation of light-green J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 3-31 acacia, stunted grey-white trunks of eucalypt trees, green-grey tussock grass overlying the burnt orange soil and oxidised blue ironstone rock of the Mt Manning Range. 3.7.5 Mt Dimer Mt Dimer is located between the southern end of the Hunt Range and northern end of the Finnerty Range, approximately 20 km east of Site 48 at Bungalbin East (Figures 2-2 and 2-3). It is accessed via an unsealed, infrequently used and at times overgrown track meandering through mixed open woodland of desert kurrajong and closed shrubland of granite wattle, the latter being more prevalent on elevated, rocky slopes such as Mt Dimer. The top of Mt Dimer is accessible on foot via a heavily overgrown four-wheel drive track, but even with only modest elevation gain there are views to the south, west and north inclusive of the HAR. The view from the top of Mt Dimer is vast in scale across a dense carpet of juniper green woodland/shrubland transitioning to Aegean blue in the distance, set against the slate grey-blue backdrop of the HAR (Figure 3-20). The view is expansive, although occasionally obscured by taller vegetation in greens and olives in the foreground depending on the viewing position. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-1 VISUAL IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT 4.1 Relevant Aspects The ESD for the Proposal identifies clearing of native vegetation and mining construction, operation and closure as the aspects of relevance to the assessment of Amenity, including visual amenity. This places primary focus on the J5 and Bungalbin East pits, WRLs, access routes and supporting infrastructure. 4.2 Visual Management Objectives The overarching Visual Management Objective (VMO) for the Proposal is to ensure that visual impacts are reduced to as low as reasonably practicable. This aligns with the EPA’s objective for Amenity. In relation to the construction and operation phases of the Proposal, MRL aims to: undertake best practice siting and design in order to reduce the visual impact of those areas affected by Proposal implementation; and protect and maintain the visual landscape character of those portions of the HAR not affected by Proposal implementation to ensure that these retain their visual prominence. In relation to the closure phases of the Proposal, MRL will seek to restore and/or enhance those areas where visual landscape character has become degraded due to Proposal implementation, where practicable. The management targets and actions for light, dust and visual landscape are outlined in the Amenity EMP (Bioscope Environmental, 2016b). This EMP should be read in conjunction with this VIA. 4.3 Existing Disturbance and Impacts As discussed in Section 3.5, the HAR and surrounds are relatively intact, but are not pristine. Disturbance has occurred at J5 and Bungalbin East, and throughout the wider HAR and MMHARCP, as a result of recreational use, mineral exploration and road/track development and usage (Figure 41). The presence of existing disturbances in the form of tracks and exploration gridlines improves access to the HAR. Vehicle usage of the tracks in the MMHARCP results in the generation of dust. Dust liftoff also occurs from bare areas such as campsites under dry and windy conditions. There are no permanent sources of light at the HAR or immediate surrounds, but the use of roads and campsites in the area result in temporary and localised sources of light. Other sources of light within the region include the Koolyanobbing iron ore mine to the south the HAR. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-2 4.4 Predicted Visual Impacts 4.4.1 Construction and Operations Impacts Those aspects of the Proposal that could result in visual impacts include: Progressive clearing of up to 606.45 ha of native vegetation over pit areas and the WRL footprints, along roads and other linear corridors, and over areas required for supporting infrastructure. This would be required for: o Development of open pits at J5 and Bungalbin East. The voids remaining following the cessation of mining operations represent a permanent change in the ranges. o Development of WRLs on the plains adjacent to the J5 and Bungalbin East pits. These features also represent a permanent change in the landform of these areas. o Development of offices and other supporting infrastructure required for the Proposal. These are considered to be temporary land use changes as these facilities will be removed and the disturbance footprints will be rehabilitated following cessation of operations. o Development of the J5 and Bungalbin East haul roads. The haul roads will be rehabilitated when no longer required, so are considered to be a temporary impact. Dust generation during construction and operation of the Proposal as a result of earthworks, ore haulage, waste rock disposal and other transport activities, and during rehabilitation and closure earthworks. Dust lift-off will also occur from exposed WRL surfaces, ore stockpiles, topsoil stockpiles and other disturbances during construction and operations, and from rehabilitated and unrehabilitated surfaces during and following site closure. Dust can adversely affect scenic amenity although such effects are transient in nature. Installation and use of lighting for safety and security of the operations. Light-spill can be distracting and annoying, and can affect sleep, particularly if the light is bright (EPA, 2008). There are few, if any, existing light sources in the HAR area so it is likely that lights from the Proposal will be visible from locations that have a direct line of sight, predominantly those at higher elevations within the landscape. These lights will include: o Static floodlights associated with mining operations. o Directional lighting around mining areas, WRLs and supporting infrastructure. o Vehicles moving around the site at night. o Lighting emanating from mine site buildings. 4.4.2 LCUs As discussed in Section 2.7.2, photographic montages and modelling of visual conditions before, during and after mining were prepared for 11 study sites to facilitate assessment of the visual impacts potentially associated with the Proposal. These sites were selected in consultation with, and agreed to by, the OEPA and the DPaW. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-3 Visual impact has been classified according to the WAPC and DPI (2007) categories presented in Table 4-1 and is discussed below. Those sites relevant to J5 (Sites 26, 3, 16 and 14) are discussed first, followed by those sites relevant to Bungalbin East (Sites 8, 9, 11, 19, 22, 21 and 20). Table 4-1: Visual Impact Categories Type of Visual Impact Not Evident Blending Prominent Description Development may be hidden, screened or not visible from specified viewing locations Development may be evident, but generally not prominent in that it borrows from the existing landscape setting Development may be a dominant feature in the landscape, drawing attention to itself. Source: WAPC and DPI (2007) Site 26 provides a long view (background) of the Western Range LCU from the Koolyanobbing Track. When approaching the HAR from the south (i.e. when travelling in a northerly direction along this track), it is likely that one of the first views of the J5 pit and WRL at the eastern end of L3 will occur in the vicinity of this site. During construction and operations, dust and night lighting may be visible from this viewpoint. Permanent changes to L3 resulting from development of the J5 pit and WRL will be visible during and following mining (Figure 4-2a). On this basis, the overall impact rating from this site is predicted to be Prominent. The Bungalbin East mining area will not be visible from Site 26 due to the screening effect of the shrubland vegetation (Figure 4-2b). Therefore, the overall impact rating for this viewpoint in relation to Bungalbin East is predicted to be Not Evident. Site 3 is located within the Western Range LCU. It was selected for assessment as it can be accessed by visitors to the HAR via a track that extends onto L3 (Figure 2-2). The viewshed shown in Figure 43 looks to the east towards J5, and demonstrates the way in which local topographic features and vegetation obscure direct views of the mine. On this basis the overall impact rating is predicted to be Not Evident. Dust and lighting associated with the J5 mine may be visible above the ridgeline, but these are only temporary impacts. The approximate location of the Bungalbin East mine is also shown on Figure 4-3, but it is considered to be too far from Site 3 to result in either direct or indirect visual impacts. Therefore, the overall impact rating for this viewpoint in relation to Bungalbin East is predicted to be Not Evident. Site 16 is located within the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU, to the north of Bungalbin Hill. It was selected for assessment as it is accessible from one of the main access routes around the HAR via an exploration track and provides a clear, high-elevation view of the area proposed for the J5 mining development on L3 within the Western Range LCU. The components of the J5 operations that will be visible from this part of the HAR include the J5 pit and the J5 WRL. Dust and lighting associated with construction, operation and closure of the J5 mine will also be visible at this viewpoint, but these are only temporary impacts. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-4 The upper walls of the northern side of the pit will be visible from Site 16, but the lower portions and base of the pit are unlikely to be visible. The ridgeline at the J5 pit will be altered by pit development and the pit will remain visible following closure of the operation (Figures 4-4 and 4-5). Therefore, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Prominent. The WRL at J5 will be located on the Plains LCU adjacent to the J5 pit. The top of the WRLs will be below the ridgeline, which reduces visual impacts. However, the WRL and other infrastructure will be visible from Site 16 and adjacent areas. The closure design for, and rehabilitation of, the WRL will maximise opportunities for visual blending of the facility with surrounding areas. If MRL is effective in its rehabilitation and closure of the WRL and infrastructure, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Blending. Site 14 is located within the Plains LCU and provides views of the Western Range LCU in which the J5 pit will be developed. The visual impact modelling for this viewpoint suggests that existing vegetation will screen views of the mine (Figure 4-6), so the overall impact rating is predicted to be Not Evident. Dust and lighting associated with the J5 mine are likely to be visible above the canopy, but these are only temporary impacts. Site 8 is located on the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track to the north of the HAR. It occurs within the Plains LCU and has views of the northern side of the Central and Western Ranges LCU. This viewpoint was selected for assessment as this is the campsite referenced in the HAR camping and day trip guide (Wilderness Society and HARA, undated) (Figure 2-2). Neither the J5 or Bungalbin East mine sites should be directly visible from the campsite as local topographic features and vegetation should obscure views of the mines (Figure 4-7). Therefore, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Not Evident. Dust and lighting associated with activities at these mines may be visible at this location from time to time, but these are only temporary impacts. Site 9 is also located on the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track to the north of the HAR (Figure 2-2). It also occurs within the Plains LCU and provides views of the Central and Western Ranges LCU. This site was selected for assessment to determine if the Bungalbin East development would be visible to travellers using this track as well as visitors who spend a longer period of time in this part of the HAR. Figure 4-8 indicates that mining at Bungalbin East will permanently alter the ridgeline that can be viewed from this site, but that the WRL should not be visible. The woodlands in the vicinity of this site tend to enclose and channel long views towards Bungalbin East, but it is recognised that the mine and resultant landform changes will be more evident if a viewer is in a position closer to the operations. Depending on the viewer’s location, the overall impact rating will be Blending to Prominent. As with other sites with partial or full views of Bungalbin East, dust and lighting associated with activities at this mine may be visible at this location, but these are only temporary impacts. Site 11 is located on the northern boundary of the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU and provides views of Bungalbin East mine (Figure 4-9). Temporary visual impacts associated with dust and night J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-5 lighting are expected to occur at this site, but visual impact modelling for this viewpoint suggests that existing landforms and/or vegetation will screen views of the mine (Figure 4-9), so the overall impact rating is predicted to be Not Evident. Site 19 is located at the western end of the Mt Dimer Track’s northern branch (Figure 2-2). This viewpoint was selected as public access to the Mt Dimer track in this area could be maintained during Proposal implementation. It occurs within the Plains LCU and provides views of the Central and Western Ranges LCU. The viewshed shown on Figure 4-10 looks in a northeasterly direction from Site 19 towards Bungalbin East. Although the woodlands at this site are relatively open, visual penetration through the vegetation becomes limited with distance. Therefore, views of the Bungalbin East mining development from Site 19 are likely to be partly or even fully obscured (Figure 4-10). Dust and lighting associated with mine construction, operation and closure will be visible at this location from time to time, but the overall impact rating is predicted to be Not Evident. Site 22 is located on undulating plains to the south of the Bungalbin East pit and southwest of the Bungalbin East WRL and supporting infrastructure area (Plains LCU). The upper part of the ridge in this part of the HAR (i.e. the Central and Eastern LCU) is of sufficient elevation to be visible above the tree canopy. Figure 4-11 indicates that the upper benches of the Bungalbin East pit will be visible from this viewpoint, so the overall impact rating is Prominent. Figure 4-11 indicates that views of the Bungalbin East WRL from Site 22 will be partially obscured by surrounding eucalypt woodlands. The WRL is likely to be visible from this site following closure of the operations, though it is expected that the closure design for this new landform will maximise opportunities for visual blending with surrounding areas. On this basis, the overall visual impact of the WRL is expected to be Blending if rehabilitation and closure of this landform is effective. Dust and lighting associated with activities at Bungalbin East are expected to be visible at this location, but these are only temporary impacts. Site 21 was selected for assessment as it is possible that public access may be maintained along the Mt Dimer Track (northern branch). The viewshed shown on Figures 4-12 and 4-13 is from an informal campsite on the northern side of the track looking in a northwesterly direction towards Bungalbin East. As for Site 19, the woodlands at this site are relatively open, but visual penetration through the vegetation becomes limited with distance. Therefore, views of the Bungalbin East mining development from Site 21 may be partly obscured, but the Bungalbin East pit is expected be visible at this location (Figures 4-12 and 4-13). Therefore, the overall impact rating is Prominent. Site 20 is located to the east of the HAR (Figures 2-2 and 2-3). The site is located on low sand dunes within the Plains LCU in an area previously subject to exploration. The condition of the road leading to this site suggests that it is not accessed frequently. Due to the height of the sand dunes and the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU, the Bungalbin East pit and associated development will be visible above the woodland and shrubland vegetation present between this viewpoint and the mine. If dust J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-6 management is effective, it is less likely that significant volumes of dust would be visible from Site 20, but night lighting is likely to be visible. The ridgeline within this portion of the Central and Eastern LCU (i.e. L4) is expected to be modified as a result of mining at Bungalbin East. Although Figure 4-14 suggests that the general alignment of the ridgeline is unlikely to change significantly, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Prominent. The location of the J5 pit is shown on Figure 4-14, but the height of the HAR between J5 and Site 20 means that this mining development should not be directly visible from Site 20. The visual impact outcomes predicted above are summarised in Table 4-2. Table 4-2: Visual Impact Summary for LCUs Site No. 26 3 16 14 8 9 11 19 22 21 20 Visibility The J5 mine will be visible from this viewpoint. It is unlikely that the J5 mine will be directly visible from this viewpoint as the L3 ridgeline is expected to obscure views of the mine. The J5 mine will be visible from this viewpoint. The J5 mine is unlikely to be visible from this viewpoint. It is unlikely that either the J5 or Bungalbin East mines will be directly visible from this site. The Bungalbin East pit will be visible from this viewpoint, but the WRL should not be visible. The Bungalbin East mine is unlikely to be visible from this viewpoint. Views of the Bungalbin East mine from this viewpoint are likely to be partly or even fully obscured by vegetation. The Bungalbin East pit and WRL will be visible from this viewpoint. The Bungalbin East pit will be visible from this viewpoint. The Bungalbin East mine will be visible from this viewpoint. Overall Impact Rating Prominent Not Evident Blending - Prominent Not Evident Not Evident Blending - Prominent Not Evident Not Evident Blending - Prominent Prominent Prominent J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-7 4.4.3 View Experience As discussed in Sections 3.6.2 and 3.7.3, there are four main access routes to the HAR (Figure 2-2). These are: the Koolyanobbing Track, which provides access from the south; the Marda Track, which provides access from the west leading from the Bullfinch-Evanston Road); the Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track, which provides access from the east; and the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track, which provides access from the northeast. The view experiences from these tracks, along with those from J5, Bungalbin East, Mt Dimer and Mt Manning, are described in Section 3.7. These travel routes and viewpoints were selected in consultation with, and agreed to by, the OEPA and the DPaW. The predicted visual impact of the Proposal on these view experiences has been classified according to the WAPC and DPI (2007) categories presented in Table 4-1 and are summarised in Table 4-3. These relate primarily to visual impacts associated with permanent landform changes. For all of the locations and travel routes discussed in Section 3.7, there is potential for temporary visual impacts due to such factors as vegetation clearing, dust and night lighting. Table 4-3: Visual Impact Summary for View Experience Viewpoint Koolyanobbing Track Bullfinch-Evanston Road and Marda Track Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track Visibility Views of the HAR commence approximately 12.5km south of L3. The J5 mine will be visible from these viewpoints. The J5 mine will be visible from parts of the Bullfinch-Evanston Road, though the distance between the road and the mine reduces the visual impact. Due to the screening effects of landform and vegetation, it is unlikely that the J5 mine will be evident along the Marda Track until closer to the eastern end of this track. The Bungalbin East mine will probably be visible from the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track immediately west of L5, but it is unlikely that it will be evident from the more southwesterly or northeasterly sections of the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track due to screening effects of landform and vegetation. Overall Impact Rating Prominent Not Evident to Blending Not Evident to Blending J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-8 Table 4-3 (cont.) Viewpoint Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track Mt Manning Track Mt Manning Mt Dimer J5 and Bungalbin East Visibility The Bungalbin East mine will be visible from elevated sections of this track and in closer proximity to the mine. The J5 mine may be visible from sections of the Mt Manning Track depending on the elevation of the track and degree of screening (both of which vary along the track). However, the track is approximately 50 km north of the HAR, so the significance of any visual impact is reduced. There is a line of sight from Mt Manning point to the Western Range LCU and it is possible that the northern side of the J5 mine (such as ridgeline changes due to pit development) could be visible from this viewpoint. However, Mt Manning is more than 40 km from J5 so the significance of any visual impact would be reduced. There is a line of sight from Mt Manning point to the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU, but it is expected that L5 will mask views of the Bungalbin East mine, depending on the elevation of the observer. In the event that the mine is visible, the distance from this viewpoint to the mine means that any visual impact would be reduced. The Bungalbin East mine will be visible from Mt Dimer. Development of the J5 and Bungalbin East mines means that it will no longer be possible to experience the views from those sites. However, the wide expanse of adjacent elevated areas means that similar views can be obtained from other locations adjacent to, and further afield from, these sites. Overall Impact Rating Not Evident to Prominent Not Evident to Blending Not Evident to Blending Prominent NA J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-9 Based on the information discussed below (as summarised in Table 4-3), it is apparent that there will be views of the J5 and Bungalbin East mines from the four main access routes and two regional viewpoints (Mt Manning and Mt Dimer) assessed in this study. However, the extent of the visual impact will depend on the position of the viewer in the landscape, the distance between the viewer and the mine(s), and the screening effect of landform and vegetation. Therefore, the visual impact rating varies across the MMHARCP from Not Evident to Blending to Prominent. Koolyanobbing Track The Koolyanobbing Track is the main access route used by those consulted during MRL’s stakeholder engagement program for this VIA (Appendix A). Views in the direction of the HAR from this track are shown on Figure 3-14. Modelling of the potential visual impact of Proposal implementation was conducted for Site 26 (Figure 4-2a) as first view of the HAR heading north along this track occurs in the vicinity of this site, which is well within the boundary of the MMHARCP. This modelling shows that permanent changes to L3 from development of the J5 pit and WRL will be visible during and following mining from this location. Consequently, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Prominent. The Bungalbin East mine will not be visible from this viewpoint on the Koolyanobbing Track due to the screening effect of the shrubland vegetation. Bullfinch-Evanston Road/Marda Track The Bullfinch-Evanston Road and Marda Track are used to access the HAR from the west. Distant views of the HAR occur in places along the southern portions of the Bullfinch-Evanston Road where vegetation is lower in height (Figure 3-15). It is possible that the J5 mine will be visible from these locations, but the distance to the HAR means that significant impact is unlikely. Large trees and taller shrubs obscure views of the HAR for much of this route (Figure 3-15) and in these areas, there will be little or no visual impact due to the screening effect of this vegetation. On this basis, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Blending to Not Evident. There are no views of the HAR from the northerly portions of the Bullfinch-Evanston Road as it approaches and intersects with the Marda Track. Indeed, the first views of the HAR occur on a locally elevated ridgeline in the vicinity of Site 44 (Figure 3-15). The Marda Track traverses the Western Range LCU in the vicinity of Site 2 and then heads generally in an easterly direction towards J5. The height and density of vegetation adjacent to the Marda Track provides a screening effect (Figure 3-15), so it is unlikely that the J5 mine will be visible until the observer is closer to the eastern end of this track. On this basis, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Blending to Not Evident. The Marda Track joins (and effectively becomes) the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track in the vicinity of Site 14 (Figure 2-2). The visual modelling conducted for this viewpoint suggests that the overall impact rating will be Not Evident (see Section 4.4.2 and Figure 4-6). Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track The Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track is located to the north of the Central and Eastern Ranges, and heads in a generally northeast direction generally parallel with the HAR (Figure 2-2). The HAR is visible above the tree canopy for much of this travel route, though some views are partially obscured J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-10 due to vegetation height and density (Figure 3-17). Modelling of the potential visual impact of Proposal implementation was conducted for Sites 8 and 9. This shows that neither the J5 or Bungalbin East mine sites should be directly visible from the campsite at Site 8 as local topographic features and vegetation should obscure views of the mines (Figure 4-7). Therefore, the overall impact rating for this site is predicted to be Not Evident. However, mining at Bungalbin East will permanently alter the ridgeline that can be viewed from Site 9 (Figure 4-8). Depending on the viewer’s location, the overall impact rating at this section of the track is expected to be Blending. It is unlikely that the Bungalbin East mine will be evident from those sections of the Pittosporum Rocks/Menzies Track located southwest or northeast from Site 9 due to screening effects of landform and vegetation. Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track There are distant views of the HAR from elevated positions within the Finnerty Range, ranging from clear vistas to obscured views. However, as discussed in Section 3.7.3, where the Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track traverses the eucalypt woodland immediately west of the Finnerty Range, views of the HAR are limited or non-existent. Indeed, Site 28 (at the Mt Dimer go-around) provides the first view of the HAR along the Mt Dimer Track (Figure 3-16). Whether there are views of the HAR further along the Mt Dimer track depends on the openness of the woodland canopy. Where the canopy is more open or woodland species are absent, glimpses and view of the HAR are available. However, no views of the HAR occur where there is an enclosed canopy (Figure 3-16). This view experience continues along the Mt Dimer Track as it winds its way around the southern flanks of the HAR, to the junction with the Koolyanobbing Track just to the south of Bungalbin Hill. Modelling of the potential visual impact of Proposal implementation was conducted for Sites 19, 21 and 22 (Figure 2-2). As discussed in Section 4.4.2, the level of visual impact likely to be experienced at these sites depends on proximity to the Bungalbin East mine and the screening effect of vegetation (Figures 4-10 to 4-13). Consequently, the overall impact rating for the Gus Luck/Mt Dimer Track varies from Prominent to Blending to Not Evident. Due to the screening effect of the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU, the J5 mine will not be evident from the Mt Dimer Track. Mt Manning Track The western section of the Mt Manning Track traverses a eucalypt woodland, the canopy of which restricts views of the HAR. Further east along the track, this woodland transitions to an acacia shrubland, marking a gradual descent from an elevated breakaway associated with the Die Hardy Range to the lower country between the Die Hardy and Mt Manning ranges. Views of the HAR occur where not obscured due to local variations in landform and vegetation. For example, Site 42 provides a vast view experience (Figure 3-18). J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-11 The J5 mine may be visible from sections of the Mt Manning Track depending on the elevation of the track and degree of screening (both of which vary along the track). However, it is recognised that this track is located approximately 50 km north of the HAR, so the significance of any visual impact is reduced. Therefore, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Blending to Not Evident. Mt Manning As discussed in Section 3.7.4, the upper elevations of Mt Manning provide the visitor with vast and expansive views of the HAR (Figure 3-19). Mt Manning is located generally north of J5, so it is possible that the northern side of this mine (such as ridgeline changes due to pit development) could be visible from this viewpoint. However, Mt Manning is more than 40 km from J5 so the significance of any visual impact would be reduced. Therefore, the overall impact rating is predicted to be Blending. Mt Manning is located generally north-northeast of Bungalbin East. Although there is a line of sight from this viewpoint to the HAR, it is expected that L5 within the Central and Eastern Ranges LCU will mask views of the Bungalbin East mine, depending on the elevation of the observer. In the event that the northern side of this mine (such as ridgeline changes due to pit development) is visible from this viewpoint, the distance from this viewpoint to the mine means that any visual impact would be reduced. On this basis, the overall impact rating is Blending to Not Evident. Mt Dimer Mt Dimer is located between the southern end of the Hunt Range and northern end of the Finnerty Range (Figures 2-2 and 2-3) and, with even only modest elevation gain, provides views of the HAR (Figure 3-20). It is expected that the Bungalbin East mine will be visible from this viewpoint, so the overall impact rating is Prominent. However, the distance from this viewpoint to the mine means that any visual impact would be reduced. J5 and Bungalbin East In addition to the above viewpoints towards the HAR, this VIA considered the potential for the loss of views from the HAR across the surrounding plains. The development of mining at Bungalbin East will result in the removal of a former campsite that provides views of the areas generally east to southwest of the HAR (see Figure 3-13). Although DPaW has now prohibited camping at this site, it is still open to public access and can be used as an informal lookout. An informal campsite also exists at J5 and provides views of the areas generally to the north and east of the Western Ranges LCU. Figure 3-12 shows views from Sites 15 and 53. The elevation and wide expanse of the surrounding area means that similar views can be obtained from other locations adjacent to, and further afield from, J5 and Bungalbin East. Despite the comments above, it is recognised that removal of the former Bungalbin East campsite and closure of the track to this site will reduce access to the top and southern areas of that portion of the HAR and this may limit the ability of some visitors to access views from these areas. J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual Impact Assessment 29 August 2016 Page 4-12 4.5 Cumulative Visual Impacts Direct disturbance will occur within the HAR due to pit development at J5 and Bungalbin East if the Proposal is implemented. No more than 208 ha of land will be cleared during pit development (Table 4-4). Development of these pits will increase the disturbance footprint within the HAR to 6.48% (including existing disturbance). Table 4-4: Areas of Disturbance within the Helena-Aurora Ranges Element Area covered by the HAR (as defined using the OEPA’s boundary) Estimated area of existing disturbance within the HAR Area of disturbance proposed for the J5 pit Area of disturbance proposed for the Bungalbin East pit Total Area (ha) 3,451 16.2 60.88 146.57 Percentage (%) 0.47 1.76 4.25 6.48 Source: MRL and CAD Resources Within the wider LAU of approximately 34,820 ha, there are approximately 153.6 ha of existing disturbance (0.44%). Additional direct disturbance of no more than 606.45 ha (1.74%) will occur if the Proposal is implemented (Table 4-5), which will increase the disturbance footprint within the LAU to around 2.2% (including existing disturbance). Table 4-5: Areas of Disturbance within the Local Assessment Unit Element Area covered by the Local Assessment Unit Estimated area of existing disturbance within the LAU Area of disturbance proposed for the J5 pit Area of disturbance proposed for the J5 WRL Area of disturbance proposed for the J5 supporting infrastructure Area of disturbance proposed for the J5 haul road Area of disturbance proposed for the Bungalbin East pits Area of disturbance proposed for the Bungalbin East WRL Area of disturbance proposed for the Bungalbin East supporting infrastructure Area of disturbance proposed for the Bungalbin East haul road Total Area (ha) 34,820 153.60 60.88 87.39 46.03 56.26 146.57 97.67 44.09 Percentage (%) 67.52 0.19 2.18 0.44 0.17 0.25 0.13 0.16 0.42 0.28 0.13 Source: MRL and CAD Resources The Proposal will result in localised changes to the existing landscape character during the construction, operation and closure of development areas. Some of these changes will be temporary, but others will result in the permanent conversion of parts of the area to a mining landscape character (Figures 4-15 to 4-23) and change their scenic qualities.
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz