Appendix 6-A
Landform Impact Assessment
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page i
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
Prepared for Mineral Resources Limited
Prepared by Bioscope Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd
5 August 2016
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page i
Revision History
Date
21 September 2015
Version
Author
0
S. Finucane
Reviewer
D. Temple-Smith
13 January 2016
1
S. Finucane
D. Temple-Smith
23 March 2016
31 March 2016
2
3
S. Finucane
S. Finucane
D. Temple-Smith
K.H. Wyrwoll
13 April 2016
5 August 2016
4
5
S. Finucane
S. Finucane
D. Temple-Smith
D. Temple-Smith
Purpose
Draft LVIA report, for client
review and input
Updated LIA report for
client review
Revised LIA draft report
Final draft LIA report for
independent peer review
Revised LIA report
Final LIA 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.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page ii
 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
Landform Impact Assessment
5 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 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. With
respect to the latter, the Proposal is being assessed under the Bilateral Agreement between the
Commonwealth of Australia and the State of WA.
One of the preliminary key environmental factors being assessed for this Proposal is ”Landforms”.
The EPA’s objective for this factor is to maintain the variety, integrity, ecological functions and
environmental values of landforms. The Environmental Scoping Document (ESD) issued by the EPA
requires that the significance of the Potentially Affected Landforms (PALs, i.e. those landforms that
could be affected by development of the pits, WRLs and other components of the Proposal) be
addressed on a local and regional scale. To this end, the ESD defines a boundary for the HAR
landform, a Local Assessment Unit (LAU) and a regional study area. For the Landforms factor, the
ESD nominates mining excavations and earthworks as the relevant aspect.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page ii
This Landform Impact Assessment (LIA) addresses three of the key aspects outlined for the
Landforms factor (variety, rarity and scientific importance), as outlined in the flowchart provided
below. Comment is also provided in relation to ecological importance and integrity, but these
aspects will be assessed more fully in the PER and associated documents.
Variety
Rarity
Landform Impact
Assessment
Landform Impact
Assessment Report
(this report)
Scientific Importance
Ecological Importance
PER
Integrity
Source: MRL
LIA is a relatively new process in Western Australia, with limited established guidance provided by
regulators. Therefore, a combination of field studies, literature review and modelling of quantifiable
criteria (elevation, slope, aspect, Topographic Position Index [TPI], Wetness Index, and solar
radiation) was utilised to determine and assess landform impact.
Following analysis of the quantitative data set for the HAR, it is understood that approximately one
third of the landforms within the HAR occurs at 480 to 560 m AHD and around a third occurs at 520
to 560 m AHD, with maximum elevations at 680 to 720 m AHD. Nearly 51% of the HAR has a slope up
to 10°, 28.7% has a slope of 10-20° and 15.3% has a slope 20-30°. Aspect was measured as between
southeast to southwest with the TPI showing a range dominated by gentle slopes. Wetness Index
data indicate that the majority of the area is drier, with the majority of solar radiation occurring was
between 4,100 - 4,700 WM/m2.
Based on the ESD boundary of the HAR, this landform comprises six main areas. For ease of
reference, these are designated as L1-L6. The western portion of the HAR comprises three
landforms (L1-L3) which are generally lower than the central portion (L4) and eastern portions (L5
and L6), and which has more gently rounded hills than the central and eastern areas. The Bungalbin
East pit area occurs in steeper terrain and at a higher elevation than the J5 area, and has more areas
exposed to lower amounts of solar radiation.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page iii
The HAR is considered to be regionally significant as it provides habitat that supports a
concentration of ironstone specialist flora species. It is suspected that the range acted as a refuge
during late Tertiary – Quaternary climate oscillations. Further, it has been suggested that this
concentration may be due to the diversity of microclimates and habitats. Within this context, the
HAR was found to have areas of greater variance and therefore more microclimates in the central
and southwestern summits (where the Proposal is located) compared to the northeastern areas. The
southerly aspects of the HAR have a lower wetness value than other areas and a lower level of solar
radiation. Solar radiation had a greater effect on vegetation on the northeastern summits as
opposed to the central and southwestern summits.
The residual impact on the PALs includes direct impacts due to mining excavation and WRL
development (altered landforms) as well as indirect impacts such as altered surface drainage
patterns in localised areas. However, the area of disturbance for the Proposal within the HAR is
small and affects landform values that are represented elsewhere across the HAR, so the impact on
the physical landform is not considered to be significant.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
The Project ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2
The Mt Manning - Helena-Aurora Ranges Conservation Park .............................................. 1-1
1.3
Environmental Assessment Process .................................................................................... 1-2
1.4
Structure of this Report....................................................................................................... 1-7
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1
Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Relevant Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3
Study Area Definition .......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4
Approach to this Study ........................................................................................................ 2-2
2.5
Desktop Analysis ................................................................................................................. 2-4
2.5.1
Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.5.2
Identification of Landform Analysis Criteria ..................................................................... 2-4
2.5.3
Selection of Study Sites ................................................................................................... 2-5
2.6
Field Assessment ................................................................................................................ 2-5
2.7
Data Analysis and Impact Assessment ................................................................................. 2-5
RESULTS..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
Regional Context................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2
Local Assessment Unit ........................................................................................................ 3-4
3.3
Helena-Aurora Ranges and Potentially Affected Landforms................................................. 3-6
3.3.1
Lithology and Mineralogy ................................................................................................ 3-6
3.3.2
Landform Characteristics ............................................................................................... 3-10
3.3.3
Geomorphological Processes......................................................................................... 3-15
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Variety ................................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1.1
Rarity .............................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2
Scientific Importance ...................................................................................................... 4-3
4.1.2.1
Geology and Geomorphology .......................................................................................... 4-4
4.1.2.2
Past Ecological and Biological Processes .......................................................................... 4-5
4.1.2.3
Reference Sites and Important Natural Processes ........................................................... 4-5
4.1.3
Ecological Importance ..................................................................................................... 4-6
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page ii
4.1.3.1
Elevation ......................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.1.3.2
Slope and TPI .................................................................................................................. 4-6
4.1.3.3
Aspect ............................................................................................................................. 4-7
4.1.3.4
Wetness Index and Water Availability ............................................................................. 4-7
4.1.3.5
Solar Radiation ................................................................................................................ 4-8
4.2
Integrity .............................................................................................................................. 4-8
LANDFORM IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 5-1
5.1
Relevant Aspects................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2
Existing Disturbance ............................................................................................................ 5-1
5.3
Predicted Operational Disturbances and Management ....................................................... 5-1
5.3.1
Area of Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 5-1
5.3.2
Open Pits ........................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.3.3
Waste Rock Landforms .................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.4
Supporting Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 5-6
5.3.5
Haul Roads and Linear Infrastructure .............................................................................. 5-7
5.4
Impacts on Landform Values ............................................................................................... 5-8
5.4.1
Landform Integrity .......................................................................................................... 5-8
5.4.2
Ecological Function ......................................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.3
Environmental Values ..................................................................................................... 5-9
5.5
Cumulative Impact on Landform over Future Time Scales ................................................. 5-10
5.6
Residual Impacts ............................................................................................................... 5-10
5.7
Monitoring........................................................................................................................ 5-11
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 6-1
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 7-1
List of Tables
1-1
Mining Tenure held by Polaris Metals Pty Ltd and Relevant to this Proposal
1-2
ESD Required Work for the Landforms Factor
2-1
Data Sources
2-2
Selected Landscape and Landform Analysis Criteria
3-1
Regional Landforms
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page iii
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
Wetness Index Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges
3-8
Solar Radiation Data for the Helena-Aurora Ranges
3-9
Characteristics of Valley-side Slopes
3-10
Resistance to Weathering Related to Rock Properties
4-1
Flora and Vegetation Surveys of BIF-dominated Landforms
5-1
Areas of Disturbance within the Helena-Aurora Ranges
5-2
Areas of Disturbance within the Local Assessment Unit
List of Flowcharts
1-1
Role of this LIA Report and the PER in Assessing Key Aspects of the Landforms Factor
1-2
Relationship between EPA Aspects for the Landforms Factor
2-1
Approach to the Joint Assessment of Landform and Visual Impacts
List of Figures
1-1
Regional Location
1-2
Land Tenure
2-1
Study Area
2-2
Field Assessment Sites
3-1
Regional Landforms
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page iv
3-2
Regional Landform Units
3-3
Lithology of the Helena-Aurora Ranges
3-4
J5 Conceptual Geomorphology
3-5
Bungalbin East Conceptual Geomorphology
3-6
Elevation
3-7
Slope
3-8
Aspect
3-9
Topographic Position Index
3-10
Wetness Index
3-11
Solar Radiation
4-1
Existing Disturbance Area
4-2
J5 & BE Mine Perspective – Pre-mining
4-3
J5 & BE Mine Perspective – During Mining
4-4
J5 & BE Mine Perspective – Post Mining
4-5
J5 Mine Perspective – Pre-mining
4-6
J5 Mine Perspective – During Mining
4-7
J5 Mine Perspective – Post Mining
4-8
Bungalbin East Mine Perspective – Pre-mining
4-9
Bungalbin East Mine Perspective – During Mining
4-10
Bungalbin East Mine Perspective – Post Mining
List of Plates
3-1
Rounded hills at Site 3 in the western portion of the HAR
3-2
Rounded hills at Site 13 in the western portion of the HAR
3-3
View of the western portion of the HAR looking generally west from Site 4
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page v
3-4
Views of the western portion of the HAR from Site 2
3-5
A monolith at Site 15
3-6
Bungalbin Hill viewed from Site 3
3-7
View of the central portion of the HAR from Site 6
3-8
View of the central portion of the HAR from Site 8
3-9
View of the eastern portion of the HAR from Site 10
3-10
Caves to the northeast of Site 12 (the former campsite at Bungalbin East)
3-11
Cliff faces and outcropping northwest of Site 24
3-12
Broad Valley and Sandplain landforms to the south of the HAR, viewed from Site 12
3-13
Undulating Plains to the north of the HAR, looking northeast from Site 15
Photographer for Plates 3-1 to 3-11: Sonia Finucane.
Photographer for Plates 3-12 and 3-13: David Temple-Smith.
Photographs used with permission from the photographers.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 1-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Project
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).
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 (C class) was created in 1979, but the Mt Manning
Range was excluded from the reserve to allow mining as this area had already been designated a
Mining Act Ministerial Temporary Reserve.
It had been recommended that the HAR be included in an expansion to 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.
The MMHARCP is vested in the Conservation and Parks Commission (CPC). The park is 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
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 1-2
protection of indigenous flora and fauna, and the preservation of any feature of archaeological,
historical or scientific interest“. It has 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). Despite the range
of visitor types, annual visitor numbers are low.
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 that are relevant to the Proposal are listed in Table 1-1. In addition, the company holds
an Exploration Licence (E77/842) which covers much of the HAR,
Table 1-1: Mining Tenure held by Polaris Metals Pty Ltd within the MMHARCP
Tenement
Mining Lease M77/580
Mining Lease 77/1095-I
Mining Lease 77/1096-I
Mining Lease 77/1097
Miscellaneous Licence 77/253
Miscellaneous Licence 77/254
Miscellaneous Licence 77/269
Miscellaneous Licence 77/270
General Purpose Lease 77/124
Date of Grant
15 June 1993
9 May 2011
9 May 2011
Pending
Pending
13 October 2014
Pending
Pending
Pending
Area
(ha)
702.45
997.95
992.35
998
581
2325
70.42
108.25
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 operation of the nearby J4 mine.
1.3
Environmental Assessment Process
On 16 May 2014, MRL 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 and was appealed. The Western Australian
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 1-3
Minister for Environment subsequently directed the EPA to assess the Proposal at a Public
Environmental Review (PER) level of assessment.
MRL referred its Proposal to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DotE) under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Proposal has been
determined to be 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.
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 for this Proposal and addresses the requirements of both the WA EPA and the DotE.
The ESD was authorised by the EPA Chairman on 27 August 2015.
One of the preliminary key environmental factors identified in the ESD is Landforms. The EPA’s
objective for this factor is to maintain the variety, integrity, ecological functions and environmental
values of landforms (EPA, 2015a). The scope of work for the assessment of the Landforms factor
defined in the ESD is provided in Table 1-2. The EPA regards the key aspects that should be assessed
in relation to this factor to be variety, integrity, ecological importance, scientific importance and
rarity (see Item 10 in Table 1-2) and requires consideration of three scales of study area, as follows:



Potentially Affected Landforms (PALs), i.e. the areas that would be disturbed if the Proposal
is implemented.
Local Assessment Unit (LAU).
Regional context.
In May 2015, MRL commissioned Bioscope Environmental to conduct a Landform Impact
Assessment (LIA) for the Proposal. This study addresses three of the key aspects outlined for the
Landforms factor (variety, rarity and scientific importance), as outlined in Table 1-1. Comment is
provided in relation to ecological importance and integrity, but these aspects will be assessed more
fully in the PER and associated documents (Flowchart 1-1).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 1-4
Table 1-2: ESD Required Work for the Landforms Factor
Required Work as defined in the ESD
9
10
1
Work completed in this LIA
For the purposes of characterising the
significance of landforms and assessing the
potential impacts of the Proposal on landforms,
including from cumulative impacts, the EPA has
identified the affected landform, the local
assessment unit and the regional context1.
Characterise the significance of the affected
landforms in a local and regional context and the
local assessment unit in a regional context,
having regard to the following (include relevant
maps, figures and aerial photography):
The PALs, HAR, LAU and regional context
boundaries defined by the EPA in the ESD have
been used in this LIA.
a) Variety - are the landforms considered
particularly good or important examples of
their type? How adequately are the
landforms represented in local or regional
area? How do these landforms differ from
other examples at these scales?
The landforms within the PALs are discussed in
the context of the HAR in Section 3.3.2 in
relation to selected landscape and landform
analysis criteria (elevation, slope, aspect, TPI,
Wetness Index and solar radiation). The
aspect of variety is discussed in Section 4.1. A
comparison of these landforms to other BIFdominated landforms in the regional area is
provided in Section 3.1.
b) Integrity - are the landforms intact, being
largely complete or whole and in good
condition? To what extent have the
landforms, and the environmental values
they support, been impacted by previous
activities or development? For example,
have part of the landforms been removed?
An assessment of integrity is provided in
Section 4.2.
c)
Preliminary comment on the relationship
between landforms and plant ecology within
the HAR is made in Section 4.1.3. Further
information will be provided in the PER.
Ecological Importance - do the landforms
have a role in maintaining existing ecological,
biological and physical processes? For
example, do the landforms have important
textural features like caves, monoliths or
outcropping that provide a microclimate,
source of water flow or shade that support
ecological functions and environmental
values of the landforms?
See Figures 3, 4 and 5 of the ESD.
The extent of existing disturbance within the
HAR is discussed in Section 4.2 and 5.2 and
illustrated on Figure 4-1.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 1-5
Table 1-1 (cont.)
Required Work as defined in the ESD
11
12
13
14
Work completed in this LIA
d) Scientific Importance - do the landforms
provide evidence of past ecological or
biological processes or are they an important
geomorphological or geological site? Are the
landforms of recognised scientific interest as
a reference site or an example where
important natural processes are operating?
See Section 4.1.2.3 for a discussion of scientific
reference sites within the HAR. Natural
landform processes occurring within the HAR
are described in Sections 3.3.2 and 4.1.2.1.
e) Rarity - are the landforms rare or relatively
rare; being one of the few of its type at a
local and regional level?
Identify the environmental values of the affected
landforms and note which of these
environmental values will be addressed through
other preliminary key environmental factors
identified in this ESD. Identify and discuss
environmental values which are entirely
dependent on the landforms.
Identify the current land tenure of each of the
landforms within the local assessment unit and
the level of protection the land tenure affords,
from any loss of landform integrity.
Identify and describe the aspects of the Proposal
which may potentially affect the landforms
within the local assessment unit, including both
direct and indirect impacts and for construction,
operation and closure.
Based on the findings above identify, map (3
dimensionally) and describe the areas:
a) that will be altered, both temporarily
(define timescales) and permanently;
and
b) that will remain as a structural impact
on the landforms.
Section 4.1.1 discusses the occurrence of BIFdominated landforms at a local and regional
level.
Preliminary comment on the environmental
values of the affected landforms is provided in
Section 4.
Further information will be provided in the
PER.
A land tenure map is provided as Figure 1-2.
Section 1.2 notes that it is possible for mining
to be approved within a conservation park.
The aspects of the Proposal that may
potentially affect the landforms within the
LAU are outlined in Section 5.1.
The areas that will be altered as a result of
Proposal implementation are discussed in
Sections 5.1 and 5.3.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 1-6
Table 1-1 (cont.)
Required Work as defined in the ESD
15
16
17
18
19
20
Predict the impacts from the Proposal, both
direct and indirect, on the landforms within the
local assessment unit 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 direct and indirect impacts on the
landforms; and
b) the direct and indirect impacts to
variety, integrity, ecological functions
and environmental values of the
landforms.
Evaluate the cumulative impacts on the
landforms (both individually and collectively)
within the local assessment unit from the
Proposal and other currently approved
developments. Provide information on any other
reasonably foreseeable developments in the
local assessment unit. Include relevant maps,
figures and aerial photography.
Demonstrate how the EPA's objective for this
factor can be met.
Identify management and mitigation measures
for the Proposal to demonstrate and ensure
residual impacts are not greater than predicted
(e.g. measures to stabilise the affected landforms
during mining activities). This is to include a
monitoring and management program to avoid
and minimise indirect impacts and identify
feasible contingencies.
Describe measures and actions to minimise
permanent impacts to the structure of the
landforms within the local assessment unit.
Provide evidence to demonstrate that the
proposed measures and actions are feasible and
achievable.
A peer review of the landforms section of the
PER, including any technical studies, by a suitably
qualified professional is also required.
Work completed in this LIA
The potential for landform impacts is
discussed in Section 5.
Bioscope Environmental is not aware of any
other mining developments that have been
approved within the LAU, so this aspect is not
addressed further in this report.
This will be addressed in the PER.
Environmental management measures in
relation to landform impacts are discussed in
Section 5.
Environmental management measures in
relation to landform impacts are discussed in
Section 5.
Benchmarking of these measures is beyond
the scope of the commissioned study.
Independent peer review of this report was
completed by Dr Karl-Heinz Wyrwoll, School of
Earth and Environment at the University of
Western Australia. Additional information on
geomorphological processes has been added
to this report in response to the peer
reviewer’s comments.
A close-out report has been prepared to
demonstrate how Dr Wyrwoll’s comments
were addressed in this report and has been
provided to MRL under separate cover.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 1-7
Flowchart 1-1: Role of this LIA Report and the PER in
Assessing Key Aspects of the Landforms Factor
Variety
Rarity
Landform Impact
Assessment
Landform Impact
Assessment Report
(this report)
Scientific Importance
Ecological Importance
PER
Integrity
Source: MRL
1.4
Structure of this Report
This report describes the objectives, methodology and outcomes of this LIA.
Section 2 outlines the methodology utilised in this study. This LIA was conducted in conjunction with
a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) and this is reflected in the design of the study methodology. The
outcomes of the VIA are reported separately (Bioscope Environmental, 2016).
Section 3 provides the results of this study. These include a description of the key landform types
within the HAR and PALs that provides data in relation to key landform characteristics (elevation,
slope, aspect, topographic position index, wetness index and solar radiation).
Section 4 discusses the significance of the affected landforms within the HAR in relation to the five
aspects listed under Item 10 of the ESD (i.e. variety, integrity, ecological importance, scientific
importance and rarity). Following review of the ESD, it is apparent that variety and rarity are defined
by similar elements (such as similarity, representation and importance), and that “importance” in
this context relates to the site’s scientific and ecological importance. The relationship between these
aspects is outlined in Flowchart 1-2.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 1-8
Flowchart 1-2: Relationship between EPA Aspects for the Landforms Factor
Similarity
Variety
Representation
Rarity
Importance
Past Ecological
Processes
Scientific Importance
Geology/
Geomorphology
Reference Sites
and Important
Natural Processes
Ecological Importance
Integrity
Physical and
Ecological
Processes
Intactness and Condition
Source: MRL
Section 5 assesses the environmental impacts that the Proposal could have on the landforms in the
LAU and outlines proposed management measures.
The report conclusions are presented in Section 6.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 2-1
METHODOLOGY
2.1
Definitions
The EPA defines a landform as “a distinctive, recognisable physical feature of the earth’s surface
having a characteristic shape produced by natural processes” and considers its defining feature to be
the combination of its geology (composition) and morphology (form) (EPA, 2015b). Landforms can
be large scale features such as ranges or dune fields, or small scale features such as a cliff or dune.
Landforms are a component of the landscape which is defined by EPA (2015b) 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 natural
landscapes consist of a variety of landforms (EPA, 2015b).
2.2
Relevant Guidelines
In developing the approach adopted for this LIA, 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 and Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2007). Prior to
2015, the EPA had not issued a policy, position statement or guidance statement specifically for LIA
though reference has been made to the assessment and management of landform 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).
Guidelines for Preparing Mine Closure Plans, which were first published by the Department
of Mines and Petroleum in 2011 and updated in May 2014 (DMP and EPA, 2014).
The EPA published Environmental Protection Bulletin No. 23 (EPB 23) to provide proponents with
high level guidance on how landforms are considered by the EPA during the environmental impact
assessment process (EPA, 2015b). This bulletin states that:



The focus of the EIA process will be on the significance of the landform itself and the
significance of the impacts on the landform.
The extent and environmental consequence of these types of impacts will be considered,
along with how these impacts may be avoided or minimised in order to meet the EPA’s
objective for the Landforms factor.
In considering these impacts, the EPA will focus on the significance of the removal or
alteration of the landform’s defining features (geology and morphology) in a local or regional
and cumulative context.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 2-2
EPB 23 outlines an indicative scope of work for the identification and assessment of potential
impacts on, and risks to, landforms. These tasks are reflected in the scope of work for assessment of
the landforms factor provided in the ESD for the Proposal (see Table 1-1).
2.3
Study Area Definition
The boundary of the HAR used in this LIA 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 2-2.
The indicative disturbance area for the Proposal is shown on Figure 2-2 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 disturbance area represents the
PALs.
To characterise the significance of the HAR landform in a local context, the ESD defines a 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. A draft of the LAU was provided by the Office of EPA (OEPA) for use in the
2015 field assessment. Subsequent to completion of the field assessment, the boundary of the LAU
was modified and finalised by the EPA, but is substantially the same as the boundary used in the
field.
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 (OEPA, 2009) 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
This LIA comprised the following tasks:




Desktop data analysis (see Section 2.5).
Field assessment (see Section 2.6).
Data analysis and impact assessment (see Section 2.7).
Reporting.
As indicated in Section 1.3, MRL commissioned Bioscope Environmental to conduct this LIA for the
Proposal in conjunction with a VIA. The relationship between landform and visual impact
assessments was considered in developing the methodology to minimise or eliminate duplication.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 2-3
Given the degree of overlap between visual landscape evaluation, visual impact assessment and
landform impact assessment, the tasks listed above were designed to address the requirements of
both this LIA and the VIA. Flowchart 2-1 illustrates the way in which the requirements of this LIA and
VIA were incorporated into the above tasks.
Flowchart 2-1: 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
LIA Report
(this report)
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 2-4
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 landform analysis criteria used during the field assessment
(Section 2.6) and data analysis (Section 2.7).
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
Aerial photography
2.5.2
Data Source
Polaris, NAS SRTM, Geoscience Australia
Polaris, Department of Agriculture and Food Western
Australia
Polaris, Department of Parks and Wildlife
Polaris, Landgate, Department of Water
Polaris, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Polaris, Department of Parks and Wildlife, Landgate
Polaris, Department of Mines and Petroleum
Polaris, Landgate
Polaris, Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Heritage
Council
Polaris, Landgate, Geosage ELS 2000
Identification of Landform Analysis Criteria
A number of factors can be used to describe landform, 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 subjectivity, it was proposed that the factors selected for this assessment be measurable,
preferably with data already held by MRL 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, six factors were selected for use as
landform analysis criteria. These factors were selected not only because of their usefulness in
describing the variety of HAR landforms, but also because of their importance in ecological function.
The factors are:






Elevation.
Slope.
Aspect.
Topographic Position Index (TPI).
Wetness Index.
Solar radiation.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 2-5
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
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.
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 assessment (see Section 2.6).
2.6
Field Assessment
A 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 were recorded at Sites 1-26
(Figure 2-2) in relation to the following landscape character units and features:





2.7
Landform.
Waterform.
Vegetation.
Disturbance.
Land use features.
Data Analysis and Impact Assessment
Data from desktop data analysis (Section 2.5) and the field assessments (Section 2.6) were analysed
in relation to the factors identified in Section 2.5.2 to determine where there is potential for
significant landform impact to occur as a result of the Proposal.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 2-6
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 results of two LiDAR surveys conducted on 2126 November 2011 and 22 June 2013. These data were supplied as point (xyz) data and had been
processed into a continuous surface for analysis. The analysis methods described below were chosen
to best describe the landform and its function.
An initial Elevation model was generated and subsequently categorised into 20m elevation bands
which describe 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.
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.
To assist in understanding how the HAR relates to its surroundings, CAD Resources undertook an
analysis to determine where the other BIF ranges are located in this region. MRL does not have
detailed topographic data covering this broader region, so CAD Resources utilised the Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission (SRTM) Digital Elevation Model data. These data are a continuous data set that
covers the continent and beyond, and are regarded as a suitable for regional analysis. A slope model
was run on the SRTM to identify those areas of maximum change in z-value and a small buffer was
applied that was relative to the resolution of the SRTM data.
Further refinement of the areas identified was conducted using the high resolution Landgate aerial
photography to remove artefacts and isolated height anomalies that were not part of a range land
formation. Once the ranges had been established, CAD Resources generated a series of statistics,
including height range, slope and aspect, so that data from each of the ranges were comparable.
An assessment of the potential environmental impacts on landforms arising from 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
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 2-7
were developed to mitigate, manage and monitor the predicted landform impacts. The potential for
residual impacts on the landform (i.e. those impacts, both direct and indirect, on the landforms
within the LAU after considering and applying avoidance and minimisation measures) was then
assessed.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-1
RESULTS
3.1
Regional Context
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
(2010a) 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, 2011a).
The Bungalbin region (as mapped by Chen and Wyche, 2003) covers a series of greenstone belts2
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, 2011a). 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
(Department of Conservation and Land Management et al. [CALM], 1994a).
The geological history of the region has been interpreted by Askins (1999) and reported by Reynolds
and Scarlett (2016) as follows:

Archean
o
o
o
o
o
o
2
Deposition of 3.0 Ga mafic/ultramafic BIF sequences.
Early thrusts, > 2.7 Ga. A locus for the thrusts would have been the altered slippery
ultramafic units close to the BIFs.
Granite emplacement coinciding with the early thrusts.
The early thrusts are responsible for regional repetition of the major BIF unit. Askins
(1999) contends that the BIF unit at Koolyanobbing is equivalent to that at Bungalbin
and elsewhere in the district, and that there is probably only one BIF unit. Others (BHP
and Gondwana) propose an upper and lower BIF unit with the upper unit playing host to
the gold mineralisation at Marda and the lower unit hosting the iron deposits.
The thrusting and subsequent erosion created the tectonic setting for the deposition of
the Marda complex. The mafic-ultramafic and BIF package formed an irregular
topography.
A new tensional regime enabled the earlier thrust system to become the locus for
emplacement of a high level granite, which was a similar age and composition with an
acid volcanic pile.
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
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-2
o
o
o
o
o

Renewed compressional regime which activated structures such as the Koolyanobbing
Fault and Yendilberin Shear.
North-south compression inside these bounding shears re-activated the thrusts. This
created the box fold shape observed at Bungalbin and also activated shears and thrusts
sub-parallel to the bedding.
Late stage granite emplacement in the Yendilberin shear.
Gold mineralising event. Relatively minor gold deposits at Marda and Mt Dimer.
Structural and hydrothermal upgrading in the BIF units.
Mesozoic-Cainozoic
o
o
Peneplanation to expose the BIF at Bungalbin. This allowed for the supergene
enrichment responsible for the iron deposits along the range.
Arid zone lateritisation creating goethitic cap rock and leaching of the goethite to create
low P zones.
The HAR is part of the 3.0 Ga Marda-Diemals Greenstone Belt. The Marda-Diemals Greenstone Belt
is divided into three lithostratigraphic groups (Chen and Wyche, 2003):



Lower group dominated by tholeiitic basalt with minor ultramafic rocks.
Middle group composed almost entirely of BIF and chert;
Upper group comprising a variety of rocks types including basalt, BIF, chert and minor
siltstone and shale.
These rock types are unconformably overlain by the younger 2.73 Ga felsic to intermediate volcanic
rocks and clastic sedimentary rocks of the Marda Complex. The Marda-Diemals Greenstone Belt
contains some major and minor BIF units, which are the host precursors to the iron ore deposits in
the region (Chen and Wyche, 2003).
“Banded Iron Formation” is a term applied to a very unique 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 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.).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-3
Formation of the HAR was a complex process involving hree 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).
The current surface of the HAR is a mixture of goethite and haematite-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 ridge line. In areas
of structural weakness, the BIF has been altered to massive goethite with some haematite. The main
concentrations of these occur at the J5 and Bungalbin East iron ore deposits (D. Kettlewell, pers.
comm.).
Greenstone belts of mafic volcanics and BIF are common in the northern and eastern parts of the
Yilgarn Craton (Markey and Dillon, 2011a) with BIF-dominated landforms being well represented in
the local and regional area. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 provide the location of elevated landforms
within the wider Mount Manning area, many of which include BIF components.
Table 3-1: Regional Landforms
Location
Height
Maximum Slope
Maynard Hills
Mt Alfred
Cashmere Downs
Walling Range
Mt Elvire
Johnston Range
Windarling Range
Windarling Peak
Mount Jackson Range
Evanston
Die Hardy
Mount Manning Range
Koolyanobbing Range
Highclere Hills
Hunt Range
Helena-Aurora Range
Mt Forrest/Mt Richardson
Perrinvale
Mt Alexander
Mt Bevon/Mt Mason/Mt Ida
Mt Marmion
390 - 482 mAHD
404 - 481 mAHD
404 - 531 mAHD
396 - 523 mAHD
400 - 533 mAHD
444 - 531 mAHD
440 - 558 mAHD
427 - 503 mAHD
425 - 605 mAHD
468 - 500 mAHD
460 - 644 mAHD
434 - 631 mAHD
321 - 507 mAHD
235 - 492 mAHD
449 - 548 mAHD
447 - 692 mAHD
434 - 596 mAHD
413 - 487 mAHD
443 - 545 mAHD
44 - 593 mAHD
420 - 493 mAHD
11°
15°
17°
13°
15°
11°
16°
12°
22°
5°
22°
25°
24°
31°
9°
26°
18°
15°
13°
19°
11°
Majority
Aspect
56°
90°
73°
101°
90°
289°
341°
97°
195°
149°
75°
270°
45°
225°
86°
180°
90°
270°
84°
254°
123°
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-4
Table 3-1 (cont.)
Location
Height
Maximum Slope
Dryandra Range
Mt Morley
Lake Giles
Jaurdi Hill
Finnerty Range/
Mt Dimer/Yendilberin Hills
Mt Burges
Kangaroo Hills
414 - 529 mAHD
459 - 539 mAHD
437 - 525 mAHD
433 - 542 mAHD
446 - 548 mAHD
13°
9°
8°
18°
13°
Majority
Aspect
78°
51°
105°
102°
244°
408 - 551 mAHD
386 - 510 mAHD
21°
13°
138°
145°
Source: CAD Resources
Note: With respect to Aspect, note that:

0° refers to north-facing.

90° refers to east-facing.

180° refers to south-facing.

270° refers to west-facing.
All greenstone belts throughout the Yilgarn have banded cherts and BIFs being dominantly
associated with greenstone successions. Due to a number of factors, the iron content of these BIFs is
variable and, coupled with silica content, will determine the landform type. In the HAR, high levels of
iron and silica have resulted in a steep-sided range in comparison to the Hunt Range and Yendilberin
Hills which have higher silica than iron content that has led to more rounded, flattened hills as
opposed to a prominent range.
Although BIF-dominated landforms are common throughout the Mount Manning area, data
provided in Table 3-1 indicate that the heights, maximum slopes and majority aspects of landforms
in this region are quite variable. Based on available data, the HAR has a similar range of elevations
compared to the Mount Manning, Mount Jackson, Mt Forrest/Mt Richardson, Mt Bevon/Mt
Mason/Mt Ida, Mt Burges, Finnerty Range/Mt Dimer/Yendilberin Hills, and Die Hardy ranges. The
HAR has the highest maximum elevation at 702 mAHD of the sites listed in Table 3-1, but it is
recognised that only 0.3% of the HAR occurs in the 680-702 mAHD category (see Section 3.3.2).
There are other similarities within the regional landforms. Based on available data (Table 3-1), the
HAR has similar maximum slopes to the Mount Jackson Range, Die Hardy, Mount Manning Range,
Koolyanobbing Range, Highclere Hills and Mt Burges. Further, the HAR has a majority aspect similar
to the Mount Jackson Range, Evanston, Highclere Hills, Mt Burges and Kangaroo Hills (Table 3-1).
3.2
Local Assessment Unit
The landforms of the LAU were mapped by Newbey (1985) as part of the Biological Survey of the
Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia (Dell et al., 1985). These are described below and illustrated
on Figure 3-2.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-5
Newbey (1985) maps the HAR as “Hill (Banded Iron Formation)”. This category of landform is
described as hills with stony slopes that rise above the surrounding plains. The eroding upper slopes
are inclined at 10-20°, while the lower colluvial slopes are 5-10°. Soils on the upper slopes are
mainly skeletal and become shallow on the lower slopes. These hills commonly have bedrock
exposures on steep slopes and crests (Newbey, 1985).
It is noted that the HAR and Koolyanobbing Range are the most prominent features in the area
mapped by Newbey (1985), with the HAR being the most prominent feature in the LAU (Figure 3-2).
The HAR is characterised by fractured rock surfaces, fissures and depressions, and exhibit wide
variation in slope and aspect (see Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). However, the western portion of the
HAR is lower than the eastern portions and is characterised by more gently rounded hills (Plates 3-1
to 3-4).
Rocky outcrops are present throughout the western portion of the HAR. In addition, a 10 m high
“monolith” is present within the proposed J5 mining area (Plate 3-5) at the eastern end of this
portion of the HAR. This feature is simply a rock that is more resistant to weathering than adjacent
rock types (see Section 3.3.3).
The central portion of the HAR comprises the largest continual area of the ranges and includes
Bungalbin Hill (at the western end, see Plate 3-6) and the proposed Bungalbin East mining
development (at the eastern end of the central portion of the HAR, see Figure 2-2). Two smaller
areas of the HAR occur to the northeast of the central area. These three areas of the HAR have a
generally higher elevation than the western portion (see Section 3.2.2) (Plates 3-7 to 3-9).
As mentioned above, hills in the HAR generally have stony slopes. Along ridge lines, erosion of the
friable weathered surface gravels has resulted in a relatively thin layer of gravel (0-10cm deep) over
the solid ironstone. This unit is defined by Soil Water Consultants (SWC) as SMU 1: Skeletal Gravels
(SWC, 2016a). 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 (2016a) as SMU 3: Deep Alluvial Clays and effectively form the plain soils
surrounding the outcropping BIF ridges. These soils occur throughout the Yilgarn (SWC, 2016a).
Bedrock exposures are common on the steep slopes and crests, and scree slopes occur in a number
of locations throughout the HAR. Chen and Wyche (2003) describe BIF scree as containing angular
and poorly sorted clasts in a siliceous matrix of BIF. Rocky outcrops are common within the central
and eastern portions of the HAR and caves and small cliff faces are also present in some areas (Plates
3-10 and 3-11).
The landform map prepared by Newbey (1985) indicates that the plains surrounding the HAR
comprise three separate landform units (Figure 3-2). The Broad Valley and Sandplain landforms
dominate the flatter portions of the LAU (Plate 3-12), while Undulating Plains (Greenstone) occur
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-6
within the LAU to the north and southwest of the HAR (Plate 3-13). These landforms are described
below.
The Broad Valley landform 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 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. Consequently, an important soil aspect is the calcareous B horizon (Newbey, 1985).
The Sandplain landform comprises the almost flat upland plain and the upper and middle valley
slopes. 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). There are no definitive drainage lines, but
flows may occur over short distances following heavy and intense falls of rain (Newbey, 1985).
The last of the landform units mapped by Newbey (1985) within the LAU is the Undulating Plains.
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).
3.3
Helena-Aurora Ranges and Potentially Affected Landforms
EPA (2015b) states that a landform is defined through the combination of its geology (composition)
and morphology (form). Section 3.3.1 describes the lithology (i.e. the gross physical characteristics)
and mineralogy of the PALs. Section 3.3.2 describes the morphology of the PALs based on the
characteristics selected for this study (i.e. elevation, slope, aspect, TPI, wetness index and solar
radiation). Section 3.3.3 outlines morphological processes relevant to the HAR.
3.3.1
Lithology and Mineralogy
The HAR occurs up to 704 m AHD in a relatively flat landscape. The HAR boundary defined in the
ESD includes most of the hills, valleys and slopes of the HAR, but excludes the surrounding plains.
The western portion of the HAR comprises 22 km of low hills that extend to the northwest towards
Mt Jackson Range while the central and eastern portions of the range comprises approximately 23
km of convoluted hills that lie in a northeast-southwest direction (HARA, undated).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-7
Several lithological units occur within the HAR, as summarised in Table 3-2 and shown on Figure 3-3.
Data provided as part of Figure 3-3 show that the most common unit within the HAR is Siliceous BIF
(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 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 PALs (21.1%). The third most common unit at both J5 and Bungalbin East is
Goethite Mineralisation (at 14.8% and 20.8%, respectively), but this unit only covers a small area
within the wider PALs (2.7%). The third most common unit within the HAR is Jasperlite (13.8%), but
this does not occur in measurable areas within the J5 pit area (0%) and is barely measurable at
Bungalbin East (0.3%).
Table 3-2: Lithology of the Helena-Aurora Ranges
Lithological Unit
Banded Iron
Formation
(Siliceous BIF)
Colluvium Scree
Jasperlite- rich
BIF
Goethite
Mineralisation
Alluvium
Welded Detritals
Canga and
Scanga
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.
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.
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%
2.7%
14.8%
20.8%
0.2%
0.0%
2.4%
5.5%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
8.4%
2.8%
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-8
Table 3-2 (cont.)
Lithological Unit
Tuff
Goethite-rich BIF
Magnetite-rich
BIF
Hematite
Mineralisation
Bedded Goethite
Chert
Basalt
Description
PALs
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.
Fine grain, silica rich sedimentary unit often
occurring in layered beds alternating with iron
stone (BIF), but it also occurs in massive form in
various colours from red to white.
A volcanic rock occurring as tholeiitic and highMg types in the foothills of the range. Rare,
small occurrences on the flanks of the range.
1.7%
Area
J5 Pit
Bungalbin
Area
East Pit Area
0.0%
4.7%
1.1%
5.4%
5.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
The unit is mapped as Goethite
Mineralisation
11.5%
10.3%
2.2%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
Source: Reynolds and Scarlett (2016) and CAD Resources
The way in which surface geology and lithology influences the geomorphology of the J5 and
Bungalbin East areas is illustrated as Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
The Bungalbin East ore body comprises a 2.1 km long northeast-trending outcrop of goethite
mineralisation averaging 100 m in width. The orebody is exposed on the southern side of the ridge
for 2.1 km. A hematite-mineralised zone approximately 380 m x 80 m wide is present on the
northern side of the ridge. Chert/jasperlite/BIF outcropping also occurs on the northern side of the
ridge. Dip of bedding in the ore zone is reported by MRL as ranging from 30 to 85° to the northwest,
with an approximately 50° slope occurring at the steepest point along the southern side of the ridge.
Reynolds and Scarlett (2016) state that it is considered that the main process responsible for the
genesis of the Bungalbin iron deposits is Mesozoic-Cainozoic supergene enrichment (Askins, 1999). A
long period of supergene processes has affected rock in the Yilgarn Block with the critical sequence
of events for Bungalbin East interpreted (and reported by Reynolds and Scarlett, 2016) as follows:
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-9





Sub-horizontal thrusting of BIF units (squeezed out, creating box folds at macro scale)
accompanied by shearing. The BIF was broken and sheared apart along the bedding and also
cross-cut it, allowing fluids to access the iron in the BIF and convert it from magnetite to
massive goethite +/- hematite mineralisation.
Exposure, post Permian.
Mesozoic-Cainozoic supergene enrichment to a goethite rich deposit during humid tropical
times.
Imprint of lateritisation in an arid climate post-Miocene to form the hard iron-rich cap rock
observed over much of the mineralisation. Leaching of some phosphorus from high
phosphorus goethitic material coincided with this process.
Erosion to form current regolith. Some of the eroded material has re-cemented to form
‘canga’, but no evidence has been found in the Bungalbin area for the existence of large
palaeochannel iron deposits like those found in the Pilbara.
Bungalbin East is believed to be a limb of a syncline which trends in a northwest direction. The
structure is synclinal in the northern end of the ore body, while in the southwest, the greenstone is
the exposed core of an anticlinal structure (BHP, 1960). Minor synclines and anticlines have been
identified within and parallel to the strike of the Bungalbin East ore body. Folding is tight, with the
amplitude of the folding influencing the depth to which the ferriginous sediments extend. Indeed,
the tightness and number of folds is believed to be the controlling factor in the width of the
Bungalbin East deposit (Bennet, 1960). Cross and drag folding have been identified and transverse
and bedding faulting have been noted (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.).
Magnetite is the dominant iron mineral within the unaltered BIF at Bungalbin East. Basalt is not
common in outcrop though it is interpreted to be flanking the ranges and underlying much of the flat
sandy cover away from the ranges. Tuffs are common throughout the area and minor potential
greywakes have been observed near the northern extent of the deposit (Reynolds and Scarlett,
2016).
The J5 ore body is very similar to the Bungalbin East ore body. The J5 ore body is 900 m long,
northwest trending outcrop of goethite (± hematite) mineralisation averaging 80 m in width. The
critical sequence of events for J5 is the same as for Bungalbin East (as described above).
Siliceous, chert to jasperlitic BIF outcrops on the northern and southern sides of the J5 deposit and
there are substantial silificed canga/scanga exposures on the western and eastern ends of the iron
mineralisation. The mineralisation dips from 80° to 87° towards the north-northeast. There are
some reverse dip directions which indicate a significant degree of folding and faulting. The deposit
lies in the southern limb of an earlier deformational syncline than the Bungalbin Syncline which is
the host of the Bungalbin East iron ore deposit. The southern slopes vary from 35° to 85° at its
steepest point. The steepest points of the slope are due to the BIF (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-10
The J5 deposit is believed to be on the southern limb of a F1 syncline which trends in a northwest
direction (Chen and Wyche, 2003). Minor synclines and anticlines have been identified within and
parallel to the strike of the ore body. Folding is tight, with the amplitude of the folding and shearing
influencing the depth to which the alteration has penetrated. This folding with strike-slip movement
along planes of weakness within the different bands of the BIF are interpreted to be the controlling
factors in the width of the J5 deposit. Previous drilling has shown the goethite mineralisation grades
into the parent magnetite-bearing BIFs at depth. This is also supported by the geological mapping
which defined gradational relationships between the goethite/hematite mineralisation and the
magnetite-bearing BIF and jasperlite BIF (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.).
Magnetite is the predominant iron mineral within the unaltered BIF at J5, as it is at Bungalbin East.
On the fringes of the main ore body are outcrops of hematite mineralisation which show signs of
alteration to goethite. These areas are not as structurally prepared as the main ore body (D.
Kettlewell, pers. comm.). In essence, this means that the BIF was broken apart by a number of
structural processes that allowed fluids to alter the magnetite to form the current goethite and
hematite ore body. However, this type of structural movement only occurred in certain places, not
along the entirety of the range (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.).
As at Bungalbin East, basalt at J5 is not common in outcrop (Table 3-2) though it is also interpreted
to be flanking the ranges and underlying much of the flat sandy cover away from the ranges. Small
outcrops of iron capping are common away from the range and these have formed on top of basalt.
Tuffs are not common at J5 (Table 3-2). Some minor shale outcrops are present, but these are very
minor (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.) and are too small to be mapped at the scale of Figure 3-3.
3.3.2
Landform Characteristics
To allow comparison of the landforms within the proposed J5 and Bungalbin East pits with the other
landforms within the HAR and wider LAU, CAD Resources modelled data from these areas in relation
to the selected landform analysis criteria (elevation, slope, aspect, TPI, Wetness Index and solar
radiation).
Selection of these criteria is described in Section 2.5.2. The modelling methodology is described in
Section 2.7.
Elevation
Elevation data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6.
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). Indeed, these data indicate that
around one third of the landforms in the HAR by the OEPA occurs at 480-520 mAHD level (35.5%)
and around one third occur at 520-560 mAHD (30.6%), with maximum elevations at 680-702 mAHD
(0.3%).
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
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-11
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 areas of disturbance for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure
mainly occur in areas of lower elevation (Figure 3-6).
Slope
Slope data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-7. 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 areas of disturbance for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure
mainly occur in areas with more gentle slopes (Figure 3-7).
Aspect
Aspect data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-8.
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 areas of disturbance for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure
have variable aspects (Figure 3-8).
Topographic Position Index
Data in relation to the topographic position (or slope position) are provided in Table 3-6 and Figure
3-9. 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.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-12
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
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-13
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
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-14
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
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-15
The data provided in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-9 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 areas of disturbance for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure
are characterised primarily by Gentle Slopes (Figure 3-9).
Wetness Index
Wetness Index data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-7 and Figure 310. These three areas rate low on the Wetness Index due to the high level of runoff from these
areas. The lowest rankings are recorded in areas with steep slopes such as the tops of ridges,
breakaways and cliff faces on the more south-facing components of the HAR (see the darker areas
shown on Figure 3-10). In comparison, the drainage lines adjacent to the HAR rate more highly on
the index as they receive runoff from adjacent areas (see the orange-red areas shown on Figure 310).
Solar Radiation
Solar radiation data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-8 and Figure 311. 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 3-11). With their steep slopes,
they receive less direct sunlight and tend to have more shadowed areas.
Landforms within the indicative areas of disturbance for the WRLs, roads and other infrastructure
receive high levels of solar radiation (Figure 3-11).
3.3.3
Geomorphological Processes
Geomorphology is the study of the physical features of the Earth’s land surfaces related to its
geological features. More specifically, it refers to our understanding of the formation of landforms
and their structure and form, or characteristics (Sturman and Spronken-Smith, 2001).
Geomorphology focuses on landforms and their formative processes, particularly the earth-surface
processes of weathering, erosion, transport and deposition, and their rates of operation (Matthews
and Herbert, 2008; Sturman and Spronken-Smith, 2001).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-16
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
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-17
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 3-8: 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
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-18
The geomorphic environment includes landforms, rocks, soils and minerals (Sturman and SpronkenSmith, (2001) whereas lithology is the specific study of rock characteristics, particularly grain size,
particle size and physical and chemical character (Whittow, 2000). Geomorphic landforms are
dynamic features in the landscape and are subject to change over time. Depending on the type of
landform and its location, the temporal scale of landform change can vary from short (seconds to
minutes; from geomorphic hazards such as landslides, wind erosion and fluvial erosion) to long
(decades to millenia; from tectonic movement, cyclical weathering and erosion).
Geomorphological processes are the physical actions that create changes to landforms over time.
These result in erosional and depositional features that can create new or altered landform features.
Landforms that experience the most dynamic change from geomorphic processes over a short
temporal scale include braided riverbeds and coastlines. The geomorphology of other landforms is
usually altered over a longer time scale or as a result of anthropogenic influences on weathering,
erosion, transport and deposition (such as from agricultural activities located in mountains and
hillslope areas) (Warren and French, 2001).
Weathering, erosion, transport and deposition can occur as a result of chemical dissolution, mass
movement, surface water flow, groundwater movement, wind action, wave action, glacial action,
tectonic movement and volcanism (Sturman and Spronken-Smith, 2001; The Dynamic Nature, 2013).
The main earth-surface process resulting in changes to the geomorphic features of the HAR are
hillslope processes, with fluvial and aeolian processes also playing a role in the geomorphology of
the HAR. These processes are described as:
Mass Movement + Gravity → Hillslope Processes:
o Sediment/rock movement from upslope by gravity and deposition downslope as
scree or colluvium3
Surface water → Fluvial Processes:
o Sediment/rock movement by surface water and deposition in drainage channels or
plains as alluvium4
Wind → Aeolian Processes:
o Soil/sand/sediment movement by wind and deposition in the surrounding
environment
The dynamic involved in hillslope process is the force of gravity moving soil, regolith or rock eroded
from upslope. Material is then deposited downslope as scree at the base of rocky slopes or
colluvium material at the base of the hillslope (Whittow, 2000; Warren and French, 2001).
3
Colluvium: a heterogeneous mixture of weathered materials transported downslope by gravitational forces and deposited at
the foot of the slope (Whittow, 2000).
4
The sedimentary deposits resulting from the actions of rivers, thus including those laid down in river channels and floodplains,
but not including lake or marine sediments (Whittow, 2000).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-19
Water may also play a role in moving material downslope when entrained in water, but material is
usually moved along drainage channels and can be moved further than by gravity alone. Fluvial
processes can move material to the very base of the slope or deposit it in the surrounding plains as
alluvium (Whittow, 2000; Warren and French, 2001).
Aeolian processes are common within arid environments with the wind capable of moving small or
unconsolidated materials. Aeolian erosion involves wearing away of the rock surface by the wind
and the deposition of wind-borne materials usually in the form of dunes (Whittow, 2000).
On hills and mountains, eroded upslope areas are more exposed to weathering processes and, as
this weathered material is degraded and loosened, it becomes easier to transport downslope. The
evolution and formation of slopes and resulting slope character (slope genesis) depends on the
following seven factors (Whittow, 2000):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Lithology.
Geomorphological processes.
Climate.
Vegetation cover.
Aspect.
Tectonic movement.
Base-level changes.
The factors that result in the development of hillslope processes (as described above) can be applied
to the HAR in the form of valley-side slopes. The geomorphic features and processes occurring
within valley-side slopes are summarised in Table 3-9.
As a geomorphological entity, the HAR represents an outcrop-controlled, largely weathering-limited
feature where the pervasive bedrock outcrop and associated ridge margins convey a strong level of
robustness to the terrain (K. Wyrwoll, pers. comm.). Resistance to physical and chemical weathering
related to rock properties is described in Table 3-10. This table includes examples of rock types
present at the HAR.
It has been suggested that the ridge margin colluvial slopes and associated valley/sandplain
geomorphological terrains of the HAR are more sensitive to disturbances associated with the
Proposal (K. Wyrwoll, pers. comm.).
The soil assessment (SWC, 2016a) and surface water
assessment (SWC, 2016b) conducted for the Proposal have demonstrated that the HAR is highly
resistant to erosion, with erosion potential increasing at the base of the ranges and on the
surrounding plains due to the finer alluvial soils. Throughout the J5 and Bungalbin East areas, soil
stability is controlled by self-armouring qualities (SMU 1 and 2); Neurachne annularis groundcover
forming an intricate network of resource accumulation and resource loss areas that decreases the
effective slope length and overall velocity of any surface flows (SMU 2); and the presence of a nearly
continuous cryptogam cover (SMU 3) (SWC, 2016a).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-20
Table 3-9: Characteristics of Valley-side Slopes
Slope Sequence
Upper Slopes/Ridges

Geomorphic Processes
Surface water runoff is rare


Side Slopes


Colluvial Slopes
(including Coves or
Hollows)



Power of water running over
the surface is increased
Soils are thinner on side
slopes than on ridges – offers
plants only shallow rooting
(see Note).
Colluvium is debris from
upslope in storage at the base
Coves are concave bowls at
the heads of valleys that
collect sediment washed
down from above
Coves are emptied
out/flushed once reach a slow
build-up of debris and reach
some critical mass (years to
decades to centuries)






Other Geomorphic Features
Highest wind speeds and fires
across the valley-side slope
sequence
Most sensitive as soil can take
millennia to develop
Small gullies may appear
Faster inputs of weathering
and outputs of erosion
Have more available nutrients
than elsewhere in the valleyside slope sequence
Colluvial soils are deep and
are the most nutrient-rich of a
valley-side slope sequence
Shallow groundwater may
come to the surface of the
colluvium, especially after
rainstorms
Colluvium is a consequence of
the episodicity of the climatic
and tectonic environment
Source: Modified from Warren and French (2001)
Note: Although valley-side slopes typically have this characteristic, this is not consistent with the findings of SWC (2016a)
who found that soils are thinner on the top of the ridge where the ironstone tends to be closer to the surface or outcrops.
Mid-slopes tend to have deeper soil/gravel than ridge tops.
It is clear that geomorphological characteristics and processes strongly influence the biota of an
area. It is suggested by Morton et al. (2011) that soil moisture shapes the spectrum of plant lifehistory strategies. For example, germination and plant establishment are possible only during
periods of high soil moisture. Warren and French (2001) state that diversity can be more efficiently
maximised by selection based on geomorphological units than through survey of species. These
authors state that flora and fauna species have adapted to, and therefore need, the spatial and
temporal variety and scale that geomorphological processes provide (Warren and French, 2001).
However, biota and biological processes (such as the influences of burrowing or tree throw on soil
development) may play important roles in setting the rates of some hillslope processes (Sturman
and Spronken-Smith, 2001). For example, at the HAR, cryptogam covers assist in holding the surface
soils together and essentially forms a continuous crust on the surface that prevents the detachment
of surface soil particles. However, if the continuity of this crust is disturbed, erosion and sediment
loss increases by allowing the convergence of surface water flows and subsequent undercutting od
downstream cryptogam crusts (SWC, 20016a).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-21
Table 3-10: Resistance to Weathering Related to Rock Properties
Rock Properties
Mineral composition





Physical Weathering
Resistant
Non-resistant
High feldspar content
 High quartz content
Calcium plagioclase
 Sodium plagioclase
Low quartz content
 Heterogeneous
composition
CaCO3
Homogenous composition





Texture
Porosity
Bulk properties












Fine-grained (general)
Uniform texture
Crystalline, tightly packed
clastics
Gneissic
Fine-grained silicates
Low porosity, free draining
Low internal surface area
Large pore diameter
permitting free draining
after saturation




Coarse-grained (general)
Variable textures
Schistose
Coarse-grained silicates







Low absorption
High strength with good
elastic properties
Fresh rock
Hard



High porosity, poorly
draining
High internal surface
area
Small pore diameter
hindering free-draining
after saturation
High absorption
Low strength
Partially weathered rock
(grus, honeycomb)
Soft









Resistant
Uniform mineral
composition
High silica content (quartz,
stable feldspars)
Low metal ion content
(Fe-Mg), low biotite
High orthoclase, Na
feldspars
High aluminium ion
content
Fine-grained dense rock
Uniform texture
Crystalline
Clastics
Gneissic
Chemical Weathering
Non-resistant
 Mixed/variable mineral composition
 High CaCO3 content
 Low quartz content
 High calcic plagioclase
 High olivine
 Unstable primary igneous minerals



Coarse-grained igneous
Variable textural features (porphyritic)
Schistose
Large pore size, low
permeability
Free-draining
Low internal surface area



Small pore size, high permeability
Poorly draining
High internal surface area
Low absorption
High compressive and
tensile strength
Fresh rock
Hard




High absorption
Low strength
Partially weathered rock (oxide rings, pitting)
Soft
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 3-22
Table 3-10 (cont.)
Rock Properties
Structure
Representative rock
types at J5 and
Bungalbin East












Physical Weathering
Resistant
Non-resistant
Minimal foliation
 Foliated
Clastics
 Fractured, cracked
Massive formations
 Mixed soluble and
insoluble mineral
Thick-bedded sediments
components
 Thin-bedded sediments
Chert
 Tuff
BIF
 Basalt
Jasperlite-rich BIF
 Bedded goethite
Hematite mineralisation
 Goethite mineralisation
Magnetite-rich BIF
 Interbedded shale and
goethite
Canga and scanga
Welded detritals
Fe cap


Resistant
Strongly cemented, dense
grain packing
Siliceous cement
Massive








Quartz porphyry
Jasperlite-rich BIF
BIF
Hematite mineralisation
Magnetite-rich BIF
Scanga
Welded detritals
Fe cap

Chemical Weathering
Non-resistant
 Poorly cemented
 Calcareous cement
 Thin-bedded
 Fractured cracked
 Mixed soluble and insoluble mineral
components
 Tuff
 Bedded goethite
 Goethite mineralisation
 Interbedded shale and goethite
 Canga
Source: Information on mineral composition, texture, porosity, bulk properties and structure is from Lindsey et al. (1982) in Chorley et al. (1984). Information on representative rock types at
J5 and Bungalbin East is from D. Kettlewell (pers. comm).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-1
DISCUSSION
4.1
Variety
4.1.1
Rarity
The ESD for the Proposal poses a number of questions about the key aspects of variety and rarity
that focus on similarity, representation and importance. These questions are as follows:




Are the landforms considered particularly good or important examples of their type?
How adequately are these types of landforms represented in the local or regional area?
How do these landforms differ from other examples at these scales?
Are the landforms rare or relatively rare; being one of the few of its type at a local and
regional level?
As discussed in Section 3.1, Greenstone belts of mafic volcanics and BIF are common in the northern
and eastern parts of the Yilgarn Craton (Markey and Dillon, 2011a) with BIF landforms being well
represented in the local and regional area. Figure 3-1 provides the location of BIF and other
elevated landforms within the wider Mount Manning area. Askins (1999) contends that the BIF unit
at Bungalbin and elsewhere in the district are equivalent to that at Koolyanobbing.
All greenstone belts throughout the Yilgarn have banded cherts and BIFs being dominantly
associated with greenstone successions. Due to a number of factors, the iron content of these BIFs is
variable and coupled with silica content will determine the landform type. In the HAR, high levels of
iron and silica have resulted in a range with steeper sides than, for example, the Hunt Range and
Yendilberin Hills. These ranges have a higher silica than iron content which has led to more
rounded, flattened hills as opposed to a prominent range that has been more resistant to
weathering over time (D. Kettlewell, pers. comm.).
Although BIF-dominated landforms are common throughout the Mount Manning area, data
provided in Table 3-1 indicate that the heights, maximum slopes and majority aspects of landforms
in this region are quite variable. Based on available data, it appears that the HAR has a similar range
of elevations compared to the Mount Manning, Mount Jackson and Die Hardy ranges, but has the
highest maximum elevation at 702 mAHD. The maximum slopes recorded in these landforms are
similar to those at the HAR, but each of these has a different majority aspect (Table 3-1).
While BIF-dominated and other landforms in the region have many similarities in terms of physical
and geochemical characteristics, there are differences in flora and vegetation, and it is in these that
we find conservation importance. Numerous flora and vegetation surveys have been conducted in
the HAR and wider region including, for example, ecologia Environment (2013, 2014 and 2016),
Mattiske Consulting (2001, 2007a-d, 2008a-d, 2009a-d, 2010, 2011a-d, 2012a-f and 2013) and
Western Botanical (2009 and 2013). Further, the similarities and differences of the flora and
vegetation of BIF ranges have been assessed through a series of surveys conducted since the late
1990s (Table 4-1). A meta-analysis of the patterns across 24 of these ranges conducted by Gibson et
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-2
al. (2012) (Table 4-1) concluded that broad scale spatial and climate gradients were the most
important factors in explaining the variance in the richness of perennial flora species. However,
Markey and Dillon (2011a) state that the high beta (β) diversity among these isolated ranges could
also be attributed to a number of factors such as:



range-specific differences in geomorphology;
historical fluctuations in palaeoclimate; and
stochastic processes of colonisations and extinctions within and between ranges.
Table 4-1: Flora and Vegetation Surveys of BIF-dominated Landforms
Area
HAR
Parker Range
Bremer Bay
Highclere Hills
Hunt Range, Yendilberin Hills and
Watt Hills
Mt Manning Range
Yilgarn BIF ranges
Tallering Land System
Weld Range
Mt Gibson and surrounding area
Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills
Jack Hills
Herbert Lukin Ridge
Mount Forrest – Mount
Richardson Range
Cashmere Downs Range
Robinson Ranges and Mount
Gould
Gullewa
Booylgoo Range
Brooking Hills
Mt Ida Greenstone Belt and Mt
Hope
Western Narryer Terrane
Perseverance Greenstone Belt
South Illara Greenstone Belt
Barloweerie and Twin Peaks
Northern Yerilgee Hills
Johnston Range
Yalgoo
Reference
Included in analysis
by Gibson et al. (2012)
Gibson et al. (1997)
Gibson and Lyons (1998a)
Gibson and Lyons (1998b)
Gibson and Lyons (2000)
Gibson and Lyons (2001)
Gibson (2004)
Gibson et al. (2007)
Markey and Dillon (2008a)
Markey and Dillon (2008b)
Meissner and Caruso (2008a)
Meissner and Caruso (2008b)
Meissner and Caruso (2008c)
Markey and Dillon (2009)
Meissner et al. (2009a)







Meissner et al. (2009b)
Meissner et al. (2009c)


Markey and Dillon (2010a)
Markey and Dillon (2010b)
Meissner and Owen (2010a)
Meissner and Owen (2010b)




Meissner and Owen (2010c)
Meissner and Wright (2010a)
Meissner and Wright (2010b)
Meissner and Wright (2010c)
Markey and Dillon (2011a)
Markey and Dillon (2011b)
Markey and Dillon (2011c)







J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-3
Table 4-1 (cont.)
Area
Reference
Lee Steere Range
Lake Mason Zone of the Gum
Creek Greenstone Belt
Montague Range Zone of the
Gum Creek Greenstone Belt
Thompson and Sheehy (2011a)
Thompson and Sheehy (2011b)
Included in analysis
by Gibson et al. (2012)


Thompson and Sheehy (2011c)

BIF ranges in the Yilgarn Craton tend to support geographically restricted plant communities and
exhibit high levels of endemism (CALM and Department of Industry and Resources [DoIR], undated;
EPA, 2007; and Gibson et al., 2012). They have a degree of geographic isolation from other BIF
ranges and it is speculated that these ranges have acted as both refugia during drier climate cycles
and centres of recent speciation (Butcher et al., 2007). See Section 4.1.2.2 for further discussion.
In their analysis of the spatial distribution of 44 ironstone specialist species, Gibson et al. (2012)
found that these did not occur uniformly across the region, but were concentrated in two hot spots
along the southwestern boundary of the Arid Zone. The eastern hot spot centres on the HAR
(Gibson et al., 2010) while the western hot spot centres on the Koolyanooka Hills (Gibson et al.,
2012).
Gibson and Lyons (2001) note that although the flora richness of the HAR is comparable to that of
the Hunt Range, Watt Hills and Yendilberin Hills on Jaurdi Station (50 km east of the HAR) and
Highclere Hill (100 km east-northeast of the HAR), and that there are some similarities in species
composition between the ironstone floras of these ranges, there is a significant changeover of
species between the range systems. This is most likely due to the smaller size of the outcrops and
the more extensive development of laterite on the Jaurdi uplands, but it is possible that this has
been also been influenced by a climatic gradient and Tertiary climatic history (Gibson and Lyons,
2001).
This pattern is not restricted to the HAR area. Gibson and Lyons (1998a-b) found that there is a
marked change-over in the flora of Parker and Bremer ranges even though they have similar local
underlying ecological gradients and are only 100 km apart. It is suggested that the difference
between the flora of these ranges is related to regional climatic gradients (Gibson and Lyons, 1998a).
4.1.2
Scientific Importance
The ESD for the Proposal poses questions in relation to scientific importance, as follows:


Do the landforms provide evidence of past ecological or biological processes or are they an
important geomorphological or geological site?
Are the landforms of recognised scientific interest as a reference site or an example where
important natural processes are operating?
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-4
These questions are addressed in Sections 4.1.2.1 to 4.1.2.3.
4.1.2.1 Geology and Geomorphology
As discussed in Section 3.1, much of the Yilgarn Craton has weathered into gently undulating plains
overlain by deeply weathered regolith (Markey and Dillon, 2010a). However, BIF is resistant to
erosion (Table 3-10) and occurs as isolated ranges, elongated ridges and prominent hills throughout
the region (Chen and Wyche, 2003). These form “islands” that support plant communities with a
strong correlation to geological substrates and topo-edaphic gradients (Markey and Dillon, 2008b;
Markey and Dillon, 2010a; Markey and Dillon, 2011b; Gibson et al., 2012; Meissner et al., 2009c; and
Thompson and Sheehy, 2011a-c).
The literature reviewed during this study identifies a number of landform and edaphic (soil-related)
factors that influence flora and vegetation distribution on BIF landforms including soil chemistry,
water holding capacity, soil nutrient levels and fertility, the amount of exposed bedrock, surficial size
and slope (see, for example, Gibson and Lyons, 1998a-b, 2001; Markey and Dillon, 2008a, 2011a-b;
Meissner et al., 2009a-c; and Meissner and Caruso, 2008b). Within the HAR, there is a strong
correlation between the distribution of vegetation types with topographic position and slope class
(Gibson et al., 1997) (see Section 4.1.3.2).
Within BIF sites at the Booylgoo Range, Markey and Dillon (2010b) found the greatest floristic
differences between upland and lowland communities, and concluded that this is associated with
extremes along a topo-edaphic gradient. This pattern is likely to occur within other BIF ranges
including the HAR (see Section 4.1.3). Gibson et al. (2015) note that the high β-diversity across an
individual range is unsurprising given the significant environmental gradients that occur between the
skeletal soils on the massive BIF on the ridge tops down to the lower colluvial slopes. The high
turnover in species composition between BIF ranges was much higher than expected for
communities in the arid zone. Markey and Dillon (2011a) state that the high β-diversity among
these isolated ranges could be attributed to a number of factors including range-specific differences
in geomorphology.
In their review of the flora and vegetation or BIF landforms in the Yilgarn, Gibson et al. (2012)
conclude that soil chemistry is important in relation to the distribution of the specialist ironstone
species, but that it “remains unclear whether this broad scale pattern in soil chemistry is related to
regional variation in rock chemistry or variation in petrological processes”. Gibson et al. (2015) note
that work is required to better understand the relationship of β-diversity with spatial, climate, soil
chemistry and local site variables across BIF ranges. The outcomes of such studies would also better
inform our understanding of the role (and therefore the importance) of geology and geomorphology
of BIF landforms.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-5
4.1.2.2 Past Ecological and Biological Processes
As stated in Chorley et al. (1984), “an understanding of the erosional and depositional processes that
fashion the landform, their mechanics and their rates of operation must be obtained in order that
the past evolution can be explained and the future evolution predicted”. For the HAR, the role of
organisms and geomorphology (biogeomorphology) is also important as flora and fauna either
influence the genesis of landforms, or earth-surface processes and landforms influence the
distribution of plants and animals (Whittow, 2000).
It has been speculated that BIF ranges in the Yilgarn Craton have acted as both refugia during drier
climate cycles and centres of recent speciation (Butcher et al., 2007). Butcher et al. (2007) indicates
that the combination of ancient relictual species and more recently diverged taxa is consistent with
the biogeographical history of the Yilgarn region. These authors hypothesise that speciation
processes in the region have been driven (in part) by late Tertiary-Quaternary climatic oscillations
and resultant episodes of population fragmentation and genetic isolation, which have led to both old
relictual taxa and relatively ancient fragmented population systems within some species complexes
(Butcher et al., 2007).
This theme has also been discussed elsewhere in the literature. For example, Gibson and Lyons
(1998a) suggest that endemism at the Parker Range and Bremer Range (which have similar levels of
flora endemism as the HAR) is not related to substrates, but instead suggest that the ranges may
have acted as refugia during the waves of aridity during the Tertiary, which is now reflected by
patterns of local endemism. A similar suggestion is made by Markey and Dillon (2011a), who state
that the high β-diversity among the isolated BIF ranges of the Yilgarn could be attributed to a
number of factors such as historical fluctuations in palaeoclimate and stochastic processes of
colonisations and extinctions within and between ranges. Further, an analysis of the spatial
distribution of 44 ironstone specialist species found that such species did not occur uniformly across
the region, but are concentrated in the HAR and the Koolyanooka Hills, areas in which the
evolutionary processes that lead to the distinctive ironstone flora can be conserved (Gibson et al.,
2012).
4.1.2.3 Reference Sites and Important Natural Processes
The HAR is located within the Jackson – Kalgoorlie Study Area of the Biological Survey of the Eastern
Goldfields of WA (Dell et al., 1985). This survey collected data on the landforms, flora and
vegetation, and vertebrate fauna of the area. Formal study sites associated with these surveys occur
within the LAU (see, for example, Figure 3-2).
Flora and vegetation surveys have been conducted on BIF-dominated landforms in the region (see
Table 4-1). The HAR survey (Gibson et al., 1997) involved the establishment of 55 permanent plots
marked with steel fence droppers. The position of these plots was recorded, but these data are not
provided in Gibson et al. (1997). A schematic map of the study area indicates that two of these plots
are located at J5 and several are located at Bungalbin East, and would be lost if the Proposal is
implemented. Although Gibson et al. (1997) states that the results of their study support the
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-6
recommendations of Keighery (1980), Henry-Hall (1990) and CALM (1994b), this paper does not
comment on whether any subsequent monitoring would be conducted at these plots.
Natural landform processes occurring within the HAR are described in Sections 3.3.3 and 4.1.2.1, and
include erosion and sedimentation. It is considered that the processes occurring with the PALs are
consistent with those occurring elsewhere in the HAR.
4.1.3
Ecological Importance
The ESD for the Proposal queries whether the landforms “have a role in maintaining existing
ecological and physical processes. For example, do the landforms have important textural features
like caves, monoliths or outcropping that provide a microclimate, source of water flow or shade that
support ecological functions and environmental values of the landforms?”. Geographic and climatic
gradients strongly influence the floristic patterns of BIF-dominated landforms at broad scales, with
key topo-edaphic features playing an important role at finer, more localised scales (see, for example,
Gibson et al., 2010, and Gibson et al., 2012). These aspects are discussed below.
4.1.3.1 Elevation
The elevation data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit provided in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6
indicate that the J5 pit landforms are generally of lower elevation than the wider HAR area. In
contrast, the landforms within the Bungalbin East pit (in the more central part of the HAR) are
generally of higher elevation. Di Virgilio et al. (2015) note that portions of the central and
southwestern summits of the HAR tend to have marginally higher levels of elevation variability.
Analysis of the relationship between elevation and vegetation within the HAR by Di Virgilio et al.
(2015) found a weak/negative plant-elevation heterogeneity association on northeastern summits
within the HAR, which suggests that the micro-climate on these summits is less favourable to plants
inhabiting these areas, possibly because these surfaces provide less protection from solar radiation.
In contrast, the positive relationship between plant local endemism, species richness and elevation
heterogeneity on the central and south-western summits (an area that includes the proposed
location of the J5 and Bungalbin East pits) suggests that there are more micro-sites that provide
protection from solar radiation on these summits, possibly because a greater number of these have
a southward aspect (see Section 4.1.3.3).
4.1.3.2 Slope and TPI
The data provided in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-9 indicate that the J5 pit, Bungalbin East pit and the
wider HAR are dominated by Gentle Slopes, though Steep Slopes and Upper Slopes are also common
at Bungalbin East.
An analysis of the flora and vegetation of the HAR by Gibson et al. (1997) found that, within the HAR,
there is a correlation between vegetation type, topographic position and slope class. These authors
identified five broad vegetation community types within the HAR and found that Community Types 1
and 2 were restricted to the steeper slope classes. Community Type 1 occurs only on skeletal soils
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-7
on massive ironstone tops and upper slopes, while Community Type 2 extends down to the
midslopes where suitable outcropping of BIF occurs (Gibson et al., 1997). Community Type 3 occurs
at an intermediate position in the landscape (and consequently across a broad range of slope
classes) while types 4 and 5 occur low in the landscape, generally on gentle slopes and the deeper
soils of the outwash plain (Gibson et al., 1997).
4.1.3.3 Aspect
Aspect data for the HAR, J5 pit and Bungalbin East pit are provided in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-8.
These data indicate that the dominant aspect for these areas is south-east to south-west, though
21% of the J5 pit area has a northeast aspect compared to just 10.8% of the HAR and 3.6% of the
Bungalbin East pit area.
The southward aspect of many micro-sites within the HAR provides a greater level of solar
protection than the north-facing aspects. It is considered that south-facing aspects will experience
lower temperatures than north-facing aspects, and therefore fewer drought events (Di Virgilio et al.,
2015).
4.1.3.4 Wetness Index and Water Availability
Plants require water for photosynthesis so the availability of water determines the amount of
biomass produced and the rate at which it is generated, which influences the height, density and
layering of vegetation (Watson et al., 2008). Plants largely access water through their roots, so the
amount of water available in the substrate is critical (Watson et al., 2008). Topography controls
hydrology at a broad level by influencing drainage patterns and sediment transport. At a more local
level, topographic variation influences water availability with rock fractures, fissures and depressions
trapping soil and moisture (Yates et al., 2011; and Di Virgilio et al., 2015).
The J5 and Bungalbin East pit areas rate low on the Wetness Index due to the high level of runoff
from these areas. Within the HAR, the lowest rankings are recorded in areas with steep slopes such
as the tops of ridges, breakaways and cliff faces on the more south-facing components of the HAR
(see the darker areas shown on Figure 3-10). In comparison, as can be seen on Figure 3-10, the
drainage lines adjacent to the HAR rate more highly on the index as they receive runoff from
adjacent areas.
The Wetness Index data provided in Section 3.3.2 show that a soil moisture gradient is in place
within the indicative areas of disturbance for the Proposal and wider HAR, with upland sites having
poor capacity to retain water (due to steep slopes, exposed bedrock and shallow or skeletal soils)
compared to lowland sites that receive surface runoff. Higher elevation areas have better drainage
than lower areas, with the sparse BIF vegetation coverage providing little impediment to surface
runoff (Di Virgilio et al., 2015). The water deficit in upland areas can be compounded by aspects of
microclimate such as high irradiance, extreme daily thermal variations and high rates of evaporation
(Markey and Dillon, 2011a).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-8
Rainfall in drier ecosystems such as the HAR is erratic and variable, and it is likely that there is
competition between plants on the HAR for rock fractures, fissures and depressions that trap
moisture (Di Virgilio et al., 2015). It is suggested by Morton et al. (2011) that soil moisture shapes
the spectrum of plant life-history strategies, noting that germination and plant establishment are
possible only during periods of high soil moisture. Ironstone specialist plant taxa may have a
competitive advantage in such environments (Di Virgilio et al., 2015). For example, Tetratheca taxa
have a leafless habit and can become dormant over extended dry periods, with new shoot growth
appearing following rain (Butcher et al., 2007; Yates et al., 2011).
4.1.3.5 Solar Radiation
The HAR is located in a semi-arid setting where slopes have shallow soil cover and experience
intense solar radiation and moisture loss (Di Virgilio et al., 2015). The solar radiation data for the
HAR (including the J5 and Bungalbin East pits) provided in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-11 indicate that
higher levels of solar radiation are received by the more gentle slopes than areas with steep slopes
(such as the tops of ridges, breakaways and cliff faces on the more south-facing components of the
HAR. See, for example, the lighter areas shown on Figure 3-11). With their steep slopes, they
receive less direct sunlight and tend to have more shadowed areas.
Di Virgilio et al. (2015) found that the negative influence of solar radiation on flora endemism and
richness was less pronounced on the central and southwestern summits of the HAR (the same areas
where elevation heterogeneity has a strong, positive influence on plant richness and endemism)
than the northeastern summits, suggesting that the desiccating effects of solar radiation are reduced
in the latter areas. These effects would also be reduced in areas with a high number of fissures,
ridges and depressions which offer protection from insolation, causing local evapotranspiration
differences (Di Virgilio et al., 2015). The authors conclude that attenuation of solar radiation
appears to be a key mechanism by which local elevation variability provides opportunity for
ironstone flora to compete for limited sites, facilitating survival.
4.2
Integrity
The ESD for the Proposal poses a number of questions in relation to integrity, as follows:


Are the landforms intact, being largely complete or whole and in good condition?
To what extent have the landforms, and the environmental values they support, been
impacted by previous activities or development? For example, have part of the landforms
been removed?
The HAR and wider LAU cover an area of approximately 3,451 ha and 34,820 ha, respectively. The
landforms within these areas are reasonably intact, but are not in pristine condition. It is estimated
that 16.2 ha of disturbance (0.4%) already exists within the HAR and 153.6 ha of existing disturbance
(0.44%) has occurred within the LAU (see Figure 4-1).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 4-9
Previous disturbance within the HAR and the LAU is due to clearing and other activities associated
with previous and current land use including recreation (e.g. camping), and mineral exploration.
Indirect impacts (due to, for example, changes in surface drainage patterns near roads and poor
waste disposal practices at campsites) have also occurred over a slightly wider area.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-1
LANDFORM IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT
5.1
Relevant Aspects
The ESD for the Proposal identifies mining excavation and earthworks as the aspects of relevance to
the assessment of impacts to landforms. This places primary focus on the J5 and Bungalbin East pits
within the HAR, though it is recognised that landform impacts can occur elsewhere in the LAU
through other activities related to the Proposal including the development of WRLs, access routes
and other infrastructure.
5.2
Existing Disturbance
The HAR covers an area of approximately 3,451 ha, a small portion of which (16.2 ha) has already
been disturbed as a result of previous and current recreational use, campsites, access tracks and
mineral exploration (including grid lines and drill pads) (see Figure 4-1). These impacts have been
direct (e.g. vegetation clearing) and indirect (e.g. impacts due to poor waste disposal practices at
camp sites).
The wider LAU has also been subject to impacts due to previous and current recreational use,
campsites, access tracks and mineral exploration (including grid lines and drill pads) (see Figure 4-1).
This area of disturbance is estimated to be 153.6 ha.
The existing Aurora mine and Aurora camp are located to the south of the LAU.
5.3
5.3.1
Predicted Operational Disturbances and Management
Area of Disturbance
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 5-1). Development of these pits will increase the area of disturbance within the HAR to 6.48%
(including existing disturbance).
Table 5-1: Areas of Disturbance within the Helena-Aurora Ranges
Element
Area covered by the HAR (using the OEPA landform boundary)
Estimated area of existing disturbance within the HAR
Maximum area of disturbance proposed for the J5 pit
Maximum area of disturbance proposed for the Bungalbin East pits
Total
Source: MRL and CAD Resources
Area
(ha)
3,451
16.20
60.88
146.57
Percentage
(%)
0.47
1.76
4.25
6.48
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-2
Within the wider LAU area 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 proposed Project is implemented, which will increase the area of disturbance within the LAU to
around 2.2% (including existing disturbance).
Table 5-2: 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
Percentage
(%)
56.26
146.57
97.67
44.09
0.16
0.42
0.28
0.13
67.52
0.19
2.18
0.44
0.17
0.25
0.13
Source: MRL and CAD Resources
The landforms within the LAU will be modified through the excavation of mine pits at J5 and
Bungalbin East and the construction of WRLs at these locations, and through the development of
mine infrastructure. The landform impacts arising, or that could arise, as a result of these activities
are described in Sections 5.3.2-5.3.5.
5.3.2
Open Pits
Open pit mining will be conducted at three open-cut pits at the J5 and Bungalbin East ore deposits
using conventional drill and blast techniques. The ore will be excavated, loaded and transported to
the run-of-mine stockyard. At J5, this process will result in the removal of up to 75 vertical metres of
rock and will produce an estimated 13-32 Million tonnes (Mt) of iron ore. The area of disturbance at
the J5 pit at the completion of mining will be no more than 60.88 ha (Table 5-2).
Two adjacent open-cut pits will be developed at Bungalbin East. The southern pit will be mined first
and then backfilled with waste rock from the northern pit. Up to 115 vertical metres of rock will be
mined within the southern (deepest) pit, but backfilling of this pit is expected to raise the pit floor to
around the same height as the eastern side of the pit crest. The area of disturbance at the Bungalbin
East pit at the completion of mining will be no more than 146.57 ha (Table 5-2).
Abandonment bunds will be established at the eastern crest of the northern Bungalbin East pit and
the southern crest of the J5 pit. These will be installed in accordance with DoIR (1997).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-3
The areas of disturbance indicated above include locations previously disturbed by historical and
current land uses, the abandonment bunds and areas required during and/or after mining for the
temporary storage of cleared vegetation and harvested topsoil/subsoil that will be used for
progressive and post-mining rehabilitation. They also include the light vehicle access tracks between
the mine pits, vegetation stockpiles and topsoil/subsoil stockpiles (see Section 5.3.5).
To minimise the potential for adverse impacts on landforms due to open-pit mining, MRL will:






Maintain ecological and landform integrity of surrounding landforms by limiting the area of
disturbance as much as possible. The company has already reduced the mine pit areas to
be located on the HAR from 368 ha (as proposed in the ESD) to 207.45 ha and reduced the
depth of the pits. Further, the company proposes to utilise waste rock from the northern
pit at Bungalbin East to partially backfill the southern pit.
Enforce land clearing controls.
Implement controlled blasting procedures.
Design for safe and stable pit void walls and monitor pit wall stability during mining.
Recognise the way in which geomorphological and hydrological processes influence
landform development and ecological function, and ensure that these processes are
considered in closure planning for the pits.
Install abandonment bunds (where required) outside the potential zone of pit wall
instability.
Progressive rehabilitation will be conducted at the pit areas where possible, particularly with
backfilling of the southern pit at Bungalbin East. The remainder of the rehabilitation will occur
following the cessation of mining.
The Rehabilitation and Mine Closure Plan (RMCP) developed for the Proposal (MRL, 2016) states that
the overall rehabilitation and closure objective is to leave the site in a safe and stable with selfsustaining ecosystems. Although the general Proposal area will be accessible to the public in line
with the proposed post-mining land use of “conservation park”, the RMCP states that there will be
no public access to the J5 pit or the Bungalbin East northern pit. However, access into the Bungalbin
East southern pit may be permissible as this pit will be backfilled to the level of the eastern crest.
Open pits will be developed over a total area of 207.45 ha within the HAR (Table 5-2) and will remain
as partially or fully open voids with pit walls that may be subject to slope failures. Open voids are
not usually conducive to revegetation, but where backfilling of the Bungalbin East southern pit
occurs, revegetation and re-establishment of fauna habitat may be possible (MRL, 2016). These
works will be conducted in accordance with the RMCP and MRL rehabilitation work instructions and
protocols. MRL will monitor rehabilitation performance and use the monitoring outcomes to modify
rehabilitation and closure programs where required (see Section 5.5).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-4
Based on the above, it is predicted that open-pit mining within the HAR will result in localised, but
permanent, alterations to the contour of the ridge lines and crests within the pit areas. Open voids
will remain, but partial backfilling the southern pit at Bungalbin East and rehabilitating the backfilled
area reduces the extent of this impact. The final pit floors at J5 and Bungalbin East will be above the
water table, so no pit lakes will develop. Water entering these areas due to rainfall and surface
runoff is expected to infiltrate the pit floors over time and should not form permanent water bodies,
but may pond temporarily during cooler and wetter periods.
In addition to the direct impact on landforms of pit excavation, there is potential for direct and
indirect impacts to surface drainage patterns (including changes to the direction, volume, rate and
quality of surface runoff and defined flow) which could affect local landforms through alteration of
erosion and sedimentation patterns. These aspects are discussed below.
The J5 pit area is located at a local high point along the ridge close to a valley landform. No defined
drainage lines traverse the proposed pit area, with the centroid of the J5 area being located
approximately 50 m above and approximately 1 km from the nearest delineated drainage line. Pit
development will reduce the amount of surface flow reporting to this drainage line, but this will not
be a significant reduction (SWC, 2016b). With appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls in
place, there will not be a significant long term change in surface drainage direction, rate and quality
as a result of pit development at J5 (SWC, 2016b).
The Bungalbin East pit area is located across the higher elevations of that portion of the HAR. It is
located between two local catchment areas with surface run-off draining predominately away from
the site to the north and south. There are no defined drainage lines in the immediate vicinity of the
pit area. Pit development may result in a minor reduction in the amount of surface runoff reporting
to areas immediately downstream of the Bungalbin East pits, but with appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls in place, there will not be a significant long term change in surface drainage
direction, rate and quality as a result of pit development at Bungalbin East (SWC, 2016b).
5.3.3
Waste Rock Landforms
WRLs at J5 and Bungalbin East will be developed to store up to 54 Mt of the 91 Mt of waste rock to
be excavated during mining. The remaining 37 Mt of waste rock will be used to partially backfill the
southern pit at Bungalbin East.
At J5, up to 21 Mt of waste rock will be stored in two WRLs adjacent to the pit. The east WRL will
contain up to 10 Mt and the west WRL will contain up to 11 Mt of waste rock. These WRLs will be
separated from each other and the mine pit by internal access roads. At Bungalbin East, a single WRL
containing up to 33 Mt of waste rock will be developed.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-5
Clearing of no more than 87.39 ha and 97.67 ha of native vegetation will occur in association with
WRL development at J5 and Bungalbin East, respectively (Table 5-2). These areas of disturbance
include:



areas previously disturbed by historical and current land uses;
areas required during and/or after mining for the temporary storage of cleared vegetation
and harvested topsoil/subsoil that will be used for progressive and post-mining
rehabilitation of the WRLs; and
light vehicle access tracks between the WRLs, vegetation stockpiles and topsoil/subsoil
stockpiles (see Section 5.3.5).
To minimise the potential for adverse impacts on landforms due to development of the three WRLs,
MRL will:








Locate the WRLs adjacent to the HAR, rather than disposing of waste rock on the HAR (for
example, through valley fill).
Maintain ecological and landform integrity of surrounding landforms by limiting the area of
disturbance as much as possible. The company has already reduced the WRL areas from
251 ha (as proposed in the ESD) to 185.06 ha (Table 5-2) and reduced the height of the
WRLs. Utilising waste rock from the northern pit at Bungalbin East to partially backfill the
southern pit has assisted in reducing the dimensions of the Bungalbin East WRL.
Enforce land clearing controls.
Recognise the way in which geomorphological and hydrological processes influence
landform development and ecological function, and ensure that these processes are
considered in closure planning for the WRLs.
Ensure that landform design and soil management principles for rehabilitation are
incorporated into the planning and operation of the WRLs.
Undertake surface stability assessments and erosion modelling to refine slope geometry to
assist in achieving long term stability.
Implement erosion and sedimentation controls, where required.
Implement progressive rehabilitation where possible through the life of the mine.
One of the main ways in which landform impacts can be minimised is through the implementation of
effective mine rehabilitation and closure programs. The RMCP prepared for the Proposal (MRL,
2016) states that a concave slope design is proposed for these WRLs to achieve a balance between
constructability, size of the disturbance area and erosional stability. It is considered that this design
will achieve an aesthetic outcome that is more consistent with surrounding landforms than a
traditional batter and berm landform design (MRL, 2016).
The rehabilitated WRLs will have an average profile of 20° at the crest grading to 15° at the toe. The
overall WRL slope will be 17.5°. The total constructed height is expected to be 30m, though this
depends on natural ground level. The WRL slopes will be contour-ripped to provide surface
roughness and decrease down-slope runoff. The top of the WRLs will back-slope to drain internally
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-6
and rock armouring will be used to prevent erosion where required. Topsoil handling will be
undertaken in accordance with the specifications provided in the RMCP (MRL, 2016).
MRL will monitor rehabilitation performance and use the monitoring outcomes to modify
rehabilitation and closure programs where required (see Section 5.5).
Based on the information provided above, it is clear that development of the WRLs will result in new
raised landforms in areas that are currently flat or undulating. The landform changes will result in
localised alterations to landform contours and surface drainage patterns. It is possible that these
changes will cause drainage shadows to develop in downstream vegetation, but an assessment of
potential shadowing effects due to altered hydrology following larger rainfall events found that
impacts on downslope vegetation are unlikely, particularly as there are no surface water dependent
vegetation species in the area (SWC, 2016b; ecologia Environment, 2016).
Development of WRLs may cause changes to occur in local wind patterns, Wetness Index and solar
radiation, potentially influencing microclimates that could in turn affect the biota of the area.
However, these impacts are expected to be localised in their extent.
5.3.4
Supporting Infrastructure
The Proposal includes development of a range of infrastructure and support facilities at J5 and
Bungalbin East including ore stockpile areas, site offices and workshops, laydown areas, explosive
magazines, turkey nests, water supply and distribution infrastructure, waste water treatment plants,
power supply, fuel storage and waste disposal areas (landfills). In addition, areas are required for
the temporary storage of cleared vegetation and topsoil/subsoil for use in rehabilitation and closure
works.
To minimise the potential for adverse impacts on landforms due to development of this
infrastructure and these services, MRL will:






Not locate these facilities on the HAR, as much as possible.
Maintain ecological and landform integrity of surrounding landforms by limiting the area of
disturbance as much as possible. The company has already reduced the infrastructure areas
from 128 ha (as proposed in the ESD) to 90.12 ha (Table 5-2).
Enforce land clearing controls.
Recognise the way in which geomorphological and hydrological processes influence
landform development and ecological function, and ensure that these processes are
incorporated into closure planning for these facilities.
Ensure that landform design and soil management principles for rehabilitation are
incorporated into the planning and operation of these facilities.
Implement erosion and sedimentation controls, where required.
MRL will conduct progressive rehabilitation during the operations phase, where possible. Those
facilities remaining at cessation of mining will be rehabilitated and closed in accordance with the
RMCP.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-7
All infrastructure be removed and disturbed areas will be rehabilitated. Compaction will be
alleviated, topsoil and subsoil will be applied, and revegetation will be undertaken.
MRL will monitor rehabilitation performance and use the monitoring outcomes to modify
rehabilitation and closure programs where required (see Section 5.5).
5.3.5
Haul Roads and Linear Infrastructure
The Proposal includes development of a number of haul roads and access tracks to connect the
components of the mine operations within J5 and Bungalbin East, and development of a 30 km
bituminised haul road to connect these sites to the J4 haul road. The intersection of the J5 and
Bungalbin East haul roads to the J4 haul road will most likely occur outside of the LAU and is not
considered further in this report.
At the completion of mining, the total area disturbed by the J5 haul road will be 56.26 ha. A total
area of 67.52 ha will be disturbed by the Bungalbin East haul road (Table 5-2). This area of
disturbance includes allowances for:




temporary storage of cleared vegetation and topsoil/subsoil for use in post-mining
rehabilitation;
gravel pits for supply of road-base material and the long term maintenance of unsealed mine
roads;
installation of v-drains, catch ponds and other drainage management measures, where
required; and
establishment of pipes and/or culverts where necessary to maintain surface water flow.
To minimise the potential for adverse impacts on landforms due to development of haul roads and
linear infrastructure, MRL will:





Maintain ecological and landform integrity of surrounding landforms by limiting the area of
disturbance as much as possible.
Enforce land clearing controls.
Recognise the way in which geomorphological and hydrological processes influence
landform development and ecological function, and ensure that these processes are
incorporated into closure planning for these facilities.
Ensure that landform design and soil management principles for rehabilitation are
incorporated into the planning and operation of these facilities.
Implement erosion and sedimentation controls, where required.
All haul roads and access tracks will be removed and rehabilitated unless required for the postmining land use. Any roads that remain will be reduced in width to minimise future maintenance
requirements. Linear infrastructure (such as powerlines and pipelines) will be removed unless
buried.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-8
Topsoil will be replaced over rehabilitation areas, which will be ripped and seeded. Special measures
may be required where saline water has been used for dust suppression.
MRL will monitor rehabilitation performance and use the monitoring outcomes to modify
rehabilitation and closure programs where required (see Section 5.5).
Development of haul roads and linear infrastructure during Proposal implementation will generally
result in minor changes to the landforms within the J5 and Bungalbin East mine areas and on the
plains adjacent to the HAR due to site earthworks. These works may also result in indirect impacts
such as changes to nearby surface drainage patterns, though these are expected to be localised.
However, it is noted that the haul road corridors to the south and southwest of the J5 and Bungalbin
East ore deposits follow the path of, or traverse, a number of larger surface drainage lines.
Management of drainage in these areas requires special consideration which is outlined in Golder
Associates (2014).
5.4
Impacts on Landform Values
The ESD identifies the potential impacts and risks of the Proposal in relation to landforms as:

loss of integrity of landforms arising from temporary or permanent structural alteration of
landforms;

temporary or permanent reduction and/or degradation of ecological function associated
with the landforms; and

temporary or permanent degradation or loss of environmental values associated with the
landforms.
These aspects have been addressed elsewhere in this document, but a brief response is provided in
Sections 5.4.1 to 5.4.3 for completeness.
5.4.1
Landform Integrity
No landforms or the environmental values they support have been removed due to previous or
current land use, but approximately 16.2 ha of disturbance exists within the HAR and 153.6 ha of
disturbance has already occurred within the LAU due to clearing and other activities associated with
previous and current land use such as recreation (e.g. camping) and mineral exploration (Figure 4-1,
Table 5-1 and Table 5-2).
As discussed in Section 5.3.1, Proposal implementation will increase direct disturbance of landforms
within the HAR to approximately 207.45 ha (6.01%) due to pit development (Table 5-1). Within the
wider LAU area, Proposal implementation will result in direct disturbance of approximately 606.45
ha. This will comprise 207.45 ha of pits (34%), 185.06 ha of WRLs (30.52%) and 213.9 ha of
supporting infrastructure and roads (35%) (Table 5-2). The total footprint of 606.45 ha comprises
1.74% of the LAU and will increase the total area of disturbance within the LAU to around (2%).
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-9
Predicted landform changes have been modelled in 3D and are shown in Figures 4-2 to 4-10. The
landform changes predicted due to development of the pits, WRLs and other Proposal components
are discussed in Sections 5.3.2 – 5.3.5. These changes vary from temporary to permanent, but most
are considered to be local rather than regional impacts.
5.4.2
Ecological Function
As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 4.1, the HAR is one of a number of examples of a Yilgarn Craton BIF
landform. The general geomorphological expression of these landforms have a high level of
similarity, with local differences due to variations in structural geology, stratigraphy and lithology.
Consequently, in terms of geomorphology-landform expression, no claim of uniqueness can be made
for the HAR (K. Wyrwoll, pers. comm.).
While BIF-dominated and other landforms in the region have many similarities in terms of physical
and geochemical characteristics, there are differences in the flora and vegetation of these
landforms. This is partly because of the level of geographic isolation that the ranges have from other
BIF ranges (see Section 4.1.1).
The potential impacts on flora and vegetation have been assessed as part of other studies for the
Proposal, and it has been concluded that ecological function can be maintained within intact
vegetation that will remain unaltered. See the PER for further information.
The vegetation of the HAR provides habitat for terrestrial fauna (i.e. vertebrate fauna and SRE
invertebrate fauna), so strongly influences the distribution and habitat utilisation strategies of these
components. The potential impacts on terrestrial fauna have been assessed as part of other studies
for the Proposal, and it has been concluded that ecological function with respect to fauna species,
populations and the overall assemblage can be maintained within fauna habitats that will remain
unaltered. See the PER for further information.
As discussed in Warren and French (2001), the conservation of vegetation and fauna habitats must
include consideration of geomorphological processes. The topo-edaphic factors influencing flora
and vegetation distribution and ecological function within the HAR are discussed in Section 4.1.3.
Although these processes will reduced or removed within the predicted areas of disturbance
associated with the Proposal, it is expected that rehabilitated areas will develop a degree of
ecological function if rehabilitation and closure works are implemented effective (see Section 5.3).
Based on the above, it is concluded that ecological function within the HAR and LAU can be
maintained where vegetation and fauna habitats remain unaltered.
5.4.3
Environmental Values
BIF landforms are common throughout the Mount Manning area, but EPA (2015b) states that the
HAR is “considered to be one the few remaining large, intact Yilgarn BIF ranges with the highest
biodiversity values”. Data provided in Section 3-1 indicate that the HAR has a similar range of
elevations compared to the Mount Manning, Mount Jackson and Die Hardy ranges. There are also
other similarities between the HAR and other BIF landforms in the region.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-10
While BIF landforms in the region have many similarities in terms of physical and geochemical
characteristics, there are differences in flora and vegetation, and it is in these that we find
conservation value. The main flora and vegetation values are described in the PER, along with an
assessment of the potential impacts on these values. This assessment discusses the way in which
the Proposal will have a localised though significant impact on elements of the flora and vegetation
of the HAR, but it has been concluded that the EPA’s objective for flora and vegetation can be met.
There is also conservation value associated with the terrestrial fauna of the HAR. A description of
these values, and an assessment of the potential impacts on these values resulting from Proposal
implementation, is provided in the PER. It has been concluded that the EPA’s objective for terrestrial
fauna can be met.
5.5
Cumulative Impact on Landform over Future Time Scales
The independent peer review of an earlier draft of this LIA report commented that an awareness of
future climate events (both in terms of general climate “states” and possible changes in frequency of
“extreme” events) may well be necessary considerations in project landform response in addition to
playing an important role in landform closure design.
Climate Change Prediction Maps for WA have been prepared by the Department of Agriculture and
Food (2007) and projections for changes in monthly temperatures and rainfall for 2030 and 2070 for
key Australian mineral provinces have been developed by CSIRO (Loechel et al., 2010). Based on
these projections, it appears that mine closure planning for the Proposal needs to consider the likely
performance and sustainability of the final landforms under regional conditions characterised by:




higher average annual and maximum temperatures;
lower annual average rainfall;
more frequent and more severe periods of drought; and
more frequent and more severe storm events.
However, MRL has adopted conservative design criteria in its closure planning for the Proposal, so
additional allowance for climate change is not required.
5.6
Residual Impacts
Figures 4-2 to 4-10 illustrate the way in which the PALs will change as the Proposal operates and the
mines are closed.
Following site closure, the residual impact on landforms includes direct impacts due to mining
excavation and WRL development (altered landforms) as well as indirect impacts such as altered
surface drainage patterns in localised areas. Localised but permanent alterations to the contour of
ridge lines and crests will occur as a result of mining activities. Open pits will be developed over a
total area of 207.45 ha and will remain as voids with pit walls that may be subject to slope failures
and will not be conducive to revegetation.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 5-11
New landforms (WRLs) will be developed over a total area of 185.06 ha adjacent to the HAR and will
result in localised alterations to landform contours and surface drainage patterns. It is possible that
these changes will cause drainage shadows to develop in downstream vegetation and may cause
changes to occur in local wind patterns, Wetness Index and solar radiation, potentially influencing
microclimates that could in turn affect the biota of the area. However, the area of disturbance for
the Proposal within the HAR is small and potentially affects landform values that are represented
elsewhere across the HAR, so the landform impact is not considered to be significant.
Weathering, erosion, transport and deposition processes will continue to occur within the HAR
during and after mining. The earth-surface processes discussed in Section 3.3.3 will still apply within
and adjacent to the landforms that will be altered as a result of mining. While there will be
permanent alterations to the ridgelines and crests through mine pit development and the creation
of pit voids and WRLs (as discussed in Section 5.3.2 and 5.3.3), there will only be localised changes to
hillslope, fluvial and aeolian processes. Sediment movement downslope, water runoff and erosion
will still influence the geomorphology of the resulting landform features following the cessation of
mining as well as undisturbed areas within the HAR.
5.7
Monitoring
Monitoring relevant to the Landforms factor in relation to this Proposal primarily comprises erosion
and rehabilitation monitoring. The RMCP developed for this Proposal (MRL, 2016) outlines the
monitoring and maintenance framework that will be implemented to determine the success of the
mine rehabilitation and closure programs. This framework includes monitoring for physical stability
and erosion of rehabilitated areas and allows for repair works where required. Various monitoring
methods will be implemented, with monitoring and maintenance continuing until the completion
criteria agreed for each of the closure domains have been achieved. See the RMCP for further
information.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 6-1
CONCLUSION
Landforms are an integral component of landscape that combine elevation and slope to produce the
shape and form of the land surface (EPA, 2008). Soil development reflects geological substrate and
is strongly correlated to elevation and topographic position, while soil moisture content and
availability are influenced by elevation and particle size (Gibson and Lyons, 1998a-b).
The data provided in this report indicate that there is broad variability in the landforms within the
Proposal’s area of disturbance and the wider HAR. The landform includes a range of cliffs, tors and
fractured rock surfaces with variable slopes and aspects that have formed through the processes of
faulting, weathering and exfoliation, and which provide micro-habitats or niches that are important
for the establishment of plants (Yates et al., 2011).
Landforms reflect geomorphological processes and, as part of an ecosystem, support particular
ecological communities, biota and ecosystem processes (EPA, 2008). Di Virgilio et al. (2015) suggests
that topographic variability may be predictive of plant species richness and endemism on BIFdominated landforms such as the HAR, assuming that competition is important in shaping ironstone
plant communities. These authors suggest that BIF surfaces provide a broad spectrum of specialised
habitats that accommodate a wide range of interspecific differences in habitat preference, and that
plants on several areas of the HAR may compete for relatively limited sites facilitating survival in this
area. Interestingly, Yates et al. (2011) state that competition among plants in massive rocky
environments may be less about resource capture and more about space pre-emption. However, it
is clear that many of the species inhabiting the rock-outcrop and dry-cliff environments of BIF
landforms such as Tetratheca taxa have traits that allow them to survive harsh conditions (Butcher
et al., 2007; Yates et al., 2011). The better drained, higher elevation areas within the HAR appear to
favour higher plant endemism and species richness (Di Virgilio et al., 2015).
LIA in WA is an evolving practice, but it is clear from the EPA guidance on landforms (EPA, 2015b)
and earlier EPA reports on mining developments in BIFs that an analysis of landform “integrity” is
central to this assessment. The data and other information provided in this report indicate that the
landforms that would be affected through the development of the J5 and Bungalbin East pits have
strong similarities to the landforms in the remainder of the HAR. The J5 pit area generally has a
lower elevation and is less rugged than the Bungalbin East pit area, but the landforms in both areas
are similar to contiguous landforms within the HAR. In general, the landform characteristics
displayed in these areas are represented elsewhere in the HAR.
No landforms in the proposed J5 and Bungalbin East pit areas have been removed to date, but
surface disturbance is present at both areas, and within the HAR and LAU, as a result of recreational
use, mineral exploration and road development/usage. The landforms are reasonably intact, but are
not in pristine condition. Additional direct disturbance will occur due to Proposal implementation
which will increase the area of disturbance to around 6.48% within the HAR and to around 2.2%
within the wider LAU area. The mine pits will remain as open voids that will not be conducive to
revegetation, but it is expected that MRL will be able to design, develop and close the WRLs in a
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 6-2
manner that ensures that these new landforms will be safe, stable and able to sustain native
vegetation in the long term.
While BIF-dominated and other landforms in the region have many similarities in terms of physical
and geochemical characteristics, there are differences in flora and vegetation, and it is in these that
we find conservation importance. Broad scale spatial and climate gradients are considered to be the
most important factors in explaining the variance in the richness of perennial flora species (Gibson et
al., 2012).
On the basis of the above information on local and regional landforms, it is considered that the HAR
is not rare or one of a few of its type. Consequently, it is considered that the variety of local and
regional landforms can be maintained with Proposal implementation.
The area of disturbance for the Proposal within the HAR is small and potentially affects landform
values that are represented elsewhere across the HAR, so the landform impact is not considered to
be significant. Therefore, it is expected that the Proposal will meet the EPA’s objective in relation to
Landforms to maintain the variety, integrity, ecological functions and environmental values of
landforms.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 7-1
REFERENCES
Askins, P. (1999) Report of Heron Resources NL on the Iron Deposits and Appraisal of Prospectivity of
Bungalbin Tenements Western Australia. Outside Insight.
BHP (1960) Final Report on Testing of the Iron Ore Deposits at Koolyanobbing, Dowds Hill and
Bungalbin, W. Aust. Unpublished report prepared by Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited.
Volume 1 of 2. Melbourne, Victoria.
Bioscope Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd (2016) J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project Visual
Impact Assessment. Prepared for Mineral Resources Limited. August 2016.
Bowler, J. M. (1976) Aridity in Australia: age, origins and expression in Aeolian landforms and
sediments. Earth Science Rev. 12: 2979-310.
Butcher, R., Byrne, M. and Crayn, D.M. (2007) Evidence for convergent evolution among
phylogenetically distant rare species of Tetratheca (Elaeocarpaceae, formerly Tremandraceae) from
Western Australia. Australian Systemic Botany 20: 126-138.
Chen, S.F. and Wyche, S. (2003) Geology of the Bungalbin 1:100,000 Sheet. Explanatory Notes.
Geological Survey of Western Australia, Department of Industry and Resources.
Chorley, R.J., Schumm, D.A. and Sugden, D.E. (1984) Geomorphology. Methuen, London.
Dell, J., How, R.A., Newbey, K.R. and Hnatiuk, R.J. (1985) The Biological Survey of the Eastern
Goldfields of Western Australia. Part 3: Jackson-Kalgoorlie Study Area. Western Australian Museum,
Perth.
Department of Conservation and Land Management, Department of Planning and Urban
Development and Department of Environmental Protection (1994a) Reading the Remote: Landscape
Characters of Western Australia. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Como.
Department of Conservation and Land Management (1994b) Regional Management Plan 1994-2004
– Goldfields Region.
Department of Environment and Conservation and Department of Industry and Resources (undated)
Strategic Review of the Conservation and Resources Values of the Banded Iron Formation of the
Yilgarn Craton.
Department of Environment and Conservation (2008) Issues Paper: Northern Yilgarn (Mt Manning
Range, Mt Elvire and Jaurdi) Conservation Reserves Management Plan. March 2008.
Department of Environment and Conservation (2012) Overview of Conservation Values and History
of Reserve Proposals in the Mount Manning area. Unpublished report.
Department of Industry and Resources (1997) Safety Bund Walls around Abandoned Open Pit Mines.
Guideline, December 1997.
Department of Mines and Petroleum and Environmental Protection Authority (2014) Guidelines for
Preparing Mine Closure Plans. May 2015.
Di Virgilio, G., Wardell-Johnson, G.W., Robinson, T., Temple-Smith, D. and Hesford, J. (2015)
Topographic mechanisms shaping plant richness and endemism on ancient ironstone ranges of semiarid south-western Australia. Manuscript submitted for publication.
ecologia Environment (2013) J4 Mine and Haul Road Flora and Vegetation Assessment. Unpublished
report for Polaris Metals Pty Ltd.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 7-2
ecologia Environment (2014) Chameleon Mine and Haul Road Flora and Vegetation Assessment.
Unpublished report for Polaris Metals Pty Ltd.
ecologia Environment (2016) J5 and Bungalbin East Project Flora and Vegetation Assessment.
Unpublished report for Polaris Metals Pty Ltd.
Environmental Protection Authority (2006) Rehabilitation of Terrestrial Ecosystems. Guidance for
the Assessment of Environmental Factors No. 6. June 2006.
Environmental Protection Authority (2007) Advice on areas of the highest conservation value in the
proposed extensions to Mount Manning Nature Reserve. EPA Bulletin 1256, May 2007.
Environmental Protection Authority (2008) Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development.
Guidance Statement No. 33. May 2008.
Environmental Protection Authority (2015a) EAG8: Environmental Assessment Guidelines for
Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives. Revised January 2015.
Environmental Protection Authority (2015b) Environmental Protection Bulletin No. 23. Guidance on
the EPA Landforms Factor. July 2015.
Fu, P. and Rich, P.M. (2002) A geometric solar radiation model with applications in agriculture and
forestry. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37: 25-35.
Gibson, N. (2004) Flora and vegetation of the eastern goldfields ranges. Part 6: Mt Manning
Range. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 87: 35–47.
Gibson, N., Coates, D.J. and Thiele, K.R. (2007) Taxonomic research and the conservation status of
flora in the Yilgarn banded iron formation ranges. Nuytsia 17: 1–12.
Gibson, N., Lyons, M.N. and Lepschi, B.J. (1997) Flora and vegetation of the eastern goldfields
ranges, Part I: Helena and Aurora Range. CALMScience 2(3): 231-246.
Gibson, N. and Lyons, M.N. (1998a) Flora and vegetation of the eastern goldfields ranges: Part 2:
Bremer Range. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 81: 107-117.
Gibson, N. and Lyons, M.N. (1998b) Flora and vegetation of the eastern goldfields ranges: Part 3:
Parker Range. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 81: 119-129.
Gibson, N. and Lyons, M.N. (2000) Flora and vegetation of the eastern goldfields ranges: Part 4:
Highclere Hills. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 84: 71-81.
Gibson, N. and Lyons, M.N. (2001) Flora and vegetation the eastern goldfields ranges: Part 5: Hunt
Range, Yendilberin and Watt Hills. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 84: 129-142.
Gibson, N., Yates, C.J. and Dillon, R. (2010) Plant communities of the ironstone ranges and south
western Australia: hotspots for plant diversity and mineral deposits. Biodiversity and Conservation
19(14): 3951-3962.
Gibson, N., Meissner, R., Markey, A.S. and Thompson, W.A. (2012) Patterns of plant diversity in
ironstone ranges in arid south western Australia. Journal of Arid Environments 77: 25-31.
Gibson, N., Meissner, R., Markey, A.S. and Thompson, W.A. (2015) Flora and vegetation surveys of
the ironstone ranges of the Yilgarn Craton. In: Tibbett (ed) Mining in Ecologically Sensitive
Landscapes: 79-94.
Golder Associates (2014) Bungalbin East Mine Area and Haul Road Surface Water Study. Prepared
for Mineral Resources Limited. August 2013.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 7-3
Guisan, A., Weiss, S.B. and Weiss, A.D. (1999) GLM versus CCA spatial modelling of plant species
distribution. Plant Ecology 143: 107-122.
Helena and Aurora Range Advocates Inc (undated) BIF Ranges - Geology.
http://helenaaurorarange.com.au/bif_ranges_geology. Downloaded 8 January 2016.
From
Henry-Hall, N.J. (1990) Nature Conservation Reserves in the Eastern Goldfields, western Australia
(Southern Two Thirds of CTRC System 11). Unpublished report prepared for the Environmental
Protection Authority Red Book Task Force.
Jenness, J. (2006) Topographic Position Index (tpi_jen.avx) extension for ArcView 3.x, v. 1.3a. Jenness
Enterprises. Available at http://www.jennessent.com/arcview/tpi.htm
Jones, K.B., Heggem, D.T., Wade, T.G., Neale, A.C., Ebert, D.W., Nash, M.S., Mehaffey, M.H.,
Hermann, K.A., Selle, A.R., Goodman, I.A., Pedersen, J., Bolgrien, D., Viger, J.M., Chiang, D., Lin, C.J.,
Zhong, Y., Baker, J. and van Remortel, R.D. (2000) Assessing Landscape Conditions Relative to Water
Resources in the Western United States: A Strategic Approach. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 64: 227-245.
Keighery, G.J. (1980) Notes on the biology, distribution and conservation of Dryandra arborea
(Proteaceae). Western Australian Naturalist 14: 212-213.
Loechel, B., Hodgkinson, J.H., Moffat, K., Crimp, S., Littleboy, A. and Howden, M. (2010) GoldfieldsEsperance Regional Mining Climate Vulnerability Workshop. Report on workshop outcomes. Climate
Adaptation and Minerals Down Under Flagships. CSIRO.
Matthews, J.A. and Herbert, D.T. (2008) Geography: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Markey, A.S. and Dillon, S.J. (2008a) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: the central Tallering Land System. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(1): 121-149.
Markey, A.S. and Dillon, S.J. (2008b) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: the Weld Range. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(1): 153-178.
Markey, A.S. and Dillon, S.J. (2009) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the Yilgarn
Craton: Herbert Lukin Range (Wiluna). Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(2): 391-412.
Markey, A.S. and Dillon, S.J. (2010a) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: Gullewa. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(3): 531-556.
Markey, A.S. and Dillon, S.J. (2010b) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: the Booylgoo Range. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(3): 503-529.
Markey, A.S. and Dillon, S.J. (2011a) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: the Northern Yerilgee Hills, Menzies. Conservation Science W. Aust. 8(1): 163-186.
Markey, A.S. and Dillon, S.J. (2011b) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: the Johnston Range, Menzies. Conservation Science W. Aust. 8(1): 137-161.
Markey, A.S. and Dillon, S.J. (2011c) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: Yalgoo. Conservation Science W. Aust. 8(1): 113-136.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2001) Review of vegetation on Portman Iron Ore proposed expansion
areas - Koolyanobbing.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2007a) Carina Chameleon Vela J4 Flora Interim Report.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 7-4
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2007b) Flora and vegetation survey of drill hole sites in exploration
tenement E77/842-I Bungalbin eastern prospect. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2007c) Flora and vegetation survey of drill hole sites in exploration
tenement E77/1115 Carina prospect. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2007d) Flora and vegetation survey of drill hole sites in exploration
tenements E77/1115 (Carina prospect) E77/946-1 (Chameleon prospect) E77/1076-1 (Vela prospect)
E77/1097-1 (J4-Extension & Musca prospects) interim report. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals
NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2008a) Carina DH Flora E77-1115.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2008b) Flora and vegetation survey of proposed drill hole sites in
exploration tenement E77/842-I Jackson-5 prospect. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2008c) Flora and vegetation survey of the Carina exploration lease area.
Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2008d) Flora and vegetation survey of the proposed Carina transport
route. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2009a) Carina Mine Tenement M77/1244A Declared Rare and Priority
Flora Survey. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2009b) Chameleon Flora and Vegetation E77-946-1.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2009c) Flora and vegetation survey of the Chameleon exploration lease
area exploration tenement E77/946-1. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2009d) Flora and vegetation survey of the proposed Carina transport
route Carina mine to Mount Walton road siding. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2010) Flora and vegetation survey for the proposed Carina mine rail
siding. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2011a) BC Exploration Camp Flora M77-1096.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2011b) Flora and vegetation survey (infill) Carina and Chameleon
prospects tenements E77/1275, E77/946 & E77/3946-1. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2011c) Flora and vegetation survey for a proposed power line corridor
tenement l15/318. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2011d) Threatened and priority flora survey tenement M77/1096
proposed Bungalbin Central exploration camp. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2012a) Flora and vegetation survey for a proposed Carina mine
accommodation village area and associated access route. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2012b) Threatened and priority flora survey additional proposed drill
hole locations tenement E77/1275: Hunt Ranges. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2012c) Threatened and priority flora survey Mount Walton road borrow
pit locations. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2012d) Threatened and priority flora survey of the yellow sandplain
vegetation - Mt Walton road. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 7-5
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2012e) Threatened and priority flora survey proposed drill hole locations
tenement M77/1242-I and E77/1097-I J4 prospect. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2012f) Threatened and priority flora survey tenement M77/1261A
Carina extended. Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd (2013) Flora and vegetation survey of the Jackson 4 and Haul road.
Unpublished report for Polaris Metals NL.
Meissner, R. and Caruso, Y. (2008a) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: Mount Gibson and surrounding areas. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(1): 105-120.
Meissner, R. and Caruso, Y. (2008b) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(1): 73-88.
Meissner, R. and Caruso, Y. (2008c) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: Jack Hills. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(1): 89-103.
Meissner, R. and Owen, G. (2010a) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the Yilgarn
Craton: Brooking Hills area. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(3): 517-518.
Meissner, R. and Owen, G. (2010b) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the Yilgarn
Craton: Mt Ida Greenstone Belt and Mt Hope. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(3): 583-592.
Meissner, R. and Owen, G. (2010c) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the Yilgarn
Craton: western Narryer Terrane. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(3): 617-628.
Meissner, R., Owen, G. and Bayliss, B. (2009a) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of
the Yilgarn Craton: Mount Forrest – Mount Richardson Range. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(2):
377-389.
Meissner, R., Owen, G. and Bayliss, B. (2009b) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of
the Yilgarn Craton: Cashmere Downs Range. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(2): 349-361.
Meissner, R., Owen, G. and Bayliss, B. (2009c) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of
the Yilgarn Craton: Robinson Ranges and Mount Gould. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(2): 363-376.
Meissner, R. and Wright, J. (2010a) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the Yilgarn
Craton: Perseverance Greenstone Belt. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(3): 593-604.
Meissner, R. and Wright, J. (2010b) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the Yilgarn
Craton: south Illaara Greenstone Belt. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(3): 605-616.
Meissner, R. and Wright, J. (2010c) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the Yilgarn
Craton: Barloweerie and Twin Peaks Greenstone Belts. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(3): 557-570.
Mineral Resources Limited (2016) J5 and Bungalbin East Project Rehabilitation and Mine Closure
Plan. Revision 0, April 2016.
Morton, S.R., Stafford Smith, D.M., Dickman, C.R., Dunkerley, D.L., Friedel, M.H., McAllister, R.R.J.,
Reid, J.R.W., Roshier, D.A., Smith, M.A., Walsh, F.J., Wardle, G.M., Watson, I.W. and Westoby, M.
(2011) A fresh framework for the ecology of arid Australia. Journal of Arid Environments 75: 313-329.
Newbey, K. R. (1985) Physical Environment. In: Dell, J., How, R.A., Newbey, K.R. and Hnatiuk, R.J.
(1985) The Biological Survey of the Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia. Part 3: JacksonKalgoorlie Study Area. Western Australian Museum, Perth: 5-10.
Reynolds, G. and Scarlett, R. (2016) Bungalbin Mapping Update. Unpublished Mineral Resources
memorandum. 26 February 2016.
J5 and Bungalbin East Iron Ore Project
Landform Impact Assessment
5 August 2016
Page 7-6
Rich, P.M. (1990) Characterising plant canopies with hemispherical photography. In: Goel, N.S. and
Norman, J.M. (eds) Instrumentation for Studying Vegetation Canopies for Remote Sensing in Optical
and Thermal Infrared Regions. Remote Sensing Reviews 5: 13-29.
Rich, P.M., Dubayah, R., Hetrick, W.A. and Saving, S.C. (1994) Using Viewshed Models to Calculate
Intercepted Solar Radiation: Application in Ecology. American Society for Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing Technical Papers, pp 524-529.
Soil Water Consultants (2016a) J5 and Bungalbin East Soil Characterisation. Prepared for Polaris
Metals Pty Ltd, February 2016.
Soil Water Consultants (2016b) J5 and Bungalbin East 0 Detailed Surface Water Assessment.
Prepared for Polaris Metals Pty Ltd, March 2016.
Sturman, A. and Spronken-Smith, R. (eds) (2001) The Physical Environment: A New Zealand
perspective. Oxford University Press, Victoria, Australia.
The Dynamic Nature (2013) Available at http://www.thedynamicnature.com/earth/what-arelandforms-definition.html. Website accessed July 2016.
Thompson, W.A. and Sheehy, N.B. (2011a) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: The Lee Steere Range. Conservation Science W. Aust. 8(1): 61-76.
Thompson, W.A. and Sheehy, N.B. (2011b) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: the Lake Mason Zone of the Gum Creek Greenstone Belt. Conservation Science W.
Aust. 8(1): 77-94.
Thompson, W.A. and Sheehy, N.B. (2011c) Flora and vegetation of the banded iron formations of the
Yilgarn Craton: the Montague Range Zone of the Gum Creek Greenstone Belt. Conservation Science
W. Aust. 8(1): 95-111.
Warren, A. and French, J.R. (eds) (2001) Habitat Conservation: Managing the Physical Environment.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, England.
Watson, A., Judd, S., Watson, J., Lam, A. and Mackenzie, D. (2008) The Extraordinary Nature of the
Great Western Woodlands. The Wilderness Society of WA Inc.
Weiss, A. (2001) Topographic Position and Landform Analysis. Poster presentation, ESRI User
Conference, San Diego, CA.
Western Australian Planning Commission and Department for Planning and Infrastructure (2007)
Visual Landscape Planning in Western Australia. A Manual for Evaluation, Assessment, Siting and
Design. November 2007.
Western Botanical (2009) Flora and Vegetation of the Western Jackson Range (Mount Jackson
Range), Western Australia. Unpublished report for Portman Iron Ore Ltd.
Western Botanical (2013) Results of 2006 Reconnaissance Survey, Helena and Aurora Range.
Unpublished report for Polaris Metals Pty Ltd.
Whittow, J. (2000) The Penguin Dictionary of Physical Geography. The Penguin Group, England.
Yates, C.J., Gibson, N., Pettit, N.E., Dillon, R. and Palmer, R. (2011) The ecological relationships and
demography of restricted ironstone endemic plant species: implications for conservation. Australian
Journal of Botany 59: 692-700.
Figures