python and gwardar iron ore deposits troglofauna survey ......python and gwardar iron ore deposits...

Python and Gwardar Iron Ore Deposits Troglofauna Survey Final Report:

FerrAus Pilbara Project

Final Report

Updated August 2011

Python and Gwardar Iron Ore Deposits Troglofauna Survey Final Report FerrAus Pilbara Project

FerrAus Ltd

Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd ii

Python and Gwardar Iron Ore Deposits Troglofauna Survey for the FerrAus Pilbara Project Final Report Prepared for FerrAus Limited by Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd

Authors: Conor O’Neill and Jarrad Clark.

Reviewer: Melanie White, Karen Crews

Date: Updated July 2011

Submitted to: Diane Dowdell and Brett Hazelden (FerrAus Ltd)

©Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2011. The use of this report is solely for the Client for the purpose in which it was prepared. Phoenix Environmental Sciences accepts no responsibility for use beyond this purpose. All rights are reserved and no part of this publication may be reproduced or copied in any form without the written permission of Phoenix Environmental Sciences or FerrAus Limited. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1/511 Wanneroo Road BALCATTA, WESTERN AUSTRALIA, 6023 P: 08 9345 1608 F: 08 6313 0680 E: [email protected] Project code: 954-DC-FER-TRO


FerrAus Ltd

Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd iii

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... v

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of work and survey objectives........................................................................................ 3

1.3 Subterranean fauna - troglofauna ............................................................................................. 3

1.1.1 Target taxa ......................................................................................................................... 5

1.1.2 Threatening processes ...................................................................................................... 5

2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) Region .......................................... 7

2.2 Geology and Land Systems ...................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Hydrogeology of the subterranean habitat .............................................................................. 10

2.4 Climate .................................................................................................................................... 12

2.5 Land use ................................................................................................................................. 12

3.0 METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................13

3.1 Habitat assessment and site selection.................................................................................... 13

3.2 Habitat characterisation .......................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Sampling methodology ........................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Taxonomy and nomenclature ................................................................................................. 16

3.5 Survey personnel and acknowledgements ............................................................................. 16

4.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................17

4.1 Species records ...................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Overview of Diplura ................................................................................................................. 17

4.3 Japygidae sp. PG1 .................................................................................................................. 17

4.4 Geology/habitat attributes ....................................................................................................... 18

4.5 Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 21

5.0 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................22

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................23

APPENDIX 1: TROGLOFAUNA SITE GPS COORDINATES AND TRAP DEPTHS .............................25

List of Tables Table 1-1 Likelihood of presence of subterranean fauna in different regions and geologies in

Western Australia (EPA 2003, 2007). ................................................................................ 5

Table 3-1 Sampling effort for the troglofauna survey rounds........................................................... 16

Table 3-2 Survey personnel. ............................................................................................................ 16

Table 4-1 The major geological units of the study area. .................................................................. 18 Table 4-2 The limitations of the troglofauna surveys of the FerrAus Pilbara Project Python and

Gwardar deposits. ............................................................................................................ 21


FerrAus Ltd

Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd iv

List of Figures Figure 1-1 Location of the FerrAus Pilbara Project ............................................................................. 1

Figure 1-2 FerrAus Pilbara Project deposits ....................................................................................... 2

Figure 1-3 Example of a terrestrial troglofauna taxa from the Midwest W.A. (Photo: Simon Pynt Photography). .................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2-1 Land Systems occurring in the study area that have been sampled for troglofauna. ....... 9

Figure 2-2 Hydrogeology of the study area, predicted drawdown after 12 yrs (mine life). ............... 11

Figure 3-1 Locations of troglofauna survey sites/bore sampling locations for the Python/Gwardar survey rounds with predicted drawdown contours (m) and mine outline......................... 14

Figure 4-1 Japygidae sp. PG1 .......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4-2 Locations of troglofauna survey sites/ bore sampling locations for the Python / Gwardar

survey rounds with predicted drawdown contours (m) and mine outline......................... 19

Figure 4-3 Locations of troglofauna survey sites with respect to land systems, drawdown contours (m) and mine outline. ....................................................................................................... 20


FerrAus Ltd

Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2010, Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd (Phoenix) was commissioned by FerrAus Ltd (FerrAus) to undertake a third troglofauna survey within the Python and Gwardar iron ore deposits of the FerrAus Pilbara Project (FPP) (the study area). The study area is located approximately 80km south-east of Newman, and lies at the junction of the Gascoyne, Pilbara and Little Sandy Desert bioregions.

This survey was commissioned following the collection of a single specimen of a troglofauna species in the Round 2 survey (March 2009) from within the proposed pit boundary. The specimen was initially identified by Bennelongia as being from the class Symphyla (reported as Symphyla sp. in (Phoenix 2009b)) but later reclassified to the order Diplura and family Japygidae sp. (herein referred to as Japygidae sp. PG1) by Dr Erich Volschenk (Phoenix), based on morphological identification.

The third survey targeted additional holes within and outside of the impact area, defined as the area of the proposed pit in order to collect additional specimens of Japygidae sp. PG1. This report presents the results of the Round 3 survey and summarises the results of all three survey rounds.

The three surveys collectively sampled 111 drill holes, 78 in Rounds 1 and 2, and 55 in Round 3. The surveys represented both dry (November 2008) and wet (March 2009, March 2010) seasons. The Round 3 survey attained a sample size of n = 5,390 (trap days) and for the three surveys collectively, a sample size N = 17,776 (trap days) was achieved. This is greater than that required under EPA Guidance Statement No54a, which states that a minimum of 5,760 trap days are required for a ‘Level 2’ troglofauna survey (EPA 2007).

Of the 111 sample sites, 78 were located within the impact area and 33 were located outside of the impact area as defined by the modelled drawdown contour. No previous troglofauna studies have been undertaken in the immediate area, but there are a few regional records that identify some troglobitic species from similar geologies/habitats to those in the study area.

After a review of the geological logs and available regional data, it was expected that troglofauna would be collected from the Python and Gwardar Iron Ore deposits of the FPP. Specifically, it was expected that the Wittenoom or Marra Mamba Formations would harbour troglobitic species. The sample sites were located within five Land Systems and generally passed through three geological formations; the Cainozoic colluvial and alluvial material, the Dolomitic Wittenoom formation and the Marra Mamba iron ore hosting formation.

The results of the surveys did not support the above theory. The survey of 111 bores (collectively) over three sampling events in two seasons, recorded only the single dipluran specimen Japygidae sp. PG1, from the overlying alluvium/colluvium sequence, and no records from the lower formations.

The taxonomy and distribution of Pilbara diplurans is very poorly known and largely restricted to unpublished genomic investigations of species boundaries. All diplurans, both epigean and subterranean, are blind and pale and appear troglomorphic. This morphology makes troglobitic assessment on the basis of morphology impossible.

The regional context of Japygidae sp. PG1 is unknown relative to other Pilbara species and therefore this species cannot be discounted as a troglobite. For this reason Japygidae sp. PG1 is considered to be a putative troglobite and a potential SRE. Based on current data, this species will be impacted on by the proposed mine development. The scale of impact is difficult to assess owing to limited information on the distribution of this species. Additional records will be necessary in order to obtain a better understanding of its distribution and SRE status.


FerrAus Ltd

Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION In February 2010, Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd (Phoenix) was commissioned by FerrAus Ltd (FerrAus) to undertake a third round of troglofauna sampling for the Python and Gwardar deposits of the proposed FerrAus Pilbara Project (FPP), following the two prior survey rounds of the area (November 2008 and March 2009).

The third survey round (Round 3) was undertaken between March and May 2010, and attempted to collect additional records of a single undescribed troglofauna specimen collected in the Round 2 survey. The Round 2 specimen was initially identified by Bennelongia as being from the class Symphyla (reported as Symphyla sp. in (Phoenix 2009b)) but subsequently reclassified by Dr Erich Volschenk (Phoenix) to the order Diplura, family Japygidae sp. (referred to herein as Japygidae sp. PG1).

This report summarises the results of all three survey rounds. The sample sites were located both within and outside the proposed impact area (area of habitat loss defined by the footprint of the proposed pit) of these deposits (Aquaterra 2009) . The locations inside and outside the proposed pit are referred to as ‘impact’ and ‘non-impact’ areas, respectively (Appendix 1).

1.1 BACKGROUND FerrAus proposes to develop the mine and rail components of the FPP within the inter-zone of the Gascoyne and Pilbara biogeographic regions of Western Australia (WA). The proposed actions include open strip mining of iron ore deposits at two mine site areas, identified as Robertson Range Area (RRA) and Davidson Creek Area (DCA), the provision of a Service Corridor (SC) that will connect the two mine sites, the development of a rail loop at the DCA, and the establishment of a rail line at one of two proposed alignments. The two rail line options are identified as the FerrAus Eastern Pilbara Rail (FEPR) and the Northern Rail Alignment (NRA). For purposes of this report, the rail components of the FPP are not addressed.

The FPP is located approximately 475 km southeast of Port Hedland and lies within two Shire boundaries, the Shire of Meekatharra and the Shire of East Pilbara (Figure 1-1). The town of Newman is approximately 100 km west of the Project Area.

The FPP lies within the Nyiyaparli Native Title and Use and Benefit of Aboriginals Reserve 41265 (Jigalong Aboriginal Reserve). The Jigalong Aboriginal Community is in the northeast corner of the Reserve, approximately 50 km from the FPP. The FPP is also partly located within the boundary of the Sylvania Pastoral Station. The closest pastoral station residence is the Robertson Range Homestead, which is northeast of the RRA and is not occupied.

The FPP is located approximately 35 km east of the BHP Billiton Iron Ore (BHPBIO) mining operations and rail infrastructure at Jimblebar.


FerrAus Ltd


Figure 1-1 Location of the FerrAus Pilbara Project


FerrAus Ltd


Mining and processing components would be located on tenements E52/1658, M52/1043, E52/1630 and M52/1034. The FPP involves open pit mining of several iron ore deposits at an annual rate of approximately 15 mtpa. This includes the mining of the following deposits within the DCA and RRA (Figure 1-2):

• DCA: Python, Gwardar, Tiger, Dugite and Mirrin Mirrin deposits to below the watertable

• RRA: King Brown deposit, including the South West mineralised zone, to below the watertable.

To facilitate mining of these deposits and the production of 15 Mtpa of suitable iron ore product, the FPP would also involve:

• dewatering of open pits at rates up to 13 GL/yr cumulative across operations

• crushing, screening and beneficiation of iron ore

• storage of residue material from beneficiation; with a residue storage facility (RSF) to be located at DCA

• waste rock dumps

• progressive rehabilitation where possible with final pit(s) void and permanent waste dumps

• establishment of a rail spur and loop enabling transport of ore to Port Hedland via either the Brockman Resources Marillana rail line or the Roy Hill rail line (the rail spur and loop is subject to a proposed State Agreement between FerrAus and the State of Western Australia)

• supporting infrastructure including a power station, administration buildings, mining infrastructure and workshops.

The mining of 2 mtpa from the RRA is currently approved under a mining proposal.

Both the Pilbara and Gascoyne bioregions are classed as “Group 2” areas by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Within these groups, any disturbance to an area greater than 50 hectares requires a “Level 2” biological survey. These guidelines are not specifically appropriate for troglofauna surveys, however the sampling program adheres to the methodology and sampling framework within EPA Position Statement No. 3, Guidance Statement No. 54a: Sampling Methods and Survey Considerations for Subterranean Fauna in Western Australia (EPA 2007) (EPA 2007)and EPA Guidance Statement No. 54: Consideration of Subterranean Fauna in Groundwater and Caves during Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia (EPA 2003).


FerrAus Ltd


Figure 1-2 FerrAus Pilbara Project deposits


FerrAus Ltd


A number of subterranean biological surveys have been undertaken previously for other areas of the FPP and thus provide a local context. These include:

• Ecologia, 2008. Troglofauna Assessment of Robertson Range. Unpublished Report to FerrAus Ltd. Ecologia Environment. West Perth, W.A (Ecologia 2008b);

• Ecologia, 2009. Troglofauna Survey of Robertson Range East Gascoyne: Robertson Range Iron Ore project. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Limited. Ecologia Environment, West Perth, W.A. (Ecologia 2009b);

• Ecologia, 2009. Stygofauna Survey of Robertson Range Iron Ore Project, East Gascoyne. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Limited. Ecologia Environment, West Perth, W.A. (Ecologia 2009a);

• Phoenix, 2009. Troglofauna Survey for the Davidson Creek Iron Ore Project. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Ltd. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd. Balcatta, W.A. (Phoenix 2009b); and

• Phoenix, 2009. Stygofauna Survey for the Davidson Creek Iron Ore Project. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Ltd. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd. Balcatta, W.A. (Phoenix 2009a).

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK AND SURVEY OBJECTIVES The aim of the Round 3 survey was to collect additional records of Japygidae sp. PG1 to better understand the local distribution of this species.

The scope of work for the Round 3 survey within the study area was to:

• Conduct additional troglofauna samples (N = 60) outside of the impact area;

• Conduct additional troglofauna samples (N = 60) inside of the impact area; and

• Provide a technical report summarising the results of the Round 3 survey and taking into consideration the results of the previous surveys (Rounds 2 and 3) undertaken in the study area.

1.3 SUBTERRANEAN FAUNA - TROGLOFAUNA Troglofauna are obligate cave or karst-dwelling, air-breathing subterranean invertebrate fauna. In Western Australia a relatively diverse troglobitic fauna has been recorded to date, including from caves in karstified carbonate rocks in the Kimberley, Cape Range and Barrow Island in the north of the state and, from the Perth Basin, the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge and the Nullarbor Plain in the south east of the state. More recently troglofauna have been recorded in voids of pisolite and other geologies in the Pilbara region (Eberhard 2007). A typical specimen is shown in Figure 1-3.

A high proportion of subterranean fauna (including troglofauna) have geographically restricted ranges, often being confined to highly restricted habitats or individual geological features. Such taxa are therefore defined as short-range endemics (Harvey 2002), whose restricted ranges (less than 10km2) and narrow ecological requirements make them vulnerable to adverse disturbances.

Troglobitic species typically display morphological and physiological adaptations suited to subterranean environments, such as a general lack of pigmentation and eyes, elongated


FerrAus Ltd


appendages, slender filiform body shape and highly developed chemical and mechanical receptors.

Figure 1-3 Example of a terrestrial troglofauna taxa from the Midwest W.A. (Photo: Simon

Pynt Photography).

Troglofauna are typically divided into three categories of subterranean life (Humphreys 2000):

• Troglobitic (troglomorphic) fauna which display morphological adaptations to subterranean life and are unable to exit outside of this environment. True troglobites are eyeless or have significantly reduced eyes, have varying degrees of pigmentation loss as to appear colourless, and have no wings. They may also display adaptations such as elongated appendages or use chemical attractants to obtain food. True troglobites are presumed incapable of dispersal on the surface and as such are subject to the barriers of their living environment and the most likely to be restricted.

• Troglophiles are facultative cave-dwelling animals that may complete their life cycles in the subterranean environment, but can also survive in above ground habitats.

• Trogloxenes are species which may use the caves and karstic environments for refuge but are unable to complete their life cycle within the subterranean environment. They will return to the surface for food and other needs.

The EPA has assessed the probability that subterranean fauna will be present in different regions and geologies in Western Australia (Table 1-1).


FerrAus Ltd


Table 1-1 Likelihood of presence of subterranean fauna in different regions and geologies in Western Australia (EPA 2003, 2007).

Region Geology

Likelihood* of:

Stygofauna Troglofauna

Kimberley Karst, limestone sandstone, alluvium islands

Pilbara Most geologies

Barrow Island

Inland deserts Calcrete, alluvium

Gascoyne/Murchison Calcrete, alluvium, banded ironstone

Cape Range

Yilgarn/Goldfields Calcrete, alluvium, banded ironstone

South-West Most geologies

Karst

Nullarbor Karst

1.1.1 Target taxa Troglofauna taxa recorded in the Pilbara to date encompass arachnids (Araneae, Pseudoscorpionida, Schizomida, Palpigrada), insects (Diplura, Thysanura, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Blattodea), myriapods (Diplopoda, Chilopoda, Symphyla, Pauropoda) and crustaceans (Isopoda). Therefore, troglobitic species generally reflect the terrestrial, epigean (surface) invertebrate taxa.

The recorded distribution patterns of troglofauna range from regionally widespread to highly localised, with the latter often being defined as ‘short-range endemics’ (Harvey 2002). The observed distribution patterns did not appear to always be concordant with changes in geology or ‘habitat’ (Eberhard et al. 2009). From these rather preliminary observations, it can be concluded that there is still much left to learn about the subterranean environment and its inhabitants.

Eberhard et al (2009) suggest that the degree of specialisation to subterranean environments varies within troglomorphic fauna in the Pilbara region. A number of troglomorphic taxa encountered in the region have been found within the near-surface soil and plant roots and the surface leaf litter, in addition to their (presumably) preferred hypogean (sub-surface or subterranean) habitats. That is, they are troglophilic species. Most troglophilic, epigean forms are regarded to be at a lower risk of species-level spatial restriction than hypogean forms (Biota 2005) because of their greater mobility and less restrictive habitat preferences.

1.1.2 Threatening processes There are a number of potential threatening processes relating to direct mining and associated operations that may impact troglobitic species and habitats. These include:

• Direct removal of habitat through ore extraction;

• Groundwater abstraction and mine dewatering to enable mining below the water table resulting in reduced habitat humidity levels;

*Key: Very high High Low *Key: Very high High Low


FerrAus Ltd


• Changes in the quality and quantity of infiltrating water; and

• Contamination of the subterranean environment through hydrocarbons and other chemical pollutants.

A significant portion of the Python and Gwardar ore body is below the water table and will therefore require dewatering ahead of mining. This dewatering and the physical mining of the deposit are the two impact pathways with the greatest risk of potentially impacting upon troglofauna species and habitats.

Drawdown from water supply bores and water extraction for the supply of rigs in the exploration phase may also alter the hydrology of the subterranean environment and thus creating changes in humidity or moisture availability (Biota 2006a, b). Groundwater drawdown is considered to be a secondary impact on troglofauna


FerrAus Ltd


2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 2.1 INTERIM BIOGEOGRAPHIC REGIONALISATION OF AUSTRALIA (IBRA)

REGION The study area is located on the borders of the Pilbara and Gascoyne bioregions as defined by IBRA (Thackway & Cresswell 1995). More specifically, the study area is situated within the Fortescue Plains subregion of the Pilbara bioregion and the Augustus subregion of the Gascoyne bioregion.

The Fortescue Plains subregion is characterised by alluvial plains and river frontages, extensive salt marsh, mulga-bunch grass and short grass communities on alluvial plains (eastern end). River Gum woodlands fringe the drainage lines (DEWHA 2009). The Augustus subregion is characterised by rugged low Proterozoic sedimentary and granite ranges divided by broad flat valleys with extensive areas of alluvial valley-fill deposits. Dominant vegetation includes mulga woodland with Triodia on the rises and mulga parkland on the plains.

2.2 GEOLOGY AND LAND SYSTEMS The study area is located on the eastern margin of the Hamersley Province of the Pilbara Craton. The Hamersley province consists predominantly of late-Archaean and Lower Proterozoic (2800 to 230 million years ago) sedimentary rocks situated between the large Yilgarn and Pilbara Cratons.

Within the study area, the Marra Mamba Iron Formation outcrops as a low ridge, with the majority of this formation residing under extensive alluvial deposits. The Formation is divided into the Nammuldi, McLeod and Mount Newman Members.

The Mount Newman Member is the primary host unit for the iron ore mineralization within the study area. It consists of a thick succession of Banded Ironstone Formation (BIF), shale and carbonate rocks. Typically, the Mount Newman Member is poorly exposed at surface; most of the ore body is below Cainozoic colluvial and alluvial material. Overlying the Mount Newman Member, also below Cainozoic cover, is stratigraphy of the Wittenoom Formation.

The Department of Agriculture has mapped the Land Systems of the region from aerial photography, providing the largest-scale interpretation of vegetation units for the study area (Van Vreeswyk et al. 2004). Ten Land Systems occur within the FPP study area, as follows:

• Boolgeeda - stony lower slopes and plains found below hill systems, supporting hard and soft spinifex grasslands and mulga shrublands. Predominantly deposition surfaces of very gently inclined stony slopes and plains becoming almost level further downslope.

• Cadgie – depositional surfaces; hardpan plains supporting mulga shrublands with soft and hard spinifex. Flat to very gently inclined wash plains with sandy and loamy soils over hardpan, and sandy banks with relief up to 5m.

• Divide – level to gently undulating sandplains and occasional small dunes. Generally depositional surfaces. Hard spinifex vegetation that is subject to regular burning. This Land System dominates the northern aspect of the study area.

• Fortescue – predominantly depositional flood plains, alluvial plains and river channels, non-saline clay and duplex soils that support patchy grassy woodlands and shrublands, and tussock grasslands.


FerrAus Ltd


• Jamindie – depositional non-saline plains; gently undulating hardpan wash plains with ironstone grit mantle and pebbles, minor stony plains, low rises and occasional low ridges with relief up to 30 m. Supports groved mulga shrublands, occasionally with spinifex understorey.

• Newman - rugged jaspilite plateaux and ridges with hard spinifex grassland. Erosional surfaces with moderately spaced tributary drainage; narrow valleys and gorges with narrow drainage floors and channels. The majority of bores sampled in this survey occur in the Newman Land System.

• River - active floodplains and terraces flanking major rivers and creeks, supporting riverine woodlands and tussock and hummock grasslands; associated with the Fortescue River system. Flood plains and river terraces are subject to fairly regular overbank flooding from major channels and watercourses, sandbanks and poorly defined levees and cobble plains.

• Robertson – erosional hills, ridges and plateaux mainly of sandstone in the east of the area and extending into the sandplain and dune terrain of the Little Sandy and Great Sandy Deserts, relief up to 80 m. Supports hard spinifex grasslands and other low shrubs and tussock grasses which are prone to grazing and potentially, degradation.

• Sylvania - level to gently undulating gritty surfaced plains and low rises on granite and tributary drainage floors, relief up to 20 m. Supports Acacia-Eremophila-Cassia shrublands which are prone to grazing and potentially, degradation. This Land System dominates the southern aspect of the study area.

• Washplain – depositional, level wash plains and tracts supporting groved mulga shrublands. More concentrated through flow is received with prominent grove patterns of vegetation. Dominated by loamy and clayey soils of variable depth over hardpan, relief less than 10m.

The Divide and Fortescue Land Systems comprise the majority study area, while the ore body itself is associated with the Newman Land System. The majority of the land systems present in the area were sampled, to varying degrees. The bores sampled in the Round 1 and 2 were located within four Land Systems; Divide, Fortescue, Newman and Sylvania. In the Round 3 survey, these four Land Systems were re-sampled along with the addition of the Washplain Land System (Figure 2-1).

240000

240000

242500

242500

245000

245000

247500

247500

7407

500

7407

500

7410

000

7410

000

O0 1 2

Kilometers

240000

240000

242500

242500

245000

245000

247500

247500

7407

500

7407

500

7410

000

7410

000

DRAWN: Greg Harewood

DATE :

SCALE: 1: 37 500

Nov 2010

Land Systems

MGA Zone 51


Figure: X

LegendBoolgeeda Land System

Divide Land System

Fortescue Land System

Newman Land System

River Land System

Sylvania Land System

Washplain Land System

FPP Indicative Infrastructure

Phoenix Enviromental

Text Box

Land Systems occurring in the study area that have been sampled for troglofauna.


Text Box

2-1

Karen

Highlight

Karen

Typewritten Text

Project footprint

Karen

Typewritten Text

Karen

Typewritten Text

Karen

Typewritten Text


FerrAus Ltd


2.3 HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE SUBTERRANEAN HABITAT The hydrogeology of the area was defined by Aquaterra after further drilling in 2009 and remodelling of the resource (Aquaterra 2010, 2009). The primary aquifer of the study area is located within the Marra Mamba formation and drawdown for mine dewatering will primarily be expressed vertically only along the formation with a greater drawdown (> 30m) starting approximately 8km from the pit boundary from east to west. The vertical drawdown is largely restricted outside of a 1km radius of the proposed pit in the north, 4km west-northwest and within 1km of the south of the pit. To the east the greater drawdown area extends along the Marra Mamba formation strike to 8km (Figure 2-2).

Project

DERBY

NEWMAN

PERTH

ALBANY

KALGOORLIE

510510510510510510510510510

490490490490490490490490490

470470470470470470470470470

43

04

30

43

04

30

43

04

30

43

04

30

43

0

440440440440440440440440440

44

04

40

44

04

40

44

04

40

44

04

40

44

0

500500500500500500500500500

40

04

00

40

04

00

40

04

00

40

04

00

40

0

42

04

20

42

04

20

42

04

20

42

04

20

42

0

470470470470470470470470470

510510510510510510510510510

490490490490490490490490490 500500500500500500500500500480480480480480480480480480

350350350350350350350350350

490490490490490490490490490470470470470470470470470470

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

360

37

03

70

37

03

70

37

03

70

37

03

70

37

0

510510510510510510510510510

490490490490490490490490490

430430430430430430430430430

440440440440440440440440440

480480480480480480480480480

400400400400400400400400400

500500500500500500500500500

500500500500500500500500500

430

430

430

430

430

430

430

430

430

450450450450450450450450450

500500500500500500500500500

510510510510510510510510510

39

03

90

39

03

90

39

03

90

39

03

90

39

0

460460460460460460460460460

470

470

470

470

470

470

470

470

470

500500500500500500500500500

48

04

80

48

04

80

48

04

80

48

04

80

48

0

490490490490490490490490490

490490490490490490490490490

7,4

12

,50

0 m

N

250 000 E

7,4

10

,00

0 m

N7

,40

7,5

00

mN

247,500 mE 250,000 mE245,000 mE

247 500 E245 000 E242 500 E240 000 E237 500 E

242,500 mE240,000 mE237,500 mE

7,4

10

,00

0 m

N7

,41

2,5

00

mN

7,4

07

,50

0 m

N

LEGENDLOCATION MAP

Predicted Water Level Contours (mAHD)

Kilometres

Scale: 1:60,000 @A4

GDA 1994 Zone 51

FIGURE 2-2PREDICTED WATER LEVEL AFTER 12 YEARS (LAYER 4)

AUTHOR: REPORT NO:

DRAWN: REVISION:

DATE:

JB 074

MS b

25/10/2010 JOB NO: 1009/C5

Location: F:\Jobs\1009\MapInfo\C\Workspaces\074b\074b Figure 4.13.wor

Main Pit Outline

5005005005005005005005005001 0 1


Text Box

FIGURE 2-2 Hydrogeology of the study area, predicted drawdown after 12 yrs (mine life)


FerrAus Ltd


2.4 CLIMATE The Pilbara region has a semi-desert to tropical climate with highly variable, mostly summer rainfall occurring as a result of cyclonic activity. The average rainfall over the broader Pilbara area ranges from about 200mm to 350mm, although rainfall may vary widely from the average from year to year (DEWHA 2009).

The nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) weather station is located at Newman, approximately 80km west of the study area. Newman has the highest maximum mean monthly temperature (39°C) in January, the lowest maximum mean annual temperature (22.3°C) in July and an average annual rainfall of 310mm (BOM 2011).

2.5 LAND USE Pastoral grazing activities comprise the only economic land use in the study area. Overgrazing in the arid grasslands of Western Australia has been shown to have major impacts on invertebrate (Binks et al. 2005), vertebrate and floristic diversity and condition (DEHWA 2009; Van Vreeswyk et al. 2004).


FerrAus Ltd


3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND SITE SELECTION The basic volcanic geology of the study area can potentially lend itself to troglofauna habitation formation, where weathering and associated transportation has been sufficient to create cavities and voids. Geological logging of drill holes can provide the information required to assess the suitability/characteristics of the subterranean environment with respect to the formation of troglofauna habitat.

As such, drill holes that indicate the presence voids and cavities define the target areas for troglofauna sampling. The presence of cavities and voids in Pilbara geologies are more discernible in diamond drill cores, where the core can be physically inspected.

Complete geological logs were available for the RC drill holes of the study area and were used to assess sampling suitability of prospective drill holes.

A review of geological data, Land System mapping and aerial photography identified three habitat/geological types within the study area that were considered prospective for subterranean fauna. These are described below:

• The Marra Mamba Formation (generally hosting the economic iron ore, and most prospective due to high presence of voids and cavities);

• The Jerrinah Formation (less prospective due to fewer voids and cavities); and • The Wittenoom Formation (less prospective due to fewer voids and cavities).

Within the three formations, 102 drill holes were identified for Round 3 sampling. These were selected to maximize coverage and representativeness of the geologies present. Some of these holes were previously sampled in Rounds 1 and 2, but additional holes were needed to attain the required sampling effort within the study area for the Round 3 survey (Figure 3-1).

The holes identified for Round 3 required ground-truthing at the time of field survey to determine their adequacy for sampling on the basis of condition, as the majority of the holes in the study area had been rehabilitated (150mm diameter drill holes). Due to the poor condition of some of the rehabilitated holes, only 55 holes (33 in the non-impact area and 22 in the impact area) were considered to have sufficient stability and air column length for sampling.

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

240000

240000

242500

242500

245000

245000

247500

247500

7407

500

7407

500

7410

000

7410

000

O0 1 2

Kilometers

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

240000

240000

242500

242500

245000

245000

247500

247500

7407

500

7407

500

7410

000

7410

000


DATE :

SCALE: 1: 37 500

Nov 2010

Locations of troglofauna survey sites/ bore sampling locations for the Python / Gwardar survey rounds with predicted drawdown contours (m) and mine outline

MGA Zone 51


Figure: 3-1

Legend! Troglofauna Survey Sites

Main Pit Outline

Predicted Drawdown Contours (m)



Text Box

5m


Text Box

10m


Text Box

20m


Text Box

30m


FerrAus Ltd


3.2 HABITAT CHARACTERISATION Information on troglofauna taxa in the Pilbara is not readily available in databases such as FaunaMap or NatureBase (managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation). Hence, therefore assessment of suitable habitat within the study area in comparison with broader region is difficult.

Within the study area, habitat characterization was based on:

• Available information in Guidance Statement 54a: Sampling Methods and Survey Considerations for Subterranean Fauna in Western Australia (EPA 2007), which indicates the likelihood of collecting troglofauna from various geologies in the Pilbara (see 1.3);

• Review of previous surveys for the local area and region; and • Review of geological logs (as described in 3.1).

The Round 3 traps were set at 7-10m below the ground surface surveyed the upper alluvial/colluvial layers and those set at 17-20m were able to survey the Wittenoom Formation (whose geology generally started at 20-25m), as the fauna is able to move up the drill holes for feeding. The water table was too high across the study area to set traps within much of the Marra Mamba geology.

3.3 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY The preferred methods for undertaking troglofauna surveys are outlined in EPA Guidance Statement 54a (EPA 2007). While these methods are likely to be further developed with an increase in knowledge of troglofauna ecology and subterranean environments, the following survey aspects are currently recognised as being important and were applied to the surveys conducted within the study area:

• There must be a connection between the trap and the surrounding habitat to allow access to the trap, and trap slots should align with bore slots or be dropped to the bottom of the bore;

• Maintaining a moist environment around the trap is important to enhance capture rates. This is achieved by taping and sealing the bore after trap placement;

• Leaf litter, preferably inoculated with bacteria, should be used as bait to attract troglofauna. Cheese or dog biscuits may also be used to increase capture rates;

• Traps must remain in place for at least six weeks;

• Ideally, the survey will comprise two sampling rounds, in different seasons; and

• Additional sampling may be required to capture all species, as determined by a species area curve.

The methods employed in the Round 3 survey were based on these guidelines and Phoenix’s previous experience in undertaking troglofauna surveys in Western Australia. Troglofauna were sampled using custom built litter traps that were filled with sterilised, locally-sourced leaf litter to which dry dog biscuits were added to increase the nutrient concentration and aid bacteriological colonisation. The traps were suspended within bore holes to align with fissures and voids, and positioned against the sides of the bore hole (EPA 2007). Pipe cleaners (30cm) were also slotted through the traps in order to enhance access for troglofauna. The traps were left in the ground for a minimum of six weeks to allow sufficient time for colonisation.

Experienced invertebrate biologists installed 288 troglofauna traps in Rounds 1 and 2 (November 2008 and March 2009) in 78 drill holes. These represented 39 bores inside the


FerrAus Ltd


impact area, and 39 bores outside the impact area. The traps were placed at depths between 4.5 - 25m below ground level. During Round 3, 110 troglofauna traps were installed in 55 drill holes, representing 33 bores inside the impact area, and 22 bores outside the impact area, placed at depths between 5-20m below ground level (Table 3-1; Appendix 1).

The collective sampling effort in Rounds 1 to 3 represented a total of 62 bores inside the impact area, and 49 bores outside the impact area, some of which were sampled on more than one occasion. Two traps were set in each bore at depths between 4.5 - 25m below ground level (mbgl).

The troglofauna traps for Round 3 were installed between 23 and 25 March 2010. The bores were sealed and left in place for 49 days, and then collected between 11 and 13 May 2010 (Table 3-1). In nearly all cases, two traps per hole were installed in each of the three rounds of sampling. Table 3-1 Sampling effort for the troglofauna survey rounds.

Sampling Round No. of active Drill

Holes Number of

traps

Round 1 72* 145

Round 2 73* 143

Round 3 55 110

Total 133** 398 *A total of 78 different drill holes were sampled in Rounds 1 and 2. Some holes from each round could not be re-sampled in Round 2 or Round 3 due to blockage of the hole or rehabilitation of the drill pad between the two sampling dates. ** Represents total number of different holes sampled. 3.4 TAXONOMY AND NOMENCLATURE Sample processing and order-level identifications were completed by Phoenix staff.

Species-level identifications were completed by Dr Erich Volschenk (Phoenix) and Bennelongia.

3.5 SURVEY PERSONNEL AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A summary of the personnel involved in the survey is provided in Table 3-2. . Table 3-2 Survey personnel.

Person Title Qualifications Mr Jarrad Clark Invertebrate Biologist /

Project Manager B.Sc. (Environmental Management)

Ms Conor O’Neill Environmental Scientist B. Sc. (Sustainable Development Conservation Biology)

Dr Erich S. Volschenk Senior Scientist PhD (Invertebrate systematics and Taxonomy)

Ms Andrea Bending Biologist B. Sc. (Marine Science and Environmental Biology)

Mr Jason Nolthenius Biologist Cert IV Environment


FerrAus Ltd


4.0 RESULTS 4.1 SPECIES RECORDS No troglofauna specimens were collected in the Round 3 survey. Troglofauna records for all three survey rounds remain confined to the single record of Japygidae sp. PG1 in Round 2.

Ecologia (2008b) recorded two troglobitic taxa, a thysanuran (silverfish) and an onicidean isopod species at the Robertson Range Area. Neither of these species was recorded in the surveys of Python and Gwardar.

Eleven stygobitic worm specimens (family Enchytraeidae) were retrieved from three of the troglofauna traps in the Round 3 survey. These results were included in the stygofauna report for the study area (Phoenix 2009a).

A number of terrestrial (epigean) invertebrate fauna were collected as by-catch from the study area in the surveys (data not shown). These included Acariformes (mites), Collembola (springtails) and Insecta of various orders.

Mites and springtails are ubiquitous in all environments. They are often deep litter dwellers, and their small size enables them to easily penetrate drill holes plugs and therefore easily enter the troglofauna traps. Extensive sampling at Mesa A (Biota 2006b) determined that troglobitic mites appeared to be capable of movement between Mesas and it was hypothesized that they were ‘hitching’ with more mobile vertebrate species (pers. comm Dr Mark Harvey).

4.2 OVERVIEW OF DIPLURA Diplurans are small soil dwelling hexapods (six-legged insects) that are primarily carnivorous. All diplurans lack eyes and are without pigmentation making all diplurans appear troglomorphic and therefore assessing true troglobitic species from soil inhabiting species is impossible based on morphology. They range in length from 2-5mm and have long antennae with ten or more bead-like segments projecting forward from the head, and paired appendages projecting backwards (cerci) from the rear which are used for prey capture.

Although diplurans often appear in subterranean surveys, the taxonomy and biology of Australian diplurans is still very poor. Only a single dipluran species has been described from Western Australia, Parajapyx swani, however numerous undescribed species have been identified from the Pilbara (Koch 2009).

A review of Western Australian diplurans by Koch (2009) highlights the potential for short-range endemism among this order, including members of Japygidae. Sequence based information from a recent Pilbara survey supports this position, identifying a recorded Japygidae species to have SRE potential (Subterranean Ecology 2010).

4.3 JAPYGIDAE SP. PG1 The single record of the dipluran, Japygidae sp. PG1, was collected during the Round 2 survey from drill hole DCRC0154 (Figure 4-1). This site is within the proposed pit boundary (Figure 4-2). The specimen was collected from a trap set at 8m (Appendix 1). Japygidae sp. PG1 represents a new species.

Bennelongia initially identified the specimen as being from the class Symphyla. Later inspection of the specimen by Dr Erich Volshenk resulted in a re-identification of the specimen to Japygidae sp. PG1 based on keys in Condé & Pagés (1991).


FerrAus Ltd


Japygidae sp. PG1 may be an SRE species, however the single record makes definitive determinations difficult.

Figure 4-1 Japygidae sp. PG1

4.4 GEOLOGY/HABITAT ATTRIBUTES The geology at the depth the trap was laid (8m) that recorded Japygidae sp. PG1 is moderately soft bedded and porous Cainozoic material (colluviums/alluvial cover) of the Fortescue Land System (Table 4-1). The colluvium/alluvium strata (0-20/25mbgl) overlie the Wittenoom Formation (25-50mbgl) and the Marra Mamba Formation (50-180+mbgl; the primary host unit for iron mineralisation).

Dolomite is a major component of the Wittenoom Formation and is often karstic, and therefore can contain voids/cavities suitable for subterranean fauna habitation. Within the study area this geological sequence occurs primarily below the water table, with only thin sections above. The Marra Mamba formation consists of a thick succession of BIF, shale and carbonate rocks.

A review of the geological logs suggested that there were porous and vuggy areas present above the water table which had the potential to support troglofauna species and communities. However, the relatively thin section of the Wittenoom Formation that exists between the alluvial strata and the water table is considered unlikely to provide permanent suitable troglofauna habitat due to fluctuations in the water table. Troglomorphic species would need to be able to move and periodically reside within either strata. Table 4-1 The major geological units of the study area.

Geological Unit Description Colluvium/Alluvium Unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel; in river channels; includes colluvium,

reworked alluvium, aeolian sand, and clay Wittenoom Formation Calcitic dolomite, interbedded chert and shale in upper and lower parts,

volcaniclastic sandstone. Marra Mamba Iron Formation

Chert, ferruginous chert, jaspilite, banded iron-formation, minor shale, siltstone, mudstone.

Jeerinah Formation Shale, sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, dolomite, local microbanded chert, jaspilite, conglomerate; fine-grained massive rhyolite; mafic tuff with local accretionary lapilli and agglomerate; thin basalt/dolerite and andesitic basalt flows.

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

240000

240000

242500

242500

245000

245000

247500

247500

7407

500

7407

500

7410

000

7410

000

O0 1 2

Kilometers

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

240000

240000

242500

242500

245000

245000

247500

247500

7407

500

7407

500

7410

000

7410

000


DATE :

SCALE: 1: 37 500

Nov 2010

Locations of troglofauna survey sites/ bore sampling locations for the Python / Gwardar survey rounds with predicted drawdown contours (m) and mine outline

MGA Zone 51


Figure: 3-1

Legend! Troglofauna Survey Sites

Main Pit Outline




Text Box

Japygidae sp. PG1 (DCRC0154)


Line


Text Box

4-2

Karen

Typewritten Text

Karen

Typewritten Text

Karen

Typewritten Text

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

240000

240000

242500

242500

245000

245000

247500

247500

7407

500

7407

500

7410

000

7410

000

O0 1 2

Kilometers

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!J

240000

240000

242500

242500

245000

245000

247500

247500

7407

500

7407

500

7410

000

7410

000


DATE :

SCALE: 1: 37 500

Nov 2010

Land Systems occurring in the study area that have been

sampled for troglofauna

MGA Zone 51


Figure: 2-1

LegendBoolgeeda Land System

Divide Land System

Fortescue Land System

Newman Land System

River Land System

Sylvania Land System

Washplain Land System



! Troglofauna Survey Sites

Japygidae sp. PG1


Text Box

5m


Text Box

10m


Text Box

20m


Text Box

30m


Text Box

4-3


Text Box

Locations of troglofauna survey sites with respect to land systems, drawdown contours (m) and mine outline.


Stamp


Text Box

Proposed pit and infrastructure outline

Python and Gwardar Iron Ore Deposits Troglofauna Survey Draft Report FerrAus Pilbara Project

FerrAus Ltd


4.5 LIMITATIONS Limitations of the surveys are outlind in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 The limitations of the troglofauna surveys of the FerrAus Pilbara Project Python

and Gwardar deposits.

Limitations

Relevant to the three surveys? Yes/no Comments

Competency/experience of the consultant carrying out the survey.

No The field team is experienced in undertaking troglofauna surveys throughout WA, including the Pilbara.

Scope (what faunal groups were sampled, were some sampling methods not able to be employed because of constraints such as weather conditions.

No The survey targeted drill holes within the geological structures found to be most prospective with respect to presence of cavities or voids. Due to bore inundation a small number of traps were inundated and incidentally collected stygofauna specimens.

Proportion of fauna identified, recorded and/or collected.

Yes Due to the paucity of knowledge concerning subterranean fauna at the eastern margin of the Hamersley Range, it is almost impossible to confirm that all species have been recorded. However, as only one specimen was recorded over three sampling rounds, with a relatively large sample sizes in each round, it is most likely that the lack of specimens recovered is considered a reflection of the true state of the abundance and diversity of the subterranean biota.

Sources of information e.g. previously available information (whether historic or recent) as distinct from new data.

Yes As above, there is little data concerning troglofauna distribution or presence in the local area. A relatively small number of troglofauna have been recorded from the Robertson Range Iron Ore Project (~20km to the south) again despite considerable sampling effort, well in excess of .GS 54a requirements.

Timing/weather/season/cycle. No Data was collected in both wet (2) and dry (1) seasons.

The proportion of the task achieved and further work which might be needed.

No The program was implemented as planned, although some drill holes could not be sampled because they were blocked or had collapsed.

Disturbances (e.g. fire, flood, accidental human intervention etc.) which affected results of survey.

No Not relevant to this survey, in any round.

Intensity (in retrospect, was the intensity adequate?)

No The sample size was considerably large given the perceived (low) chance of recording troglofauna species. Additional sampling was undertaken which increased the intensity outside the pit area.

Completeness (was relevant area fully surveyed?)

No Local and regional bores were sampled over the three sampling rounds.

Remoteness and/or access problems. No Not relevant to this survey.

Availability of contextual (e.g. biogeographic) information on the region.

No The East Pilbara/Gascoyne region is fairly well known from a floristic and vertebrate faunal context. However, as stated above, subterranean invertebrate biology, taxonomy and distribution is poorly known in this region.


FerrAus Ltd


5.0 DISCUSSION The three sampling rounds represent the first troglofauna surveys of the Python and Gwardar pits. There are a few regional records that identify some troglobitic species from similar geologies/habitats to those of the study area. These include unpublished surveys of FerrAus’s Robertson Range Iron Ore Project (Marra Mamba) and BHPBIO’s Newman sites (various geological units, such as the Wittenoom and Marra Mamba Formations).

Two troglobitic taxa, a thysanuran (silverfish) and an onicidean isopod species were recorded at Robertson Range by Ecologia (2008a). Troglofauna were also considered likely to be present at the Hancock Prospecting Roy Hill Remote Borefield project, but no sampling was undertaken because no direct removal of habitat was required and the level of drawdown was considered too minor to significantly alter the subterranean environment.

A review of the geological logs and regional data indicated that troglofauna were likely to be present in the Python and Gwardar study area. The Wittenoom or Marra Mamba Formations above the water table were thought to be prospective for supporting troglobitic species since these geologies contained the greatest degree of subterranean void networks.

The results of the surveys did not support this theory, with only a single putative troglobite, Japygidae sp. PG1, recorded from Round 2. The specimen was recorded an alluvium/colluvium strata overlying the iron resource. The follow up survey for Japygidae sp. PG1 did not yield any additional records.

Hydrogeological modeling completed after the Round 3 survey identified that the specific Marra Mamba and Wittenoom geologies within the study area were less suitable for troglofauna habitation than originally thought. The Marra Mamba within the study area resides beneath the water table across the majority of the strike and therefore is highly unlikely to support air-breathing troglomorphic taxa.

The alluvial strata overlying the Marra Mamba formations are likely to represent the habitat of Japygidae sp. PG1. Over recent years, several projects have identified troglofauna (including diplurans) from alluvial geologies.

The alluvial strata are a highly porous, nutrient-poor environment where inputs into the system will generally move quickly into the less porous, underlying stratigraphies before being concentrated in the associated aquifer. Very little is known about this habitat and only recently have troglofauna been recorded from it (Ecologia 2010; Subterranean Ecology 2010). In several ways it appears to be similar to the “mileau souterrain superficiel” (MSS) habitat (Juberthie et al. 1981) of Continental Europe, which is known to support locally restricted.

Japygidae sp. PG1 is considered to be a potential SRE species. The extent of habitat for this species is unclear. Based on current data, this species will be impacted on by the proposed mine development. The scale of impact is difficult to assess owing to limited information on the distribution of this species. Further sampling outside of the proposed area of impact is needed in order to demonstrate that this species has a wider distribution and exists outside of the proposed impact area.


FerrAus Ltd


REFERENCES Aquaterra. 2009. Davidson Creek preliminary mine dewatering analysis. Aquaterra Consulting Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Ltd.

Aquaterra. 2010. Davidson Creek - mine hydrogeology and dewatering assessment. Aquaterra Consulting Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Ltd.

Binks, R., Cann, A., Perks, S., Silla, A. & Young, M. 2005. The effect of introduced buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) on terrestrial invertebrate communities in the Pilbara region, Western Australia. School of Animal Biology, University of Western Australia. BSc (Honours) group project report.

Biota. 2005. Barrow Island Gorgon Gas Development, subterranean fauna survey. Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for The Gorgon Venture.

Biota. 2006a. BHP Billiton Iron Ore Regional Subterranean Fauna Study - Research Programme Design. Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for BHP Billiton Iron Ore.

Biota. 2006b. Mesa A and Robe Valley Mesas troglobitic fauna survey. Subterranean fauna assessment. Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for Robe River Iron Associates.

BOM. 2011. Climate Statistics for Australian locations: Newman. Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meteorology. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ (accessed 1 June 2011).

Condé, B. & Pagés, J. 1991. Diplura. In: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Division of Entomology) (ed.) The Insects of Australia, Second Edition. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, pp. 269-271.

DEHWA. 2009. Matters of national environmental significance: significant impact guidelines 1.1. Department of Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts.

DEWHA. 2009. Australian Natural Resources Atlas: Rangelands Overview. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available

Eberhard, S., Stevens, N., Perina, G. & Bell, P. 2009. Troglofauna in the Pilbara region, Western Australia - a remarkable hidden diversity poses a conservation challenge to the mining industry. Proceedings of the Combined Australian Entomological Society’s 40th AGM & Scientific Conference / Society of Australian Systematic Biologists / 9th Invertebrate Biodiversity & Conservation. Darwin, Australia.

Eberhard, S. M. 2007. Subterranean fauna extracts. Report prepared for the Department of Environment and Conservation.

Ecologia. 2008a. SRE invertebrate survey of Oakajee Port and Industrial Estate. Ecologia Environment Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for Oakajee Port and Rail Pty Ltd.

Ecologia. 2008b. Troglofauna assessment of Robertson Range. Ecologia Environment Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Ltd.

Ecologia. 2009a. Stygofauna survey of Robertson Range Iron Ore Project, East Gascoyne. Ecologia Environment Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Ltd.

Ecologia. 2009b. Troglofauna survey of Robertson Range, East Gascoygne: Robertson Range Iron Ore project. Ecologia Environment Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Ltd.

Ecologia. 2010. Brockman Resources Ltd Marillana Iron Ore Project troglofauna report. Ecologia Environment. Unpublished report prepared for Brockman Resources Ltd.

EPA. 2003. Guidance for the assessment of environmental factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986). Consideration of subterranean fauna in groundwater and caves during Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. No. 54. Environmental Protection Authority.

EPA. 2007. Guidance for the assessment of environmental factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986). Sampling methods and survey considerations for subterranean fauna in Western Australia.Statement. No. 54a (Technical appendix to Guidance Statement No. 54). Environmental Protection Authority.

Harvey, M. S. 2002. Short-range endemism among the Australian fauna: some examples from non-marine environments. Invertebrate Systematics 16: 555–570.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/


FerrAus Ltd


Humphreys, W. F. 2000. Background and glossary. In: Wilkens, H., Culver, D. C.&Humphreys, W. F. (eds) Ecosystems of the World Vol. 30 - Subterranean ecosystems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 3–14.

Juberthie, C., Bouillon, M. & Delay, B. 1981. The existence of a superficial subterranean environment in calcareous areas. Memoires de Biospeologie 7: 77–94.

Koch, M. 2009. Biodiversity of the two-pronged bristletails (Diplura) in Western Australia as revealed from recent mining projects. Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, University of Bonn, Germany.

Phoenix. 2009a. Stygofauna survey for the Davidson Creek Iron Ore Project. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for FerrAus Ltd.

Phoenix. 2009b. Troglofauna survey for the Davidson Creek Iron Ore Project. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for Ferraus Ltd.

Subterranean Ecology. 2010. Fortescue Metals Group Solomon Project: Kings Deposits subterranean fauna survey and assessment. Subterranean Ecology Pty Ltd. Unpublished report prepared for Fortescue Metals Group Ltd.

Thackway, R. & Cresswell, I. D. 1995. An Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia: a framework for establishing the national system of reserves, Version 4.0. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra, ACT.

Van Vreeswyk, A. M. E., Payne, A. L., Leighton, K. A. & Hennig, P. 2004. An inventory and condition survey of the Pilbara region, Western Australia. Department of Agriculture, Government of Australia, Technical Bulletin 92: 1–58.


FerrAus Ltd


APPENDIX 1: TROGLOFAUNA SITE GPS COORDINATES AND TRAP DEPTHS

Round 1 1/11/08 - 14/11/08

Round 2 10/03/09 - 20/04/09

Round 3 23/03/10 - 11/05/10

WGS-84 (UTM)

Site Depth 1 Depth 2 Depth 1 Depth 2 Depth 1 Depth 2 Northing Easting

DCDD0018 1 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 243601 7408004

DCRC0013 2 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 245659 7407920

DCRC0024 3 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 9 19 245059 7408022

DCRC0033 4 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 245659 7408067

DCRC0040 5 8 18 8 18 5 15 245460 7408215

DCRC0043 6 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 7 17 245821 7408298

DCRC0044 7 7 13 7 13 ˉ ˉ 245819 7408499

DCRC0046 8 9 19 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 246196 7408000

DCRC0050 9 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 246198 7408492

DCRC0052 10 7 17 7 17 10 20 245975 7408322

DCRC0056 11 4 13 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 245976 7407871

DCRC0057 12 8 23 8 23 ˉ ˉ 245822 7407867

DCRC0063 13 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 244199 7407598

DCRC0064 14 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 244200 7407650

DCRC0068 15 ˉ ˉ 6 ˉ ˉ ˉ 244200 7407999

DCRC0072 16 8 16 8 16 ˉ ˉ 244199 7407800

DCRC0073 17 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 243800 7407750

DCRC0074 18 8 18 8 18 10 20 243801 7407790

DCRC0078 19 8 18 8 18 9 19 243800 7408000

DCRC0088 20 8.5 18.5 8.5 18.5 8 18 243401 7408002

DCRC0095 21 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ 243000 7407849

DCRC0097 22 9 19 9 19 ˉ ˉ 243001 7407948

DCRC0098 23 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 243001 7408000

DCRC0100 24 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 242600 7407600

DCRC0101 25 5 15 5 15 ˉ ˉ 242601 7407650

DCRC0106 26 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 242601 7407899

DCRC0108 27 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 7 17 242600 7407999

DCRC0110 28 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 5 15 242200 7407550

DCRC0111 29 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 7 17 242201 7407599

DCRC0113 30 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ 242201 7407703

DCRC0116 31 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 8 18 242200 7407851

DCRC0120 32 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 4 14 241801 7407649

DCRC0126 33 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 5 15 241805 7407951

DCRC0128 34 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 244402 7407700

DCRC0136 35 8 18 8 18 10 20 244400 7408150

DCRC0147 36 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 242387 7407601

DCRC0148 37 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0154 38 8 18 8 18 7 17 242400 7407951

DCRC0155 39 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0159 40 5 15 5 15 6 16 242001 7407850

DCRC0172 41 7 17 7 17 ˉ ˉ 245050 7408170


FerrAus Ltd


Round 1 1/11/08 - 14/11/08

Round 2 10/03/09 - 20/04/09

Round 3 23/03/10 - 11/05/10

WGS-84 (UTM)


DCRC0183 42 8 18 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 245909 7408146

DCRC0184 43 5 15 5 15 ˉ ˉ 245745 7407901

DCRC0186 44 8 15 8 15 ˉ ˉ 245749 7408000

DCRC0200 45 9 19 9 19 10 20 244598 7407801

DCRC0201 46 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 244599 7407853

DCRC0202 47 8 18 10 25 ˉ ˉ 244599 7407900

DCRC0204 48 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 244599 7407999

DCRC0207 49 4.5 14.5 4.5 14.5 ˉ ˉ 244600 7408150

DCRC0230 50 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 246797 7407896

DCRC0236 51 9 19 9 19 ˉ ˉ 246795 7408194

DCRC0245 52 10 15 15 20 ˉ ˉ 243999 7407900

DCRC0246 53 10 20 10 20 9 19 244000 7407947

DCRC0249 54 8 18 8 18 9 19 244000 7408098

DCRC0251 55 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0256 56 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 243601 7408004

DCRC0260 57 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 243200 7407750

DCRC0269 58 7 17 7 17 8 18 242799 7407801

DCRC0282 59 7 14 7 14 ˉ ˉ 245147 7407999

DCRC0283 60 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 245145 7408050

DCRC0284 61 8 18 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 245145 7408102

DCRC0285 62 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 245144 7408146

DCRC0305 63 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 6 16 241402 7408149

DCRC0306 64 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 241202 7407601

DCRC0326 65 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 7 17 241001 7408048

DCRC0331 66 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 246605 7407949

DCRC0337 67 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 5 15 243801 7408449

DCRC0338 68 8 18 ˉ ˉ 6 16 241602 7408202

DCRC0367 69 ˉ ˉ 10 20 10 20 241800 7407650

DCRC0368 70 ˉ ˉ 8 18 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0373 71 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 7 17 244603 7408304

DCRC0375 72 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 6 16 244399 7408349

DCRC0401 73 8 16 8 16 ˉ ˉ 243801 7408249

DCRC0402 74 8 18 8 18 6 16 243800 7408346

DCRC0404 75 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 6 16 244200 7408250

DCRC0415 76 8 16 8 16 7 17 243200 7408446

DCRC0416 77 7 15 5.5 13.5 ˉ ˉ 243599 7408249

DCRC0418 78 6 16 10 16 ˉ ˉ 243598 7408445

DCRC0419 79 7 17 7 17 ˉ ˉ 244000 7408349

DCRC0420 80 10 17 10 ˉ 5 15 244001 7408451

DCRC0425 81 ˉ 20 ˉ 20 7 17 243399 7408501

DCRC0435 82 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ 248000 7408150

DCRC0454 83 ˉ 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 248599 7408150

DCRC0459 84 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 248999 7408050

DCRC0464 85 10 ˉ 10 20 ˉ ˉ


FerrAus Ltd


Round 1 1/11/08 - 14/11/08

Round 2 10/03/09 - 20/04/09

Round 3 23/03/10 - 11/05/10

WGS-84 (UTM)


DCRC0467 86 7 17 7 17 ˉ ˉ 249200 7407950

DCRC0468 87 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 249200 7408000

DCRC0472 88 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 246604 7407900

DCRC0476 89 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 246400 7408050

DCRC0484 90 ˉ ˉ 8 18.5 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0485 91 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ 246200 7408250

DCRC0486 92 10 20 10 20 10 20 246000 7407765

DCRC0487 93 10 20 10 20 10 20 245999 7407817

DCRC0488 94 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0489 95 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0490 96 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0491 97 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0492 98 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0493 99 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0494 100 8 18 8 18 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0497 101 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 5 15 245265 7408370

DCRC0499 102 10 20 10 20 10 20 245052 7407673

DCRC0505 103 10 20 10 20 10 20 244402 7407650

DCRC0506 104 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0508 105 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 10 20 244001 7407700

DCRC0510 106 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0520 107 10 20 10 20 ˉ ˉ

DCRC0773 108 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 9 19 244250 7407750

MMRC 0004 109 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 6 16 239644 7410228

MMRC 0009A 110 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 5 15 240451 7409262

MMRC 0010 111 ˉ ˉ ˉ ˉ 5 15 240099 7409238

TOTAL 72 71 72 72 55 55 111

Key: NON- IMPACT IMPACT

python and gwardar iron ore deposits troglofauna survey ......python and gwardar iron ore deposits...

Documents