BHP : response to DCCEEW comments

BHP response to DCCEEW comments on the Jimblebar Significant Amendment Validation Notice July 2024

Section		DCCEEW comment		BHP response
Letter		DCEEEW recommends that BHP republish the draft Validation Notice		Comment noted. Historically, BHP has only
		for public comment.		received comments on draft Validation Notices
				from DCCEEW and the relevant Aboriginal
				corporation. On this occasion, BHP has
				received comments from DCCEEW and KNAC
				and has prepared written responses to these. It
				is therefore not expected that further publication
				will result in additional public comments.
				Nevertheless, will republish the validation notice
				for a further public comment period.
Project description and		The project description requires revision. Most of the project elements		Section 2.2 identifies all key components of the
impact quantification		are simply listed with no further detailed description of what the activity		Activity. Additional information has been
		involves and no analysis of potential impacts to Program Matters.		included describing mine dewatering and
		We acknowledge that some project elements can be briefly described		surplus water management, beneficiation,
			tailings management and the overland
		such as borrow and laydown areas, while others such as hydrological
			conveyor.
		changes, overburden management and closure activities require more
		thorough information. While the draft validation notice includes a
		cursory discussion on in pit tailings deposition, it does not provide
		specifics of the activity and does not identify or discuss potential
		impacts such as acid and metalliferous drainage risk. The mine
		decommissioning and closure discussion is also generic and requires
		more detail.
Indirect impacts to the		Potential indirect impacts to the Ghost Bat from the Activity such as		Potential indirect impacts and mitigation
Ghost Bat		habitat modification from hydrological changes, fire and weeds, artificial		measures for these have now been included in
		light, feral animals and cane toads, noise and vibration, dust,		the Ghost Bat section.
		hydrological changes, and infrastructure such as communication towers		Baseline environmental data is provided in
		are not identified and assessed in the draft validation notice. Section
			Table 4-7 including Ghost Bat records for the
		4.4.5 Impact Assessment of the draft validation notice only identifies the

direct impact of habitat loss from clearing and consequently the mitigation hierarchy has just been applied to this direct impact and not potential indirect impacts. This is a significant omission and is not in accordance with the consideration of indirect impacts in Section 7 Validation Process for Notifiable Actions of the Assurance Plan and Offsets Plan Revision 2.3 as outlined below:

Section 7.1 Review Baseline Environmental Data states that baseline environmental data will be used to validate direct and indirect impacts to Program Matters and to inform the application of the mitigation hierarchy and development of appropriate mitigation measures.

Section 7.2 Review Proposed Activity Information states that information about the proposed activity will be reviewed to consider whether the relevant Program Matters Outcomes will be met as specified in section 7.1 of the Program. The information will include any construction or operational activities that could result in indirect impacts to Program Matters, and water supply source or network, or water management required to access ore below the water table.

Section 7.3 Apply Mitigation Hierarchy states for each Notifiable Action, BHP will apply the mitigation hierarchy to avoid and mitigate impacts to Program Matters as far as practicable and ensure that Program Matter Outcomes are met. This section states that indirect impacts may include, but are not limited to, changes to groundwater regimes or quality, changes to surface water regimes or quality, light and noise pollution, increased human access to bat roosts, vibration, and habitat fragmentation.

Section 7.4 Determine Residual Impacts states that residual impacts to Program Matters, determined as part of the validation process and reported in the Validation Notice, will have regard to the identification of direct and indirect impacts associated with the Notifiable Action and the application of the mitigation hierarchy.

Section 7.6 Develop a Draft Validation Notice states that a discussion of direct and indirect impact using contemporary information, threat abatement plans and data, and demonstration that the Program Matters Outcomes can be met through application of the mitigation hierarchy, including details of offsets proposed, must be included in Validation Notices.

Activity Area. Additional information is included on cave features and openings.

BHP used baseline environmental data to inform the Validation Notice and implemented avoidance measures to ensure avoidance of direct impact to all Ghost Bat caves in the Activity Area. After application of the mitigation hierarchy, BHP considers that the Program Matter outcome for Ghost Bat will be met.

Figures	Many of the figures in the draft validation notice are inadequate as they	Figures have been updated to include pits and
	lack sufficient detail including:	OSAs, beneficiation plant and in pit tailings
	Figure 1-2 - does not show the proposed location of the project	storage.
	elements of the activity such as proposed pits and OSAs, and	Cave identifiers have been added to the Ghost
	infrastructure such as haul roads, pipelines, the beneficiation plant and	Bat figures.
	the overland conveyer, to assist the reader to identify potential impacts	Figures have been amended to include
	to Program Matters.
	enlargements to better display location and
	No figure is included showing Ghost Bat cave locations, cave identifiers	records.
	(ID) and cave categories/features of all recorded Ghost Bat roosts
	within the Activity Area and surrounding the Activity Area as well as the
	habitat types.
	Figure 4-11 shows existing Ghost Bat monitoring locations (the 'Target
	Bat Caves') as stars rather than the cave categorisations and cave IDs.
	Figures 4-10 and 4-11 do not include enlargements showing Ghost Bat
	records and caves in close proximity to one another, so that the location
	and number of records in that area can be accurately discerned by the
	reader.
Survey information	The discussion of survey results used to determine Notifiable Actions	Surveys and survey results are identified for all
	for Program Matters is absent is some instances. Further discussion	Program Matters in the draft Validation Notice,
	demonstrating the adequacy of surveys to detect evidence or signs of	in a similar manner to presentation of this data
	Program Matters presence - to support and provide credibility to the	in previous Validation Notices. Note that
	'surrounds' has been replaced with 'within
	conclusion that the Notifiable Action triggers will not be met by this
	500m of the Activity Area'. Section 4.2.1
	action - is required.
	describes the contemporary surveys
		undertaken and compliance with survey
		requirements. Additional discussion on surveys
		has been added to section 4.2.1.
Public comment and	Section 7.8 of the Assurance Plan and Offsets Plan Revision 2.3 states	Comment noted. BHP published the draft
publishing date	'The draft validation notice will be made publicly available on BHP's	Validation Notice on its website and notified
	website (or equivalent) for a period of 28 days along with instructions on	DCCEEW and the relevant state government
	how to make comment on the document. Interested parties will be	departments and KNAC of the public comment
	advised when each draft validation notice is made available.' There	period. Comments were received from
	does not appear to be instructions on how to make comments on the	DCCEEW and KNAC. No comments were
	draft validation notice either within the document itself or on the BHP	received from other stakeholders.
	webpage where it is published.

	Also, the date of the draft validation notice is 20 February 2024,
	however Table 3-1: Stakeholder Engagement states the draft validation
	notice was published on the BHP website for public comment on
	19 February 2024, and the department was notified that the publishing
	date was 21 February 2024.
	We note that ambiguity in publishing dates also occurred for the
	Newman Hub Western Ridge draft validation notice. Please ensure the
	commencement and closure date for the public consultation is clear,
	accurate and consistent.
Glossary and	Consider removing acronyms COS and DMIRS from the Glossary and	Updated.
abbreviations	Abbreviations table as they are not referenced in the draft validation
	notice, and adding the acronym, KNAC, which is used in Section 3
	Stakeholder Engagement.
1.4.1	Include all parts of the proposed action in the Activity description (p. 4)	Updated. Note that section 1.4 provides a
	to align with the actions listed at Section 2.2 (p. 13). Please also include	summary of the Activity, while the detailed
	how many new iron ore pits are proposed, to inform scope.	description is provided in section 2.2, to avoid
		duplication. This is in keeping with previous
		Validation Notices.
1.4.2	1.4.2 In Figure 1.2 (p.6), the Indicative Footprint should include the	This comment is a repeat of a previous
	proposed location of the project elements of the Activity listed in Section	comment. Figure amended.
	1.4, such as proposed pits and OSAs and infrastructure such as haul
	roads and the overland conveyer, to assist the reader to identify
	potential impacts to Program Matters.
1.6	1.6 As this section on timeframes (p. 4) states that the Notifiable Action	Updated.
	is forecast to be completed by 2046 and the predicted life span of the
	mine operation includes construction, mine operation,
	decommissioning, rehabilitation and closure, all project elements related
	to these activities should be included in the Activity list at Section 1.4 (p.
	4), it should not be limited to mine construction and operation.
Table 1.2	Unintentional error: Table 1-2 Notifiable Action triggers for the Activity	Additional text included in Table 1-2 to clarify
	(p. 7) states there are a total of twelve caves present in the Activity	that all caves in the Activity Area are Category
	Area, including two Category 2 roosts. However, Section 4.4 Ghost Bat	3 or Category 4 roosts.
	indicates that the two Category 2 roosts are outside the Activity Area
	boundary and more than 500 m from the Activity Area boundary.

Table 1.2	As commented by the department in other draft validation notices, for	A summary of surveys is provided in Table 4-1.
	each Program Matter where a Notifiable Action trigger is not met,	Further detail on survey coverage is provided in
	include a summary of the purpose and scope of surveys referenced to	Table 1-2 to demonstrate the scope of surveys
	support claims of no species presence.	and to provide rationale as to why triggers are
		met or are not met.
2.1	Project Disturbance and Description (p. 12) states that Section 2.2	Section 2 text amended to remove reference to
	documents unchanged project components from the Revised Jimblebar	unchanged components from the revised
	Optimisation Project Validation Notice and Section 2.3 documents new	Jimblebar Optimisation Project Validation
	project elements. Section 2.2 is titled Jimblebar Significant Amendment	Notice.
	with a list of activities associated with the current draft validation notice.
	There is not a section (or a section numbered 2.3) documenting
	unchanged project components from the Revised Jimblebar
	Optimisation Project Validation Notice. Please revise this section so that
	the content and sections correspond and make sense to the reader. As
	all project components from the Revised Jimblebar Optimisation Project
	Validation Notice are unchanged, as per Section 1.4 Activity (p. 4)
	which states that the current draft validation notice '…does not reassess
	or change the previous Activity or impacts associated in the original
	Jimblebar Optimisation Project Validation Notice (2020) or the
	Jimblebar Optimisation Project Revised Validation Notice (August
	2023)', including a list of unchanged project components may be
	redundant.
2.2	Project Disturbance and Description (p. 12) states that Figure 1-2	This comment is a repeat of a previous
	illustrates the location of the proposed works comprising the Activity. As	comment. Figure amended.
	mentioned in the Introduction section, this figure only shows the
	Indicative Footprint as shaded areas and does not illustrate the
	proposed location of the project elements of the Activity.
2.2.1	Other than a brief description of tailing deposition and standard closure	Section 2.2 identifies the activity elements.
	and decommissioning wording, this section primarily lists the project	Further description has been included on
	elements (p. 13) and does not describe the activities in enough detail to	beneficiation, tailings deposition and overland
	assist the reader to identify potential impacts to Program Matters.	conveyor.
	Based on the list of project elements, we recommend that the following	Further detail on the potential impacts of
	are described:
	hydrological changes, beneficiation and tailings
	Hydrological changes - describe hydrological analysis and modelling	deposition is provided in Section 4 for each
	that addresses changes in groundwater levels from dewatering, the	Program Matter.
	management of surplus mine dewater and changes to surface water
	regimes from mine pit excavation, construction of infrastructure, creek

	diversions and discharge of surplus water, changes to water quality and	Clearing for all infrastructure required for the
	an analysis of potential impacts for Program Matters. This includes	Proposal is included in the total clearing extent
	analysis supporting any conclusion that Program Matters and their	which is 2,067 ha.
	habitat will not be impacted by these changes (both within and outside	The current approved life of mine, which is
	the Activity Area). Please also provide a topographic map showing local
	2055 is expected to be extended by 5 years for
	hydrology including water features and catchments.
	this Proposal. Given the significant time period
	Overburden management - discuss whether the tailings will be from the	to closure, detail on specific activities to be
	new beneficiation plant and whether an Acid and Metalliferous Drainage	undertaken during decommissioning and
	risk assessment was undertaken for in-pit tailings deposition and	closure are not yet available.
	overburden storage areas, and an analysis of potential impacts for	Acid and metalliferous drainage risk
	Program Matters.
	assessment was undertaken and determined
	We also suggest that the draft validation notice describes, and provides	the risk of acid drainage to be low. Additional
	analysis of potential impacts to Program Matters from:	information has been provided in the impact
	Processing infrastructure - the beneficiation plant and overland	assessment section.
	conveyer.
	Communications infrastructure - the number of new communication
	towers and any communication rooms, and whether clearing for
	earthwork pads to install the towers is required.
	Decommissioning, rehabilitation and closure - include any activities that
	might be included during the decommissioning, rehabilitation or closure
	stage of the project.
2.2.2	In regard to the description of hydrological activities, the department	BHP will publish the hydrological appendices
	made comment on the draft validation notice Newman Hub Western	with the final Validation Notice
	Ridge on 20 August 2023 that analysis of hydrological changes should
	include discussion and justification even where BHP's analysis shows
	no impact will occur and that all relevant hydrological surveys or
	assessments supporting this analysis should be provided as
	appendices or attachments to the draft and final validation notice.
	Further, the department requested at a meeting with BHP on 12
	January 2024 that relevant hydrological impact assessment reports are
	to be included as appendices to this draft validation notice, to which
	BHP agreed. No such reports have been included as appendices.
2.2.3	The department also made comment on the draft validation notice	Additional discussion of potential impacts of
	Newman Hub Western Ridge that 'for all future validation notices for	hydrological changes is included in Section 4 in
	projects that will involve hydrological changes, ensure that analysis of	relation to Ghost Bat and Northern Quoll, as
	potential impacts extends to potential impacts to program matter habitat
	that may occur outside the activity area such as creek diversions

	resulting in increased water flows and dewatering of pits impacting	these are the only two species recorded in the
	aquifers extending beyond the activity area. Surveys for program matter	Activity Area or within 500m of the Activity Area.
	habitat and occurrence may need to be extended beyond the activity
	area to support analysis of these potential impacts.'
3.1	Refer to the interim first nations engagement guidelines on our website	Noted. BHP consulted with Nyiyaparli
	for more information on the department's expectations of proponents for	Traditional Owners in relation to the Proposal in
	engaging First Nations stakeholders throughout an environmental	May and August 2023, as identified in Table 3-
	assessment process.	1. This included on site visits to the Jimblebar
		mine and the Activity Area. Additional detail is
		provided in Table 3-1.
3.2.1	The public consultation commencement date is stated as 19 February	The misalignment in dates is noted; however
	2024. However, the draft Validation Notice is dated 20 February 2024	more than the required 28 day public comment
	and the department was notified that it was published on the BHP	period was enabled as public comments closed
	website for public comment on 21 February 2024. Table 3-1 also	on 22 March 2024. The publication of
	records the public consultation date as 19 February 2024.	documents on BHP's regulatory website is
		processed by an independent BHP team and
		can take 24 hours or longer to process,
		therefore the date included in the validation
		notice is as accurate as possible at the time of
		transmission of the documents to the
		publication department.
3.2.2	Karlka Nyiyaparli Aboriginal Corporation (KNAC) - possible	The draft Validation Notice was provided to
	unintentional error: it is stated that BHP provided the draft validation	KNAC on 21 February, inviting comments and
	notice to KNAC for review on 22 February 2024, although the draft	providing opportunity for further time to review
	validation notice is dated 20 February 2024 and was published on the	and respond, if required. KNAC provided
	BHP website for public comment on 21 February 2024.	comments to BHP on 22 March 2024.
3.2.3	The draft validation notice does not include instructions on how to make	Noted. This was an administrative error. It
	comments on the document and instructions also do not appear to be	should be noticed that key stakeholders were
	on the BHP webpage where it is published (noting that it has been	notified directly of the public comment period
	published under the WAIO - Jimblebar - Consultation and Public	via email including DBCA, DWER, PEOF,
	Comment section of the Regulatory Information page and note the	KNAC and DMIRS. To date, BHP has only
	WAIO - Consultation and Public Comment section). This is not in	received comments from DCCEEW and the
	accordance with Section 7.8 of the Assurance Plan and Offsets Plan	relevant Aboriginal corporation on draft
	Revision 2.3, as already discussed int the General Comments section.	validation notices. BHP will include instructions
		on how to provide comment for future validation
		notices.

4.2.1	As mentioned in the department's comments on other validation	BHP will provide numbering or lettering of
	notices, lettering or number of the published surveys as appendices is	appendices for publication of the final Validation
	recommended for ease of reference. The appendices should be	Notice.
	ascribed to the surveys/studies listed in Table 4.1 Terrestrial fauna -
	recent studies and surveys in the draft validation notice and the
	corresponding survey/study on the BHP website.
4.2.2	Hydrological reports (see comment at 2.2.2)	Noted. BHP will append the hydrological reports
		to the final Validation Notice.
4.2.3	Acid and metalliferous drainage risk assessment - the department has	Noted. This is a repeat of a previous comment.
	previously requested that these reports are provided as appendices.	The AMD risk assessment is not provided as it
	Please provide a copy of the risk assessment if one has been	contains commercially sensitive information and
	undertaken.	is not publicly available.
4.3.2	The discussion under Regional habitat and Baseline Modelling Data on	Regional habitat and baseline modelling
	the baseline modelling data from the Impact Assessment Report (Eco	information has been included in Validation
	Logical 2015) can be removed for each Program Matter as this is not fit	Notices to date as it provides a comparison
	for purpose at the scale of the Validation Notice. The discussion should	between the records and habitat modelling
	instead focus on contemporary survey results (less than five years old)	undertaken for the SEA, to the local
	clearly demonstrating whether Program Matter triggers will be met or	environment. It also enables BHP to validate
	not. We also note that the Regulatory information page of the BHP	the Activity against the impacts assessed in the
	website only has a copy of the Draft Impact Assessment Report. Please	SEA.
	update this page to include the Final Impact Assessment Report.	BHP includes all contemporary surveys in
		Validation Notices and historical surveys, where
		relevant.
		BHP does not agree that this information should
		be removed from Validation Notices.
		The final IAR report dated 4 May 2017 will be
		published on the BHP website.
4.3.3.1	Please include the Indicative Footprint in Figure 4.7 (p. 31) to show the	Figure amended.
	Northen Quoll supporting habitat that is predicted to be directly
	impacted.
4.3.3.2	Please explain in this section that while habitat types that may support	Additional text added to Section 4.3.2.
	denning for the Northern Quoll are present within the Activity Area, the

	habitat is not classified as critical habitat for the Northern Quoll under
	the Assurance Plan and Offsets Plan Revision 2.3 Table 5.10 as there
	is no 'home range' due to no evidence of a colony or residing
	individuals.
4.3.4.1	In regard to Northern Quoll records, the statement, 'Given the lack of	BHP considers that while one scat has been
	further evidence, it is unlikely that the species occurs in the Activity	recorded in the Activity Area, regular
	Area' (p. 29) is inaccurate, as while there may be no evidence of a	occurrence in the Activity Area, or occurrence
	residing Northern Quoll population or colony in the Activity Area an	of a population in the Activity Area is unlikely
	occurrence of the species has been detected within the Activity Area.	given that no further evidence of presence has
		been detected, despite targeted survey effort.
		Additional text has been added to Section 4.3.3
		to expand on the explanation.
4.3.6.1	An occurrence of Northern Quoll has been recorded in the Activity Area	The Activity will utilise existing infrastructure
	and there is Northern Quoll supporting habitat in the Activity Area.	and activities have been placed on existing
	Direct and indirect impacts have been identified and the impact	cleared areas, to minimise disturbance
	assessed. However, the full mitigation hierarchy has not been	required. Additional text has been added to
	adequately applied in the draft validation notice (p. 33) and a more	Section 2.1 to this effect.
	detailed discussion to demonstrate that the loss of Northern Quoll
	habitat has been minimised through avoidance and mitigation measures
	is required.
4.3.6.3	Given the stated duration of this activity, including operation and	There are no permanent water treatment pools
	closure, of 46 years - discuss how future changes in risk of cane toad	included in the scope of the Activity. A
	incursion will be monitored and managed. What preventative measures	permanent pool known as Innawally Pool is
	will BHP adopt to reduce this risk? We note that naturally occurring	present at Jimblebar. This pool varies in size
	water features may be ephemeral or semi-permanent, however mine	and depth in response to rainfall events. The
	sites often have permanent artificial water features such as water	Activity will not alter the surface water flow to
	treatment pools and cane toads can 'hitchhike'.	this pool and is not expected to increase the
		risk of Cane Toad incursion into the Activity
		Area.
		In the event that Cane Toad is observed within
		the Activity Area, BHP will report the
		observation to the relevant state and federal
		regulators and implement mitigation measures,
		if required, in consultation with regulators.

4.3.7		The consideration of the significance of residual impacts (p. 33) is not in	Comment noted. BHP has amended wording to
		accordance with the Assurance Plan and Offsets Plan Revision 2.3 as	refer to residual impacts.
		no significance test is to be applied to consideration of residual impact
		under the Assurance Plan and Offsets Plan Revision 2.3 and therefore
		no judgement of significance is required during validation processes.
		The department has provided BHP this same advice on numerous
		occasions over the last 12 months.
	4.3.9	4.3.9 We do not agree that no monitoring is required (p. 33). A	Additional text regarding hydrological changes
		commitment to monitor the quantity of Northern Quoll supporting habitat	is included in Section 5.2.5
		directly and indirectly impacted/cleared is required to ensure it does not	BHP commits to clearing no more than
		exceed the 1206.5 ha limit committed to in this draft validation notice.
		2,067 ha including no more than 7.6 ha of
		This is of particular importance given the limited analysis of potential
		Gorge/Bully and 2.5 ha of Breakaway/Cliff. This
		impact to supporting habitat from hydrological changes.
		is more clearly identified in Table 4-3. Note the
			addition of a new Section 5.1 providing
			overview of fauna habitats in the Activity Area
			and Indicative Footprint.
			BHP does not consider that monitoring of
			Northern Quoll is required given that a single
			scat was previously recorded in 2021, with no
			other direct or indirect evidence of presence of
			the species, either as transient individuals, or
			as a population, despite targeted survey effort.
			BHP commits to monitoring clearing to ensure
			that clearing remains within the approved limits.
4.4.3.1		Under Local Habitat (p. 36), the draft validation notice states that critical	Text amended.
		and supporting habitat are present in the Activity Area. We suggest this
		sentence be amended to state that critical and supporting habitat are
		present in the Activity Area or within 500 m of the Activity Area
		boundary, to align with the Notifiable Action triggers in Table 5.14 of the
		Assurance Plan and Offsets Plan Revision 2.3.
4.4.3.2		There is no map/figure showing cave locations, cave identifiers (ID) and	Noted. This is a repeat of a previous comment.
		cave categories/features of all recorded Ghost Bat roosts within the	Figures amended to include cave location and
		Activity Area and surrounding the Activity Area as well as the habitat	identifier.
		types (as per Figure 4.7 in the published Jimblebar Optimisation Project