Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka ......Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited:...

Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015

P a g e | 1

S i n o st ee l M i d w est C o rp o ra t i o n L i mi t ed : K o o l a n o o k a Veg et a t i o n

Mo n i t o r i n g P ro g ra m, Sp r i n g 2 0 1 5

17 December 2015

Version 1

maia.net.au


m a i a P a g e | i

This document presents the results of the spring 2015 assessment of sites in a vegetation monitoring program

being carried out in the vegetation of the threatened ecological community (TEC) around Sinosteel Midwest

Corporation Limited’s (SMC) mine at Koolanooka. Sixteen monitoring sites were established during 2010 and 2011

and have been assessed each spring (September) since establishment.

Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd

ABN 25 141 503 184

PO Box 1213

Subiaco WA 6904

© 2015 Maia Environmental Consultancy

Document Prepared By: Rochelle Haycock and Christina Cox

Document Reviewed By: Christina Cox

Document Revision Number: Version 1

Project Number: 1513V1

Date: 17 December, 2015

This document has been prepared for SMC by Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia). Copyright and any

intellectual property associated with the document belong to SMC and Maia. The document may not be

reproduced or distributed to any third party by any physical or electronic means without the express permission of

SMC.


m a i a P a g e | i i

Table of Contents

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK 1 1.2 MINING ACTIVITIES AT KOOLANOOKA 1 1.3 MONITORING PROGRAM AND SITES ESTABLISHED 1 1.4 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AROUND THE MINE AT KOOLANOOKA 2

2 METHODS 5

2.1 MONITORING SITES, SURVEYS AND TIMING 5 2.2 SITE SET-UP AND MEASUREMENTS 5 2.3 VEGETATION CONDITION ASSESSMENTS 6 2.4 MONITORING DATA ANALYSES 7 2.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 7 2.6 PROJECT TEAM 7

3 RESULTS – SITES, FLORA, VEGETATION CONDITION, INTRODUCED FAUNA AND FIRE 9

3.1 SITE INFORMATION 9 3.2 FLORA 9

3.2.1 Conservation Significant Flora 9 3.2.2 Environmental Weeds 10

3.3 VEGETATION CONDITION 13 3.4 INTRODUCED FAUNA 13 3.5 FIRE 14

4 RESULTS - MONITORING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS 15

4.1 DUST COVER RATINGS, DUST MONITORING AND RAINFALL 15 4.2 PLANT NUMBERS 17 4.3 HEALTH (HR) 20 4.4 PROPORTIONAL CANOPY VOLUME (PCV) 25 4.5 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH) 28 4.6 DUST AND PLANT HEALTH RATINGS 30 4.7 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES RESULTS 31

5 CONCLUSIONS, OVERALL COMMENTS AND FUTURE WORK 33

5.1 CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANT SPECIES, WEEDS AND VEGETATION CONDITION 33 5.2 FIRE AND FERAL ANIMALS 33 5.3 DUST 34 5.4 PLANT NUMBERS 34 5.5 HEALTH (HR) 34 5.6 PROPORTIONAL CANOPY VOLUME (PCV) 35 5.7 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH) 35 5.8 OVERALL COMMENT 35 5.9 FUTURE WORK 35

6 REFERENCES 37

7 MAPS 39

APPENDIX 1: MONITORING SITE COORDINATES 49

APPENDIX 2: SITE SHEETS 51


m a i a P a g e | i i i

APPENDIX 3: STATISTICAL ANALYSES – HR, PCV AND DBH 69

Tables

TABLE 1.1: DPAW VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPES 2 TABLE 1.2: VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS AND MONITORING SITES 3 TABLE 2.1: SITE ESTABLISHMENT AND ASSESSMENTS 5 TABLE 2.2: SUMMARY OF THE VEGETATION CONDITION SCALE (GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, 2000) 6 TABLE 2.3: PROJECT TEAM 8 TABLE 3.1: WEED SPECIES RECORDED 2014 AND 2015 11 TABLE 3.2: WEED SPECIES RANKINGS 12 TABLE 3.3: NUMBER OF WEED SPECIES RECORDED AT EACH SITE, BASELINE TO 2015 12 TABLE 3.4: BASELINE VEGETATION CONDITION RATING AT EACH MONITORING SITE 13 TABLE 4.1: OVERALL SITE DUST COVER RATINGS 15 TABLE 4.2: RAINFALL RECORDS KOOLANOOKA MINE (SMC 2010-2013) AND MORAWA AIRPORT (BOM, 2015) 16 TABLE 4.3: CHANGE (BASELINE TO 2015) IN LIVE PLANT NUMBERS (≥ 1M AND <1 M) AND TURNOVER OF DEAD PLANTS AND RECRUITS 18 TABLE 4.4: DEATHS OF PLANTS ≥ 1 M TALL, BASELINE (FIRST) TO 2015 (LAST) AND 2014 TO 2015 19 TABLE 4.5: CHANGE IN HEALTH BY SITE, BASELINE TO 2015 20 TABLE 4.6: CHANGE IN HEALTH BY SITE, 2014 - 2015 21 TABLE 4.7: OVERALL CHANGE IN HEALTH BY TREATMENT GROUP, BASELINE TO 2015 AND 2014 TO 2015 22 TABLE 4.8: OVERALL MEAN HR, BASELINE AND 2015 22 TABLE 4.9: CHANGE IN HR BY SITE AND TREATMENT GROUP, BASELINE TO 2015 23 TABLE 4.10: CHANGE IN PCV, BASELINE TO 2015 25 TABLE 4.11: CHANGE IN DBH, BASELINE TO 2015 28 TABLE 4.12: STATISTICAL ANALYSES SUMMARY TABLE - CHANGE IN HR, PCV AND DBH SINCE BASELINE 31

Figures

FIGURE 4.1: MEAN CHANGE IN HR (+/- SE) BASELINE TO 2015 - BY SITE (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN BARS = IMPACT SITES)

23 FIGURE 4.2: MEAN CHANGE IN HR (+/- SE) BASELINE TO 2015 – BY TREATMENT GROUP (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN BARS

= IMPACT TREATMENTS) 24 FIGURE 4.3: MEAN CHANGE IN PCV (M

3 +/- SE) BASELINE TO 2015 – BY MONITORING SITE (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN

BARS = IMPACT SITES) 26 FIGURE 4.4: MEAN CHANGE IN PCV (M

3 +/- SE) BASELINE TO 2015 - BY TREATMENT GROUP (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN

BARS = IMPACT TREATMENTS) 26 FIGURE 4.5: MEAN CHANGE IN DBH, BASELINE TO 2015 (MM +/- SE) – BY SITE (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN BARS =

IMPACT SITES) 29 FIGURE 4.6: MEAN CHANGE IN DBH, BASELINE TO 2015 (MM +/- SE) – BY TREATMENT GROUP (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK

GREEN BARS = IMPACT TREATMENTS) 29

Maps

MAP 7.1: GENERAL LOCATION 41 MAP 7.2: MONITORING SITES 43 MAP 7.3: PRIORITY FLORA LOCATIONS 45 MAP 7.4: WEED LOCATIONS 47


m a i a P a g e | i v

Summary

Background

Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Pty Ltd (SMC) was granted approval to mine iron ore at Koolanooka and

Blue Hills (EPA, 2009). To comply with conditions in Ministerial Statement (MS) 811 SMC engaged Maia

Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia) to establish a vegetation monitoring program within its mining

tenements and the boundaries of the threatened ecological community (TEC) at Koolanooka.

This report presents the results to date of the monitoring program established at Koolanooka.

Monitoring Sites

Sixteen 20 m x 20 m monitoring sites were established around the mine at Koolanooka, some within the

50 m wide dust buffer zone around the pit and others at different locations up to 1,500 m away from the

pit.

The monitoring sites were also established in three different floristic community types (FCT) surrounding

the mine at Koolanooka. The FCTs were defined by the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) after

carrying out a survey of the flora and vegetation of the Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills.

Eight sites were established in FCT 3 (three impact sites within the dust buffer around the pit, two control

sites 1,500 m from the pit and three control sites approximately 150 m from the pit). Four were

established in FCT 4 (two as impact sites outside the dust buffer but close to the waste dumps and two as

control sites for this FCT) and four in FCT 5 (two as impact sites outside the dust buffer but close to the

waste dumps and two as control sites for this FCT).

Monitoring Methods

The monitoring sites are assessed in spring (September) each year.

All plants 1 m or more in height are measured in a 20 m x 5 m sub-plot within each 20 m x 20 m

monitoring plot. The measurements taken include: diameter at breast height, height from ground to

base of foliage, height from ground to top of foliage, north-south canopy width and east-west canopy

width. The crown density for each plant measured is estimated and the health of each plant ranked.

Dust levels are estimated at each monitoring site and the numbers of plants ≥ 1 m in height and plants

< 1 m in height in each 20 m x 5 m sub-plot are counted.

At least one photograph of each measuring plot is taken. Overall Conclusions

Priority Flora and Weed Species

Natural year to year fluctuations are apparent in the populations of the annual conservation significant

species located in the monitoring plots (Millotia dimorpha, Priority (P) 1) while the number of perennial

conservation significant species (Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336), P1) has hardly

changed since baseline assessments, increasing by one plant. Mining activities have not affected the

conservation significant flora in the vegetation monitoring plots surrounding the mine.

Eleven weed species have been located in the monitoring plots since 2010 and the same number of weed

species (nine) have been recorded each year since all 16 monitoring sites were first assessed in 2011 up

to 2014; in 2015 seven weed species were located. As the mine is no longer operational and the

monitoring sites are not close to used tracks, the year to year fluctuations in weed numbers will be a

result of a combination of factors e.g. spreading by vectors such as goats, native animals, wind and water,

differing seasonal conditions (e.g. temperature and rainfall in the weeks before the survey) and variability

in the number of weeds estimated by the botanists.


m a i a P a g e | v

Feral Animals and Fire

Fewer feral goats were observed around the mine in September 2015 than in 2013 and no foxes were

sighted.

Fire hasn’t affected the vegetation around the mine for at least 13 years.

Dust

Ambient dust levels are probably lower now that mining activities have decreased around the mine and

this is being reflected in the site dust ratings as, overall, there was decreases in two of the three impact

treatment groups and three of the four control treatment groups between 2014 and 2015. Dust levels at

one impact and one control treatment group did not change between 2014 and 2015.

Plant Numbers

The turnover of plants in the impact treatment sites does not appear to have been affected by the mining

activities at Koolanooka. When the overall change in the impact and control groups is compared there is

only a 3.6% difference - the overall increase in plants was 3.6% higher in the control group than the

impact group. When total deaths and total recruits that have occurred between baseline and 2015 are

compared in impact and control groups there have been fewer deaths and recruits in the impact group

than in the control group.

Health Rating (HR)

The mining at Koolanooka affected the health of the plants within the dust buffer more than at sites

outside the dust buffer. A 50 m wide dust buffer was therefore appropriate in this area.

Proportional Canopy Volume (PCV)

PCV has increased since baseline data collection but there is no difference between impact and control

groups, between FCT groups or between treatment groups. Therefore PCV has not been affected by the

mining activities at Koolanooka.

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

DBH increased between baseline and 2015 assessments but there was no difference in DBH between

impact and control groups. There was a significant difference between DBH of plants in FCT 3 and FCT 4

and also between some of the treatment groups - the change in DBH of plants in treatment group 1 (FCT

3 sites within the dust buffer zone) between baseline and 2015 is less than that in treatment group 4 (FCT

4 control sites). Therefore the DBH of the dust buffer impact site plants appears to have been affected by

the mining activities and not that of plants outside the dust buffer.

Future Work

The 2015 data and analyses indicate that dust levels are generally decreasing around the mine and that

the health of plants outside the dust buffer appears generally not to have been affected by the mining

activities.

SMC’s mine at Koolanooka has been under care and maintenance since July 2013. Currently only

rehabilitation works and research are being carried out on the mining tenements.

SMC could discuss this monitoring program with DPaW / OEPA and gain permission from the CEO of the

OEPA to amend the current annual monitoring program. The time between monitoring events could be

extended or monitoring could cease once all of the rehabilitation works have been completed in areas

that could potentially affect the health of the vegetation through high dust levels.


m a i a P a g e | v i

Acronyms

ANOVA Analysis of variance

ATA Alan Tingay and Associates

K01-K16 Koolanooka vegetation monitoring sites

BAM Act Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007

BIF Banded ironstone formation

BoM Bureau of Meteorology

CEO Chief Executive Officer

Cl Confidence interval

DAFWA Department of Agriculture and Food, WA

DBH Diameter at breast height

DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (now DPaW)

DF Degrees of freedom

DPaW Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia

EPA Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia

ESCAVI Executive Steering Committee for Australian Vegetation Information

FCT Floristic community type

GDA94 Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994

GoWA Government of Western Australia

HR Health rating

HRT1 to HRT7 Health rating treatment groups 1 to 7

KOOL Koolanooka Hills – DPaW quadrat label

km Kilometre

MGA Map grid of Australia

m Metre

mE Metres east (easting)

mm Millimetre

mN Metres north (northing)

Maia Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd

MGA50 Map Grid of Australia, zone 50

MS Ministerial Statement

n Number of samples in a treatment group

N Total number of samples used in analysis

NVIS National Vegetation Inventory System

OEPA Office of Environmental Protection Authority

p Probability value

P Priority

P1 Priority 1 species

PCV Proportional canopy volume

RE Range extension

SD Standard deviation

SE Standard error

SMC Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited

sp. Species

subsp. Subspecies

TEC Threatened Ecological Community

USDA United States Department of Agriculture


m a i a P a g e | v i i

var. Variety

WA Western Australia

WAH Western Australian Herbarium

WAOL Western Australian Organism List

X2 Chi squared

≥ Greater than or equal to

< Less than


m a i a P a g e | 1

SMC: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program S P R I N G , 2 0 1 5

1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK

Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited (SMC) has been granted approval to mine iron ore at Koolanooka and Blue

Hills (Environmental Protection Authority, EPA, 2009). To comply with Conditions 6-4 and 6-5 in Ministerial

Statement (MS) 811 SMC is required to monitor impacts from activities undertaken in implementing the proposal

including (1) dust; (2) saline water application for dust control; (3) fire; and, (4) the attraction of and increase in

introduced fauna, on the health and condition of the threatened ecological community “Plant assemblages of the

Koolanooka System” and the Blue Hills vegetation complex Priority Ecological Community shown in Figures 4 and 5

of MS 811. This monitoring is to be carried out to the requirements of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

As saline water was not applied to any of the tracks running through or close to the threatened ecological

community (TEC) the monitoring program was not designed to look at the effects of saline water on the

vegetation of the TEC.

This report describes the current year’s results of the vegetation monitoring program being carried out at 16

monitoring sites established around SMC’s mine at Koolanooka, which is located approximately 18 kilometres (km)

east of Morawa (Map 7.1, Section 7) in the Avon Wheatbelt 1 subregion of the Avon-Wheatbelt bioregion in

Western Australia (WA).

1.2 MINING ACTIVITIES AT KOOLANOOKA

Mining ceased at Koolanooka in 2013 and the mine site continued on care and maintenance during 2015.

Rehabilitation works and restoration research were carried out during the year.

1.3 MONITORING PROGRAM AND SITES ESTABLISHED

A monitoring program was developed for Koolanooka (Maia, 2010a) and vegetation in the area approved for the

pit extension at Koolanooka was cleared in early April 2010. In late March 2010, before any clearing took place,

eight monitoring sites were established around the pit. Existing vegetation mapping (ATA, 2004) was used to

determine where the monitoring sites should be located in relation to the vegetation units of the TEC. Sites were

established in three of ATA’s mapped vegetation units (6, 3 and 1) surrounding the pit.

In September (spring) 2010 two additional sites were established. These sites were placed in an area mapped as

vegetation unit 1 but where the vegetation was not the same as that described for vegetation unit 1 (ATA, 2004).

In March 2011 two more sites were established in a vegetation unit on the flats at the base of the hill and in an

area where the TEC wraps around an area proposed to be disturbed by the mining activities.

In September 2011 Maia established four additional sites to increase replication in two of the vegetation units. In

total, 16 sites are being monitored within the vegetation of the TEC around the mine at Koolanooka and they are a

mixture of impact and control sites (Map 7.2, Section 7).


m a i a P a g e | 2

1.4 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AROUND THE M INE AT KOOLANOOKA

Maia initially used the ATA (2004) vegetation mapping to determine which vegetation communities surrounded

the mine at Koolanooka. However, the mapping did not accurately represent the actual distribution of the

vegetation communities on the ground and, while selecting monitoring site locations, Maia had to visually

compare the vegetation units to attempt to locate the monitoring plots in the same units.

To determine the vegetation community types to which the monitoring sites belong pattern analysis was carried

out to compare the vegetation at the monitoring sites with the vegetation recorded by the Department of Parks

and Wildlife (DPaW) on the Koolanooka Hills (Maia, 2011).

DPaW surveyed the flora and vegetation of the Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills and established 50 permanent sites

across the area (Meissner & Caruso, 2008) and five floristic community types (FCTs), with two sub-communities in

one of the communities, were defined. Four of these sites (Koolanooka (KOOL) 32, 33, 34 and 35) are within

approximately 600 metres (m) of a 50 m wide dust buffer zone in place around the pit at Koolanooka (Map 7.2,

Section 7).

The 16 monitoring sites grouped with the DPaW’s vegetation community types 3, 4 and 5 (Table 1.1). The three

vegetation associations (=communities) in which the 16 monitoring plots occur are described and shown in

Table 1.2.

Table 1.1: DPaW vegetation community types

DPaW Community Type

Vegetation Description Typical Habitat

DPaW Floristic Sites

3 Open woodlands, shrublands and open shrublands of Allocasuarina spp., Melaleuca nematophylla, and Calycopeplus paucifolius over a mixed shrubland of Dodonaea inaequifolia and Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei.

Indicator species for this community are: Acacia exocarpoides, C. paucifolius, D. inaequifolia and P. brucei subsp. brucei.

Midslopes and crests of Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills

KOOL16, 31, 32, 34, 40, 41.

4 Shrublands and open shrublands of Allocasuarina spp., M. cordata,

Hemigenia sp. Paynes Find (A.C. Beauglehole 49138) and Mirbelia

microphylla.

Indicator species for this community are: Acacia stereophylla var.

stereophylla, A. campestris, Drosera macrantha subsp. macrantha,

Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma, H. sp. Paynes Find

(A.C. Beauglehole 39138), Hibbertia arcuata, M. cordata, M.

microphylla, Monachather paradoxus and Stypandra glauca.

Mainly on low

fertility lower

slopes of

Koolanooka

Hills

KOOL33, 35,

38, 39.

5 Woodlands and Mallee Woodlands of Eucalyptus species (E.

loxophleba, E. ebbanoensis or E. salmonophloia) over Acacia spp.

and chenopods.

Indicator species for this community are: Acacia andrewsii, Acacia

erinacea, Austrodanthonia caespitosa, Austrostipa elegantissima,

Enchylaena lanata, Maireana carnosa, Maireana georgei, Rhagodia

drummondii, Scaevola spinescens, Sclerolaena diacantha, Senna

charlesiana.

Colluvial

outwash soils

and pockets of

fertile soil

from the

ranges

KOOL08, 10,

17, 21, 27,

37.


m a i a P a g e | 3

Table 1.2: Vegetation associations and monitoring sites

Broad Floristic Formation: Allocasuarina Low Open Woodland

This vegetation association occurs on the upper slopes (left photograph) and a minor gully (right photograph) on banded and non-banded ironstone. Sites K01,

K03, K04, K05, K06, K07 and K08 are located within this association. Based on the results of pattern analysis, this association is equivalent to DPaW Community

Type 3.

Vegetation Association

Description

Low Open Woodland and High

Open Shrubland of Allocasuarina

acutivalvis with a mixed

Shrubland (Melaleuca

nematophylla, Dodonaea

inaequifolia and mixed Acacia

spp.) and a mixed Low Open

Shrubland (Grevillea paradoxa,

Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei

and+/- Eremophila clarkei).

Associated Species

Acacia acuminata, A.

ramulosa var. ramulosa A.

nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa,

A. exocarpoides, Daviesia

hakeoides subsp. hakeoides,

Calycopeplus paucifolius,

Solanum cleistogamum,

Austrostipa elegantissima

and Sida sp. Dark Green Fruit

(S. van Leeuwen 2260).

Broad Floristic Formation: Acacia High Open Shrubland

This vegetation association occurs on west facing moderate slopes and at the base of a gully with a surface layer of laterised banded ironstone rocks on the

southern side of the range. Sites K02, K09, K10, K14 and K16 were located within this association and they belong in DPaW Community Type 4. Although K02

(gully) groups with this association, it was an outlier and should be grouped with DPaW Community Type 3.


Description

Open Tall Shrubland of Acacia

stereophylla var. stereophylla

with an Open Mid Shrubland of

Daviesia hakeoides subsp.

hakeoides and a Open Low

Shrubland of Xanthosia bungei.

Associated Species

Allocasuarina acutivalvis

subsp. Prinsepiana,

Allocasuarina campestris,

Monachather paradoxus,

Austrostipa elegantissima,

Acacia assimilis subsp.

assimilis, Hibbertia arcuata

and Cheilanthes sieberi subsp.

sieberi.


m a i a P a g e | 4

Broad Floristic Formation: Eucalyptus Low Open Woodland

This vegetation association occurred on the previously disturbed footslopes and gravelly flats to the south-west of the range. Sites K11, K12, K13 and K15 are

located within this association and they belong in DPaW Community Type 5.


Description

Low Open Woodland of

Eucalyptus horistes with a

mixed Sparse Tall to Mid

Shrubland of Acacia acuminata,

Hakea recurva subsp. recurva

and Eremophila clarkei with a

Low Open Mallee Woodland of

Eucalyptus oldfieldii and a Low

Sparse Shrubland of Mirbelia

microphylla and Ptilotus

obovatus.

Associated Species

Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp.

supralaevis, Acacia andrewsii,

Acacia anthochaera,

Austrostipa elegantissima,

Dianella revoluta var.

divaricata, Maireana carnosa,

Rhagodia drummondii.

Eight of the 16 monitoring plots group within DPaW’s vegetation community type 3, four in DPaW’s community type 4 and four in the DPaW’s community type 5.

(Although K02 (gully site) falls within DPaW Community Type 4, it was an outlier and has been included with DPaW Community Type 3.)

The growth form, height classes and cover characteristics of vegetation in the quadrats are described using the current NVIS methodology at the association

level. At this level up to three strata and a maximum of three taxa per stratum are used to describe the association (ESCAVI, 2003).


m a i a P a g e | 5

2 METHODS

2.1 MONITORING SITES , SURVEYS AND TIMING

The dates sites were established and dates monitoring has been carried out at Koolanooka are listed in Table 2.1.

The locations of the 16 monitoring sites at Koolanooka are shown on Map 7.2 (Section 7).

Table 2.1: Site establishment and assessments

Sites established Assessment carried out Date of assessment

K01, K02, K03, K04, K05, K06, K07 & K08

Baseline measurements March 27 – 30, 2010

K09 & K10 Baseline measurements and sites assessed

September 29 – October 2, 2010

K11 & K12 Baseline measurements March 16 – 18, 2011

K13, K14, K15 & K16 Baseline measurements and sites assessed

September 21 – 25, 2011

None All 16 sites assessed September 18 – 19, 2012

None All 16 sites assessed September 20-22, 2013



2.2 SITE SET-UP AND MEASUREMENTS

A 20 m by 20 m quadrat was set up at each site. Four star pickets were used to mark the corners of the quadrat

and two fence droppers were used to mark the 5 m point within the 20 m by 20 m quadrat. One of the four

corner posts was marked with a numbered metal tag to indicate the site number.

The following information was recorded at each monitoring site:

A species list was generated for the 20 m by 20 m quadrat;

The general condition of the vegetation in the 20 m by 20 m quadrat was ranked between 1 and 6 (where

1 indicates pristine vegetation and 6 indicates completely degraded vegetation) based on Keighery’s

vegetation condition scale (Government of Western Australia, 2000) as described in Table 2.2;

One photograph (at least) was taken of the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot (and its direction recorded);

An overall rating for dust cover in the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot was ranked from 0 (no dust) to 5 (thick dust

cover);

The number of live plants of each shrub/tree species occurring within the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot including

the following:

• The number of live plants of each species greater than or equal to (≥) 1 m in height; and

• The number of live plants less than (<) 1 m in height.

The number of dead plants of each shrub/tree species still standing within the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot;

The health of each plant ≥ 1 m in height in the sub-plot was ranked from 0 (totally healthy) to 5 (dead);

The height of each plant ≥ 1 m in height in the sub-plot was measured;

The height to the lowest live leaves at the base of the canopy was measured on each plant ≥ 1 m in height

in the sub-plot;

The dimensions of the canopy of each plant ≥ 1 m in height in the sub-plot were measured in two

directions – north-south and east-west;


m a i a P a g e | 6

The diameter at breast height (DBH) of the largest branch of each plant ≥ 1 m in height within the sub-

plot was measured and the measured branch was tagged and numbered;

The crown density (in 5% intervals) of each measured plant in each 20 m by 5 m sub-plot was estimated.

Crown density estimates were made using the density diagram included in the United States Department

of Agriculture (USDA), Forest inventory and Analysis Program field instructions (USDA, 2005).

A mud map was drawn of the trees and shrubs occurring in each 20 m by 5 m sub-plot to help to locate

the measured plants during future assessments.

Each of the shrubs and trees measured in the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot was tagged and numbered for future

reference. Missing or damaged tags were replaced as needed.

When conservation significant flora and weeds occurred in a quadrat their numbers were recorded, or estimated

if a species was present in large numbers (e.g. species in the Asteraceae family).

2.3 VEGETATION CONDITION ASSESSMENTS

Vegetation condition noted for each monitoring site is based on the scale outlined in the Government of Western

Australia (2000) Bush Forever documentation. A summary of the scale is outlined in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Summary of the vegetation condition scale (Government of Western Australia, 2000)

Condition scale Description

Pristine (1) Pristine or nearly so, no obvious signs of disturbance.

Excellent (2) Vegetation structure intact, disturbance affecting individual species and weeds are non-aggressive species.

Very Good (3) Vegetation structure altered, obvious signs of disturbance. For example, disturbance to vegetation structure caused by repeated fires, the presence of some more aggressive weeds, dieback, logging and grazing.

Good (4) Vegetation structure significantly altered by very obvious signs of multiple disturbances. Retains basic vegetation structure or ability to regenerate it. For example, disturbance to vegetation structure caused by very frequent fires, the presence of some very aggressive weeds at high density, partial clearing, dieback and grazing.

Degraded (5) Basic vegetation structure severely impacted by disturbance. Scope for regeneration but not to a state approaching good condition without intensive management. For example, disturbance to vegetation structure caused by frequent fires, the presence of very aggressive weeds, partial clearing, dieback and grazing.

Completely Degraded (6)

The structure of the vegetation is no longer intact and the area is completely or almost completely without native species. These areas are often described as “parkland cleared’ with the flora comprising weed or crop species with isolated native trees or shrubs.


m a i a P a g e | 7

2.4 MONITORING DATA ANALYSES

Analyse-it software (Analyse-it Software, 2015) was used to carry out the analyses presented in the following

sections. Basic descriptive statistics were carried out on each data set analysed. The calculations and statistics

were performed on data collected for each factor using consecutively measured plants. The following texts were

referenced to determine which tests were appropriate with the data collected: Zar (1984); Townend (2002);

Coakes and Steed (2001); and, Mead, Curnow and Hasted (2000). In addition information on the University of

California Los Angelas Institute for Digital Research and Education webpage was refered to (UCLA, 2015).

Baseline (first) and 2015 (last) comparisons were carried out on the monitoring data recorded to date (e.g. the

number of plants ≥ 1 m in height, health ranks (HR), canopy volume and (DBH).

A t-test is appropriate for comparisons between two independent variables e.g. a comparison of the difference in

canopy volume at control and impact sites will determine whether there is statistical difference between the two

sample groups. A number of assumptions must be met to apply a t-test to data. These assumptions include that

the data must be normal, the data continuous rather than discrete, the subjects independent and the variances

equal. The data to be used in t-tests were checked against these assumptions. When data were not normal (and

the variances not equal) the non-parametric t-test equivalent, the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used.

If differences in the response of a particular variable (e.g. health) to a treatment (e.g. FCT or treatment group) are

to be tested a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is appropriate for comparisons between the means of two or

more populations e.g. a comparison of change in plant health at the sites in different FCTs or treatment groups.

However, a number of assumptions must be met to carry out an ANOVA on data. These assumptions include that

the data must be normal and the variances and sample sizes equal. The data to be tested was checked against

these assumptions and when the assumptions were not met a non-parametric ANOVA equivalent, the Kruskal-

Wallis test, was performed on the data.

When the Kruskal-Wallis test resulted in a significant probability (p) value multiple contrasts were carried out

when three or more groups were compared (using the Bonferroni correction) to determine which treatments

differed.

2.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

While the mine was in operation additional information on dust levels recorded at dust monitoring sites around

the mine, on any feral animal sightings, on rainfall at Koolanooka and also on any fires in the vegetation around

the mine was recorded by SMC. However, since the mine has entered a care and maintenance phase this

information is no longer being collected.

2.6 PROJECT TEAM

This monitoring project was carried out by the botanists listed in Table 2.3.


m a i a P a g e | 8

Table 2.3: Project team

Project team

Name Qualification Project role DPaW flora license number

(and expiry date)

Christina Cox PhD Report Not applicable

Scott Hitchcock BSc Survey SL011397 (exp. Apr 2016)

Rochelle Haycock BSc Survey and report SL011398 (exp. Apr 2016)

Casey Causley BSc Survey SL011401 (exp. Apr 2016)

Emily Ager BSc Survey SL011411 (exp. Apr 2016)

Cate Tauss BSc Plant identifications Not applicable


m a i a P a g e | 9

3 RESULTS – SITES, FLORA, VEGETATION CONDITION, INTRODUCED FAUNA AND

FIRE

3.1 SITE INFORMATION

Coordinates for each site are provided in Appendix 1 and the site sheets listing the general site and floristic

information initially collected at each monitoring site are included in Appendix 2. These sheets are added to as

additional species are located at a site.

3.2 FLORA

3.2.1 CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANT FLORA

Two conservation significant flora species have been located at the monitoring sites: Lepidosperma sp.

Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (Priority 1) at K02 and K10 and Millotia dimorpha P.S. Short (Priority 1) at K02,

K04, K09, K10 and K16.

Descriptions and photographs of these two priority species follow and their 2015 locations are shown on Map 7.3,

Section 7.

Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (Priority 1)

L. sp. Koolanooka is a sedge. It grows to 0.5 m on hill slopes and rocky outcrops of orange-brown soils over

banded ironstone (Plate 3.1). L. sp. Koolanooka produces brown flowers during October (Plate 3.2)

(WAH, 1998-). The plants were flowering in September 2015.

Thirteen plants were located at two sites; 12 plants at K02 and one at K10. The number of plants recorded at K02

increased by one in 2014 and there was no change in 2015. One plant has been located at K10 since baseline

assessment.

Plate 3.1: Growth habit

Plate 3.2: Close-up of flower heads

Millotia dimorpha (Priority 1)

M. dimorpha is a small erect or ascending annual herb (Plate 3.3) growing to 0.11 m high on slopes and outcrops

of lateritised banded ironstone, banded ironstone and dolerite. The species was flowering at the time of the

September 2015 survey (Plate 3.4).

In September 2015 approximately 15 plants were recorded at two sites; 10 plants at K02 (impact site) and 5 plants

at K16 (a control site). M. dimorpha was located at K04 (control site), K09 (impact site) and K10 (control site) in


m a i a P a g e | 1 0

2014, however, it was not located at these sites in 2015. Approximately 350 M. dimorpha were recorded in 2012,

2,500 in 2013 and 1,630 in 2014.

The number of plants varies from year to year at both impact and control sites. As the mine has been under care

and maintenance since 2013 the fluctuations in plant numbers are not a result of mining activities. Fewer annual

plants were seen in the general area in 2015 than since monitoring started in 2010. The fluctuations are most

likely due to year to year differences in rainfall and temperature over winter.

Plate 3.3: Growth habit

Plate 3.4: Close-up of flower

3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL WEEDS

Eleven general environmental weed species have been located at the monitoring sites since assessments began:

Acetosa vesicaria, Arctotheca calendula, Cuscuta planiflora, Ehrharta longiflora, Hordeum leporinum, Hypochaeris

glabra, Lamarckia aurea, Monoculus monstrosus, Pentameris airoides, Sonchus oleraceus and Vulpia muralis and

seven of these were located in 2015 (Table 3.1).

Nine weed species were recorded in 2011 (when all 16 sites were assessed for the first time), 2012, 2013 and

2014. In 2015 seven species were recorded and four were not (Arctotheca calendula, Acetosa vesicaria, Hordeum

leporinum and Monoculus monstrosus) (Table 3.1). The monitoring sites where weeds were located in 2015 are

shown on Map 7.4, Section 7.

The sites at which weed species were located in 2014 and 2015 are listed in Table 3.1 along with the number of

plants recorded. The total number of weeds recorded decreased by 5,238 plants between 2014 and 2015. The

number of two species increased between 2014 and 2015 – Hypochaeris glabra by nine plants and Sonchus

oleraceus by 2 plants – while the number of seven species decreased.

The total number of weeds recorded each September since 2012 has varied from a low of 270 in 2015 to a high of

5,705 in 2014. At impact sites the number varied from 169 in 2015 to 3,260 in 2013 and at control sites from 101

in 2015 to 3,289 in 2014 (Table 3.3).

As the monitoring sites are not close to used tracks, the change in weed numbers will be a result of a combination

of factors i.e. baseline weed numbers in the general area, spreading by goats, other animals, wind and water,

differing seasonal conditions (e.g. temperature and rainfall in the weeks before the survey), general population

dynamics and variability in the number of weeds estimated by the botanists.


m a i a P a g e | 1 1

Table 3.1: Weed species recorded 2014 and 2015

Weeds recorded September 2014 and 2015 Total 2015

Total 2014

Change 2014 to 2015 Species Site (number of plants 2015; 2014)

Acetosa vesicaria K03 (0; 0), K06 (0; 4), K08 (0, 0) 0 4 Decrease

Arctotheca calendula K02 (0; 1), K04 (0; 0), K08 (0; 0), K12 (0; 0) 0 1 Decrease

Cuscuta planiflora K01 (10; 50), K02 (20; 20), K03 (20; 300), K06 (10; 1,000), K07 (1; 100), K08 (1; 500), K09 (0; 100), K11 (0; 10), K14 (0; 150), K16 (5; 10)

67 2,240 Decrease

Ehrharta longiflora K02 (20; 50), K07 (1; 0) 21 50 Decrease

Hypochaeris glabra K02 (30; 20), K05 (0;0), K08 (0; 0) 30 20 Increase

Lamarckia aurea K06 (5; 13), K08 (1; 10) 6 23 Decrease

Pentameris airoides K02 (50; 1,000), K04 (2; 100), K05 (40; 20), K06 (30; 500), K07 (4; 5), K08 (4; 1,000), K09 (2; 20)

132 2,645 Decrease

Sonchus oleraceus K02 (5; 5), K09 (2; 0) 7 5 Increase

Vulpia muralis K02 (5; 500), K05 (2; 20) 7 520 Decrease

Total 270 5,508 Decrease

To protect WA agriculture the Department of Agriculture and Food, WA (DAFWA) regulates harmful plants under

the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 (BAM Act; GoWA, 2014). Plants that are prevented entry

into WA or have control or keeping requirements within WA are listed on the Western Australian Organism List

(WAOL), which has been created to easily find out the status of organisms that have been classified as part of the

enactment of the BAM Act (DAFWA, 2015).

Organisms are grouped into four main classifications: Declared pests; Permitted; Prohibited; and, Permitted

requiring a permit (DAFWA, 2015). Under the BAM Act, all declared pests are placed in one of three categories,

namely, C1 (exclusion), C2 (eradication) or C3 (management) (DAFWA, 2015b).

The WAOL list was downloaded (DAFWA, 2015) and the weed species located at the monitoring sites were

checked against the list. None of the weed species located at the monitoring sites is listed as Declared Pests in

WA.

Environmental weeds have been ranked by DPaW based on their consequence, risk and management ability.

Current regional rankings summary spreadsheets are not available as they are being revised (DPaW, 2015);

however, the previous Midwest DPaW region rankings summary spread-sheet (DPaW, 2013) is used to provide an

indication of the prioritisation of the weed species located at the assessment sites.

DPaW’s ranking process results in some weed species achieving a very high rank and DPaW’s objective for those

species is eradication. The objective for lower ranks (high, medium and low) can be eradication, control or

containment, while the lowest rank (negligible) requires no action to be taken but the status of the weed to be

monitored. Other species have been listed as requiring further assessment before they can be ranked (DPaW,

2013).

Monoculus monstrosus has the highest rank (medium) of the 11 species that have been recorded at the

monitoring sites (Table 3.2). However, M. monstrosus was not recorded at the monitoring sites in 2014 or 2015.


m a i a P a g e | 1 2

Table 3.2: Weed species rankings

Species DPaW (2013) rank

Acetosa vesicaria (Ruby Dock) Negligible

Arctotheca calendula (Cape Weed) Low

Cuscuta planiflora (Small-seeded Dodder) Negligible

Ehrharta longiflora (Annual Veldt Grass) Negligible

Hordeum leporinum (Barley Grass) Low

Hypochaeris glabra (Flat Weed) Negligible

Lamarckia aurea (Goldentop) Low

Monoculus monstrosus (Stinking Roger) Medium

Pentameris airoides (False Hairgrass) Low

Sonchus oleraceus (Common Sowthistle) Low

Vulpia muralis (Wall Fescue) Low

The number of weed species recorded at each quadrat from baseline to 2015 is listed in Table 3.3.

The site with most weed species in 2015 was K02 (five). Since baseline assessments the number of weed species

recorded has decreased at three of the 16 sites, has not changed at seven sites and has increased at six sites. Sites

with most weed species are those in the steeper rocky areas favoured by goats (i.e. K02, K06 and K08).

Table 3.3: Number of weed species recorded at each site, baseline to 2015

Site Number of weed species recorded in September each year Change since baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

K01 1 0 0 0 1 1 No change

K02 5 5 5 7 7 5 No change

K03 0 2 2 1 1 1 Increase

K04 0 1 1 1 1 1 Increase

K05 1 1 1 1 3 2 Increase

K06 3 5 5 4 4 3 No change

K07 1 1 2 1 2 3 Increase

K08 2 6 6 2 3 3 Increase

K09 These sites not established in 2010

1 1 0 2 2 Increase

K10 0 0 0 0 0 No change

K11 1 1 0 1 0 Decrease


K13 0 0 0 0 0 No change


K15 0 0 0 0 0 No change

K16 1 1 1 1 1 No change

Number of weed plants recorded each year

Total number of plants 1,846 3,979 5,705 270

Number of plants – impact sites 1,438 3,260 2,416 169

Number of plants – control sites 426 719 3,289 101


m a i a P a g e | 1 3

3.3 VEGETATION CONDITION

Based on the vegetation condition scale outlined in the Bush Forever documents (Government of Western

Australia, 2000) the overall baseline vegetation condition rating recorded for each monitoring site was either Very

Good or Excellent (Table 3.4). The Very Good and Excellent ratings were based on the degree of grazing by goats

and the density, type and number of weeds present at the sites. These condition ratings have not changed since

baseline assessments were carried out.

Old exploration tracks and drill pads are common in many of the areas where sites were established.

Table 3.4: Baseline vegetation condition rating at each monitoring site

Overall baseline vegetation condition rating at each monitoring site established

Site Mar-10 Sep-10 Mar-11 Sep-11 Baseline Condition

K01 3 Very good

K02 3 Very good

K03 3 Very good

K04 3 Very good

K05 3 Very good

K06 3 Very good

K07 3 Very good

K08 3 Very good

K09 3 Very good

K10 3 Very good

K11 3 Very good

K12 3 Very good

K13 2 Excellent

K14 2 Excellent

K15 2 Excellent

K16 2 Excellent

Note: See Table 2.2 for an explanation of each condition rating.

3.4 INTRODUCED FAUNA

SMC has had no permanent presence at the mine at Koolanooka since July 2013 and the feral animal sighting

register has not been maintained since that time. While SMC personnel were at site mobs of 20 to 30 goats were

seen on the flats around the hills at the mine (pers. comm. S. Neill, SMC).

Maia has sighted goats on the north-eastern and south-western sides of the hill close to the mine each time a

vegetation monitoring assessment has been carried out. In September 2015 Maia saw 12 goats (adults and kids)

on most days. They were wandering around the pit, over areas to the north-west of the pit and moving from area

to area during the day.

While a fox has been observed by SMC and Maia in the past (2012 and 2013), no foxes were seen in September

2014 or 2015.


m a i a P a g e | 1 4

3.5 FIRE

No fires have occurred on the hills around the mine since the vegetation was assessed in March 2010. There is no

evidence of recent fire in the vegetation of the TEC surrounding the mine (or further away from the mine on the

same ridge) and the vegetation has not been burnt for a long time – for more than 13 years.


m a i a P a g e | 1 5

4 RESULTS - MONITORING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS The results for each parameter measured or rated are presented by site and also by treatment group in the

following sections. Overall change results have also been totalled by treatment group and these groups are based

on the location of the sites (impact or non-impact and distance from the pit) and the vegetation communities to

which they belong i.e. K01, K02 and K03 are impact sites that were within a 50 m dust buffer, K04 and K05 were

control sites approximately 1,500 m from the pit and K06 - K08 are control sites closer to the pit (approximately

150 m away). Sites K01 – K08 all belong to DPaW’s FCT 3 and sites K09, K10, K14 and K16 belong to FCT 4. Sites

K09 and K14 were outside the buffer that was in place around the pit but close to the waste dump and were

therefore considered to be impact sites, while sites K10 and K16 were further away from the waste dumps and

were considered to be control sites for that community. Sites K11, K12, K13 and K15 belong to FCT 5. Sites K11

and K13 were relatively close to the waste dump and a track and were regarded as impact sites, while K12 and K15

were control sites for FCT 5.

The results of the statistical analyses carried out on health rank (HR), proportional canopy volume (PCV) and

diameter at breast height (DBH) are included in Appendix 3.

4.1 DUST COVER RATINGS , DUST MONITORING AND RAINFALL

The overall dust cover ratings for the vegetation at each monitoring site are presented in Table 4.1. Highest

baseline dust level ratings were recorded at K09, K10 and K14 (a rating of 1). This is probably because these sites

were established after mining works had started compared with sites K01 to K08 which were established before

mining activities began and had a dust rating of 0. The dust rating did not change between baseline and 2015

assessments at six sites - K04, K10, K11, K12, K13 and K14 – three control and three impact sites. The dust rating

increased by one between baseline and 2015 assessments at nine of the monitoring sites - K01, K02, K03, K05,

K06, K07, K08, K09 and K14 (four impact sites and five control sites). The increase in dust rating does not appear

to be correlated with mining activities because it increased at both impact and control sites.

The maximum increase in dust rating between first assessment and September 2015 was 1, either from an initial

dust rating of 0 or of 1 (on a scale of 0 to 5). The highest dust rating recorded between 2010 and 2015 was 3 at

sites K01 and K02 and these sites are within the 50 m wide dust buffer. A rating of 3 was recorded for the first

time in 2011 and the last time in 2013. The dust rating at the dust buffer sites was 1 in 2015. The highest rating

recorded in 2015 was a 2 at impact site K09 and this rating has not changed since March 2011. The rating is

probably high because the site is close to a waste dump which would have been dusty while the mine was

operational and is now dusty because rehabilitation works have been carried out in the area since 2013.

Between 2014 and 2015 dust levels decreased at five sites and there was no change at 11 sites.

Table 4.1: Overall site dust cover ratings

FCT Treatment and overall site dust cover rating (0-5)

Treatment and FCT

Site Mar-10

Sep-10 Mar-11

Sep-11 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Change: baseline to 2015

Change: 2014 to 2015

Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3

K01 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Increase No change


K03 0 3 3 3 3 2 1 Increase Decrease

Mean 0 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.7 1.3 1.0 Increase Decrease

Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3

K04 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 No change Decrease


Mean 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 Increase Decrease


m a i a P a g e | 1 6

FCT Treatment and overall site dust cover rating (0-5)

Treatment and FCT

Site Mar-10

Sep-10 Mar-11

Sep-11 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Change: baseline to 2015

Change: 2014 to 2015

Control 150 m, FCT 3




Mean 0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Increase No change

Impact, outside buffer, FCT 4


K14 1 2 2 2 1 No change Decrease

Mean NC NC 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 No change Decrease

Control, FCT 4

K10 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Decrease Decrease

K16 0 1 1 1 1 Increase No change

Mean NC NC 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 Increase Decrease


K11 0 0 2 0 0 0 No change No change

K13 0 2 0 0 0 No change No change

Mean NC 0 2.0 0 0.0 0 No change No change

Control FCT 5 K12 0 0 0 0 0 0 No change No change

K15 0 1 1 1 0 No change Decrease

Mean NC 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 No change Decrease

Note: 0 = no dust, 5 = vegetation completely and thickly covered with dust, NC = not calculated.

The locations of the six depositional dust gauges that were in place around the mine are shown on Map 7.2,

Section 7. Dust level records were collected at these gauges between 2010 and 2013; however, as the mine is no

longer operational dust levels have not been recorded since July 2013.

Rainfall data recorded at Koolanooka (January 2010 to July 2013) and at Morawa Airport (2013, 2014 and January

to September 2015) are presented in Table 4.2. As rainfall was recorded only up to July in 2013 at the mine, totals

for January to July since 2010 have been included in Table 4.2 to show year to year variability. Morawa Airport

rainfall data for January to September 2013, 2014 and 2015 have been included to provide an indication of the

rains received at Koolanooka in the weeks preceding the monitoring assessments post 2013. Total rainfall

received between January and July and between June and August (winter) has also been calculated for each year

of data in Table 4.2.

Winter rainfall (June to August) was 37.6 mm lower in 2015 than in 2014 and 58.0 mm lower in 2015 than in 2013.

Based on these records the vegetation could be expected to be in poorer condition in 2015 than in September

2013 and September 2014.

Table 4.2: Rainfall records Koolanooka Mine (SMC 2010-2013) and Morawa Airport (BoM, 2015)

Year / Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tot

Koolanooka Mine, SMC records

2010 0 4.1 22.8 4.0 24.5 22.0 31.8 58.8 11.5 0 0 27.2 206.6

January to July 0 4.1 22.8 4.0 24.5 22.0 31.8 109.2

June to August 22.0 31.8 58.8 112.6


m a i a P a g e | 1 7

Year / Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tot

Koolanooka Mine, SMC records

2011 26.0 109.5 44.5 14.6 22.4 36.6 53.9 40.0 25.0 42.6 15.5 20.0 450.6

January to July 26.0 109.5 44.5 14.6 22.4 36.6 53.9 307.5

June to August 36.6 53.9 40.0 130.5

2012 25.3 12.0 1.0 17.0 18.0 103.0 40.2 12.5 18.0 4.0 6.5 0 257.5

January to July 25.3 12.0 1.0 17.0 18.0 103.0 40.2 216.5

June to August 103.0 40.2 12.5 155.7

2013 26.0 0 26.5 4.5 73.5 8.5 14.0 No data recorded Aug 2013 onwards 153.0

January to July 26.0 0 26.5 4.5 73.5 8.5 14.0 153.0

June to August 8.5 14.0 No data recorded Aug 2013 onwards

Morawa Airport (station number 008296) (BoM, 2015)

2013 8.2 0 23.8 7.2 79.2 14.8 29.2 44.6 20.0 227.0

January to July 8.2 0 23.8 7.2 79.2 14.8 29.2 162.4

June to August 14.8 29.2 44.6 88.6

2014 7.4 3 3.6 69.4 36.8 20 29.4 18.8 52.0 240.4

January to July 7.4 3 3.6 69.4 36.8 20 29.4 169.6

June to August 20 29.4 18.8 68.2

2015 2.6 0.6 73.2 20.6 14.4 29.6 0.0# 1.0

# 1.8 *143.0

January to July 2.6 0.6 73.2 20.6 14.4 29.6 0.0# 138.4

June to August 29.6 0.0# 1.0

# 30.6

Note:# Indicates months when data missing in 2015 and *Indicates 1 January to 30 September total

4.2 PLANT NUMBERS

Table 4.3 summarises the overall change in the number of live plants ≥ 1 m and < 1 m in height for all of the

species being assessed within the 20 m by 5 m sub-plots at each monitoring site. Overall change is calculated

between first (baseline) and last (2015) assessments and as a proportion of total number of plants measured at

baseline assessment. The total number of deaths and recruits is also listed in Table 4.3 to provide an idea of plant

turnover at each site and in each treatment group. The total overall change in the number of plants ≥ 1 m and

< 1 m in height along with all deaths and recruits for all impact and control sites is also included in Table 4.3.

When the change in number of plants ≥ 1 m in height between baseline and 2015 assessments is expressed as a

percentage of the total number of plants counted at sites in each treatment group, there has been an overall

negative change in the impact dust buffer FCT3 treatment group, control 150 m FCT3 group, control FCT4 group

and the impact outside buffer FCT5 group. In all other treatment groups the change was positive. The change in

number of plants < 1 m in height is positive in all treatment groups.

When total deaths and recruits at sites and treatment groups are compared most deaths have been at the dust

buffer impact FCT 3 group (15) followed by the control FCT 4 group (9) and most recruits have been at the control

1,500 m FCT 3 group (27). When all sites are considered deaths in the control groups (28) have been higher than

those in the impact groups (22) and recruits are higher in the control sites (68) than the impact sites (42);

although, there are more control sites than impact sites.


m a i a P a g e | 1 8

Table 4.3: Change (baseline to 2015) in live plant numbers (≥ 1m and <1 m) and turnover of dead plants and recruits

Treatment and FCT

Live plants ≥ 1 m Live plants < 1 m Total deaths

Total recruits

Treatment and FCT

Site Increase Decrease Overall Change

Increase Decrease Overall Change


K01 0 2 -2 0 0 0 2 0

K02 5 2 3 3 2 1 4 8

K03 0 9 -9 11 0 11 9 11

Overall change -8 12 15 19

Change as a % of all plants recorded in treatment group at baseline

-14.29 21.43


K04 1 2 -1 0 1 -1 3 1

K05 6 0 6 20 4 16 4 26

Overall change 5 15 7 27


12.50 37.50


K06 0 3 -3 1 0 0 3 1

K07 0 4 -4 16 0 16 4 16

K08 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2



-18.42 47.37


K09 0 1 -1 0 2 -2 3 0

K14 2 0 2 8 0 8 0 10



3.13 18.75

Control, FCT 4

K10 2 7 -5 1 0 1 7 3

K16 2 1 1 6 1 5 2 8



-8.51 12.77


K11 0 1 -1 8 0 8 1 8

K13 0 1 -1 5 2 3 3 5



-7.14 39.29

Control FCT 5 K12 0 1 1 3 0 3 1 3

K15 4 3 -1 4 1 3 4 8



0 12.77

Impact sites overall number -9 29 22 42

Control sites overall number -6 45 28 68

Note: Deaths = total number of measured and not-measured plants that have died (decreases) since first assessment (2012).

Recruits= total number of measured and not-measured plants that have recruited (increases) since first assessment (2012).


m a i a P a g e | 1 9

The turnover of plants ≥ 1 m in height and < 1 m in height in the impact and control groups does not appear to

have been affected overly by the mining activities at Koolanooka as there has been an overall increase in plant

numbers at both impact and control sites (20 and 39 respectively).

Measured plant deaths (i.e. ≥ 1 m in height) by treatment group between baseline and 2015 and 2014 and 2015

are summarised in Table 4.4. To date nine shrubs have died at impact sites and 16 at control sites; this indicates

the background turnover in the vegetation of the area.

Table 4.4: Deaths of plants ≥ 1 m tall, baseline (first) to 2015 (last) and 2014 to 2015

Treatment and FCT

Sites Difference between measurements

Deaths


K01, K02, K03 First to last K01, two Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis that had health ratings of 4 (very unhealthy) when first assessed.

K02, one Melaleuca radula that had a health rank of 2 (good condition) in 2012 and likely died of natural causes. One Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis that has a health rating of 2 (good condition) when first assessed.

K03, one Acacia nigripilosa - no plant found at second assessment, presumed dead. Two Acacia acuminata that had a health rank of 2 (good condition) and has been dead since 2012 and the other plant had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy). One Mirbelia microphylla was dead in 2013, re-sprouted but < 1 m in 2014 and dead in 2015.

K01, K02, K03 2014-2015 K01, no deaths

K02, one Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis

K03, one Acacia acuminata and one Mirbelia microphylla


K04, K05 First to last K04, two Melaleuca radula - both had health ranks of 2 (good condition) but have been dead since 2011

K05, one Eremophila clarkei that had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy) when first assessed.

K04, K05 2014-2015 K04, no deaths

K05, one Eremophila clarkei


K06, K07, K08 First to last K06, one Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana that had health ratings of 4 (very unhealthy) when first assessed and has been dead since 2013. One Melaleuca nematophylla that had a health rating of 2 (good condition) when first assessed.

K07, one Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei that had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy) from 2011 to 2012 and died between 2012 and 2013. One Eremophila clarkei that had a health rank of 4 (very unhealthy) when first assessed and in 2013 was under plant measurement height. One Dodonaea inaequifolia that when first assessed had a health rank of 3 (unhealthy).

K08, no deaths

K06, K07, K08 2014-2015 K06, one Melaleuca nematophylla

K07, no deaths

K08, no deaths


K09, K14 First to last K09, one Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla that had a health rating of 2 (good condition) when first assessed.

K14, no deaths


m a i a P a g e | 2 0

Treatment and FCT

Sites Difference between measurements

Deaths

K09, K14 2014-2015 K09, one Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla

K14, no deaths

Control, FCT 4 K10, K16 First to last K10, three Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla - one with a health rating of 2 (good condition) when first assessed, and two that had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy) when first assessed. wo Allocasuarina campestris that had a health rating of 2 each when first assessed and one Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides that has a health rating of 0 (very healthy) when first assessed in 2010.

K16, one Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla that had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy) when first assessed.

K10, K16 2014-2015 K10, one Allocasuarina campestris and one Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides

K16, one Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla


K11, K13 First to last No deaths

K11, K13 2014-2015 No deaths

Control FCT 5 K12, K15 First to last K12, one Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma that had a health rating of 1 (healthy) when first assessed.

K05, no deaths

K12, K15 2014-2015 K12, one Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma

K05, no deaths

4.3 HEALTH (HR)

HRs recorded at each site are used to calculate a percentage change in health of the plants between assessments

i.e. how many of the plants measured at a site had a higher or lower health rating and how many remained the

same. Table 4.5 summarises the mean change (as a percentage) in the health of the plants assessed at each

monitoring site between baseline and 2015 assessments. The plants measured at eight of the monitoring sites

have become more than 50% less healthy (highlighted rows) since baseline assessments were carried out; five of

the eight are impact sites and three are control sites.

Table 4.5: Change in health by site, baseline to 2015

Group number

Treatment and FCT

Site No. of plants measured consecutively

Healthier (%) Less healthy (%)

No change (%)

1 Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3

K01 14 0 92.9 7.1

K02 22 4.5 81.8 13.6

K03 9 0 77.8 22.2

2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3

K04 12 8.3 50.0 41.7

K05 20 25.0 40.0 35.0

3 Control 150 m, FCT 3

K06 2 100.0 0 0

K07 25 32.0 32.0 36.0

K08 10 10.0 40.0 50.0

4 Impact, ex K09 7 0 100.0 0


m a i a P a g e | 2 1

Group number

Treatment and FCT

Site No. of plants measured consecutively


No change (%)

buffer, FCT 4 K14 11 18.2 27.3 54.5

5 Control, FCT 4 K10 19 0 78.9 21.1

K16 23 8.7 26.1 65.2

6 Impact, ex buffer, FCT 5

K11 9 11.1 88.9 0

K13 11 0 36.4 63.6

7 Control FCT 5 K12 14 0 100.0 0

K15 16 6.3 37.5 56.3

The change in health (expressed as percentage change) between the last two monitoring assessments (2014 and

2015) is shown in Table 4.6. The greatest decrease in health occurred at K09 (100.0%) which is an impact site.

Table 4.6: Change in health by site, 2014 - 2015

Group number

Treatment and FCT Site No. of plants measured consecutively


No change (%)


K01 14 0 7.1 92.9

K02 22 4.5 18.2 77.3

K03 9 0 0 100.0


K04 12 16.7 8.3 75.0

K05 19 10.5 10.5 78.9


K06 2 0 0 100.0

K07 24 16.7 16.7 66.7

K08 10 10.0 20.0 70

4 Impact, outside buffer, FCT 4

K09 7 0 100.0 0

K14 11 9.1 18.2 72.7

5 Control, FCT 4 K10 19 5.3 5.3 89.5

K16 23 4.3 17.4 78.3


K11 12 0 8.3 91.7

K13 11 0 0 100.0

7 Control FCT 5 K12 14 21.4 7.1 71.4

K15 16 12.5 6.3 81.3

Table 4.7 lists the mean change in health (expressed as percentage) by treatment group between baseline and

2015 assessments and between 2014 and 2015 assessments. The only treatment group where the plants became

more than 50% less healthy between baseline and 2015 (first to last) assessments is the impact site group within

the dust buffer (group 1, K01, K02 and K03; 84.4% less healthy).

The greatest change in plant health between 2014 and 2015 was in the impact FCT 4 group, where 20% of the

plants were less healthy in 2015 than in 2014.


m a i a P a g e | 2 2

Table 4.7: Overall change in health by treatment group, baseline to 2015 and 2014 to 2015

Group number

Treatment and FCT

Site Assessment No. of plants rated consecutively

Healthier (%)

Less healthy (%)

No change (%)


K01, K02, K03

First to last 45 2.2 84.4 13.3

2014-2015 45 2.2 11.1 86.7


K04, K05 First to last 32 13.3 31.1 26.7

2014-2015 31 8.9 6.7 53.3


K06, K07, K08

First to last 37 24.4 26.7 31.1

2014-2015 36 11.1 13.3 55.6


K09, K14 First to last 18 4.4 22.2 13.3

2014-2015 18 2.2 20.0 17.8

5 Control, FCT 4 K10, K16 First to last 42 4.4 46.7 42.2

2014-2015 42 4.4 11.1 77.8


K11, K13 First to last 20 2.2 26.7 15.6

2014-2015 23 0.0 2.2 48.9

7 Control FCT 5 K12, K15 First to last 30 2.2 44.4 20.0

2014-2015 30 11.1 4.4 51.1

The mean HR for all plants repeatedly assessed from baseline to 2015 is listed in Table 4.8. As the scale used for

HR starts at 0 for a healthy plant and increases to 5 to indicate a dead plant, the overall health of consecutively

rated plants had decreased a little in 2015 (2.39) relative to baseline health (1.76).

Table 4.8: Overall mean HR, baseline and 2015

Assessment Number of plants measured consecutively Overall mean HR Standard deviation

Baseline 227 1.76 0.90

2015 2.39 1.00

Table 4.9 summarises the overall mean change in HR by site and treatment group; this data is also presented in

Figure 4.1 (by site) and Figure 4.2 (by treatment group).

The mean change in HR per site was calculated as follows:

(HR in 2015 – initial HR)/number of plants assessed at site.

The group mean change in HR was calculated in the same way:

(HR in 2015 - initial HR)/number of plants assessed in treatment group.

While the scale used for HR starts at 0 for a healthy plant and increases to 5 to indicate a dead plant, the change in

HR between measurement sessions is indicated by negative numbers in Table 4.9 and on Figure 4.1 and 4.2 to

more clearly illustrate changes in health. HR decreased at 15 of the 16 monitoring sites. The greatest decrease in

HR at an individual site was at K09, an impact site, and the greatest decrease in HR in the treatment groups was in

treatment group 1 the impact dust buffer FCT 3 group.


m a i a P a g e | 2 3

Table 4.9: Change in HR by site and treatment group, baseline to 2015

Group no. Treatment and FCT Site Mean change in HR (baseline to 2015) Group mean


K01 -1.29 -1.18

K02 -1.23

K03 -0.89

2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3 K04 -0.42 -0.25

K05 -0.15

3 Control 150 m, FCT 3 K06 +1.00 -0.22

K07 -0.28

K08 -0.30


K09 -1.86 -0.78

K14 -0.09

5 Control, FCT 4 K10 -0.89 -0.52

K16 -0.22


K11 -0.67 -0.65

K13 -0.64

7 Control FCT 5 K12 -1.21 -0.73

K15 -0.31

Figure 4.1: Mean change in HR (+/- SE) baseline to 2015 - by site (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact sites)

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

K01Imp

K02Imp

K03Imp

K04Con

K05Con

K06Con

K07Con

K08Con

K09Imp

K10Con

K11Imp

K12Con

K13Imp

K14Imp

K15Con

K16Con


m a i a P a g e | 2 4

Figure 4.2: Mean change in HR (+/- SE) baseline to 2015 – by treatment group (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact treatments)

Statistical analyses – Health Rating

HR, Baseline to 2015

A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was performed on the data to compare mean HR at baseline and 2015 assessments

The results of the test (Table A3.1, Appendix 3) indicate that HR data collected at baseline and 2015 are not the

same at the 5% significance level (p = <0.0001). Overall, the plants measured were less healthy in 2015 than when

first measured.

HR, Impact and Control Groups

The results of a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test carried out on the impact and control data (Table A3.2, Appendix 3)

indicate that the impact group population health has become less healthy than the control group population

(p = <0.0001).

HR, Floristic Community Types

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups is not significant at the 5% significance level (p = 0.7930)

(Table A3.3, Appendix 3) and there is no difference in HR between FCTs.

HR, Treatment Groups

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the seven treatment groups is significant at the 5% significance level

(p = <0.0001) (Table A3.4, Appendix 3). Therefore the medians of the treatment group populations are not all

equal. Multiple contrasts were carried out (using the Bonferroni correction) to determine between which

treatment group differences occur. The plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites within the dust buffer zone) have

become less healthy than those in treatment groups 2, 3 and 5 (FCT 3 control sites 1,500 m from the pit; FCT 3

control sites 150 m from the pit; FCT 4 control sites).

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

K01, K02, K03:Impact, dustbuffer, FCT 3

K04, K05:Control, 1,500 m,

FCT 3

K06, K07, K08:Control, 150 m,

FCT 3

K09, K14:Impact, outside

buffer, FCT 4

K10, K16:Control, FCT 4

K11, K13:Impact, outside

buffer, FCT 5

K12, K15:Control, FCT 5


m a i a P a g e | 2 5

4.4 PROPORTIONAL CANOPY VOLUME (PCV)

The measurements for each shrub / tree canopy assessed within the 20 m by 5 m monitoring plots have been used

to estimate the volume of each canopy measured and the change in volume between first (baseline) and last

(September 2015) assessments.

PCVs have been calculated using crown density estimates. Crown density ratings (recorded as a percentage) have

been used to allow for differences in the canopies of the different species measured at each site. Using crown

density estimates in these calculations allows for more accurate canopy volume calculations. Crown density

estimates were first recorded in 2011 and the data collected for each shrub / tree in 2011 was used as baseline

canopy volume data for plants first measured in 2010. While density could have changed a little between the

2010 and 2011 assessments, using the density estimates allows a more accurate assessment of canopy volume to

be calculated than not using them.

The following formulae were used to calculate canopy and proportional canopy volumes:

Canopy volume = (canopy depth) x (north-south width) x (east-west width);

PCV = canopy volume x (crown density/100).

Table 4.10 summarises the estimated total and mean change in PCV (m3) between the baseline (first) and last

(September 2015) monitoring assessments for each monitoring site and each treatment group.

Table 4.10: Change in PCV, baseline to 2015

Group number

Treatment and FCT

Site Total change in PCV (m

3)

Mean change in PCV (m

3)

Standard deviation


K01 -0.69 -0.05 1.34

K02 -10.55 -0.48 1.96

K03 5.16 0.57 1.95

Group -6.09 -0.14 1.79


K04 2.73 0.23 1.42

K05 -6.34 -0.33 1.03

Group -3.60 -0.12 1.21


K06 -1.86 -0.93 1.05

K07 -3.95 -0.16 0.53

K08 -10.10 -1.01 1.66

Group -15.91 -0.43 1.03


K09 4.56 0.65 1.98

K14 45.03 4.09 6.71

Group 49.59 2.75 5.56

5 Control, FCT 4 K10 -1.68 -0.09 1.46

K16 0.30 0.01 1.41

Group -1.38 -0.03 1.42


K11 -7.60 -0.63 3.63

K13 63.96 5.81 11.16

Group 56.36 2.45 8.61

7 Control FCT 5 K12 106.82 7.63 16.92

K15 108.32 6.77 20.72

Group 215.14 7.17 18.72


m a i a P a g e | 2 6

Total and mean PCV increased at eight of the monitoring sites (4 impact and 4 control) and decreased at eight (3

impact and 5 control). The greatest increase in both total and mean canopy volume was recorded at sites K12 and

K15; K15 is a site where large eucalypt trees are measured. The greatest decrease in total PCV was at K02 (impact)

and K08 (control).

Figure 4.3: Mean change in PCV (m3 +/- SE) baseline to 2015 – by monitoring site (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact sites)

Figure 4.4: Mean change in PCV (m3 +/- SE) baseline to 2015 - by treatment group (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact treatments)

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

K01Imp

K02Imp

K03Imp

K04Con

K05Con

K06Con

K07Con

K08Con

K09Imp

K10Con

K11Imp

K12Con

K13Imp

K14Imp

K15Con

K16Con

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

K01, K02, K03:Impact, dustbuffer, FCT 3

K04, K05: Control,1,500 m, FCT 3

K06, K07, K08:Control, 150 m,

FCT 3

K09, K14: Impact,outside buffer,

FCT 4

K10, K16: Control,FCT 4

K11, K13: Impact,outside buffer,

FCT 5

K12, K15: Control,FCT 5


m a i a P a g e | 2 7

The total and mean change in PCV is positive in three of the seven treatment groups and negative in four of them.

Largest increase in mean PCV is in the Control FCT 5 group which has large eucalypt trees and largest decrease in

the mean PCV is in the Control 150 m, FCT 3 group.

The mean change in PCV between first (baseline) and 2015 assessments for all plants measured at each site is

shown in Figure 4.3, impact (Imp) and control (Con) sites are indicated. The mean change in PCV between first

and 2015 assessments for each treatment group is shown in Figure 4.4.

Statistical analyses – PCV

PCV, Baseline to 2015

The mean PCV recorded for plants repeatedly assessed from baseline to 2015 are listed in Table A3.6

(Appendix 3); PCV increased between baseline and 2014 assessments.

The results of the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (Table A3.7, Appendix 3) on all plants measured at baseline and

again in 2015 indicate that PCV was larger in 2015 than when first measured i.e. plant crowns have grown

significantly since baseline (p = <0.0001).

PCV, Impact and Control Groups

The result of a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test carried out to compare all impact PCV data with all control PCV data

(Table A3.8, Appendix 3) was not significant (p = 0.2212).

PCV, Floristic Community Types

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for PCV in the different FCT groups is significant at the 5% significance level

(p = 0.0910) (Table A3.9, Appendix 3). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the median of the FCT

populations are equal and there is no difference in PCV between FCTs.

PCV, Treatment Groups

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the treatment groups is not significant at the 5% significance level, the test

statistic is more than 0.05 (p = 0.1067) (Table A3.10, Appendix 3). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the

median of the treatment populations are equal and there is no difference in PCV between treatment groups.


m a i a P a g e | 2 8

4.5 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH)

DBH was measured only on plants 1.3 m high (i.e. breast height) or taller. The change (between baseline and

latest) in mean DBH data collected at each 20 m by 5 m monitoring site and within each treatment group is

presented in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11: Change in DBH, baseline to 2015

Group number Treatment and FCT Site Mean change in DBH (mm) Standard deviation


K01 -1.78 4.01

K02 -3.46 7.40

K03 0.61 4.45

Group mean (SD) -2.43 6.16

2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3 K04 1.87 6.77

K05 -2.90 11.43

Group mean (SD) 0.01 8.88

3 Control 150 m, FCT 3 K06 3.11 0.00

K07 1.61 9.15

K08 9.71 18.67



K09 6.18 18.67

K14 4.72 8.46


5 Control, FCT 4 K10 -0.40 19.68

K16 1.28 12.05



K11 1.87 16.01

K13 1.77 8.91


7 Control FCT 5 K12 3.98 6.35

K15 3.88 8.46


The greatest negative change between baseline and 2015 in DBH was at site K02 (-3.46 mm) a dust buffer impact

site. The greatest increase in DBH was at site K08 (9.71 mm) a control site. Negative changes in treatment group

mean DBH between baseline and 2015 occurred in one impact (dust buffer FCT 3 group). Mean DBH increased

between baseline and 2015 in all other groups.

Mean DBH by site and by treatment group is shown in Figure 4.5 and 4.6.


m a i a P a g e | 2 9

Figure 4.5: Mean change in DBH, baseline to 2015 (mm +/- SE) – by site (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact sites)

Figure 4.6: Mean change in DBH, baseline to 2015 (mm +/- SE) – by treatment group (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact treatments)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

K01Imp

K02Imp

K03Imp

K04Con

K05Con

K06Con

K07Con

K08Con

K09Imp

K10Con

K11Imp

K12Con

K13Imp

K14Imp

K15Con

K16Con

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

K01, K02, K03:Impact, dust buffer

FCT 3

K04, K05: Control,1,500 m

FCT 3

K06, K07, K08:Control, 150 m

FCT 3

K09, K14: Impact,outside buffer

FCT 4

K10, K16: ControlFCT 4

K11, K13: Impact,outside buffer

FCT 5

K12, K15: ControlFCT 5


m a i a P a g e | 3 0

Statistical analyses – Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

DBH, Baseline to 2015

The mean DBH recorded for those plants assessed each year between baseline and 2015 are listed in Table A3.11

(Appendix 3); there has been a small increase in mean DBH between baseline and 2015 assessments.

The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Table A3.12, Appendix 3) indicate that DBH has significantly

increased since baseline assessment (P = 0.0065) i.e. the plant stems have grown overall since baseline.

DBH, Impact and Control Groups

The results of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Table A3.13, Appendix 3) were not significant (P = 0.1256) and

the independent variable (treatment) had no influence on the change in DBH between impact and control groups.

DBH, Floristic Community Types

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups was significant, the test statistic is less than 0.05

(p = 0.0033 at the 5% significance level) (Table A3.14, Appendix 3). Therefore FCT group DBHs are not the same.

Multiple contrasts, using the Bonferroni correction, were carried out between the three different FCTs to

determine which groups differed. The results of these contrasts are presented in Table A3.15 (Appendix 3).

Significant differences occur between FCT 3 and FCT 4 and the change in DBH between baseline and 2015 in FCT 4

is less than that in FCT 3.

DBH, Treatment Groups

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the treatment groups is significant at the 5% significance level, the test

statistic is less than 0.05 (p = 0.0318) (Table A3.16, Appendix 3). Therefore treatment group DBH changes are not

all equal.

As the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic was significant pairwise multiple contrasts were then carried out between the

different treatment groups (using the Bonferroni correction) to determine which groups differed significantly.

One of the contrasts has a significant p-value when a 5% significance level is used (shaded row in Table A3.17,

Appendix 3) - the contrast between T1 and T4. The change in DBH of plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites

within the dust buffer zone) between baseline and 2015 is less than that in treatment group 4 (FCT 4 impact

outside buffer).

4.6 DUST AND PLANT HEALTH RATINGS

A correlation analysis was carried out to determine whether a relationship exists between change in dust level and

change in mean plant health between baseline and 2015 assessments at the 16 monitoring sites. The non-

parametric Kendall’s tau correlation test was carried out because the data are not linearly related and the data are

ordinal (ranks) rather than continuous.

The result of the Kendall test was not significant at the 5% significance level (n = 16; tau statistic = -0.122; p =

0.5684).

There is therefore no correlation between the two sets of data and they are independent.


m a i a P a g e | 3 1

4.7 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES RESULTS

Table 4.12 summarises the results of the statistical analyses performed on the HR, PCV and DBH data collected to

date.

Table 4.12: Statistical analyses summary table - change in HR, PCV and DBH since baseline

Factor Baseline and 2015 Impact and control FCTs Treatment groups

HR S (2015 < baseline) S (impact < control) NS S (T1>T2, T3 and T5)

Comment Overall, plants were less healthy in 2015 than at baseline

HR of plants in the impact group decreased more than that in control group

There is no difference in the change in HR in the three FCTs

The mean change in HR between baseline and 2015 is not the same in the seven treatments – the reduction in plant health in T1 is greater than that in T2, T3 and T5

PCV S (2015 > baseline) NS NS NS

Comment Overall, PCV was larger in 2015 than at baseline and the plant crowns have grown

There is no difference between increase in crown size in impact and control groups

There is no difference in the change in PCV in the three FCTs

The change in PCV between baseline and 2015 is the same in the seven treatments

DBH S (2015 > baseline) NS S (FCT 3 > FCT 4) S (T1 < T4)

Comment Plant DBH was greater in 2015 than at baseline i.e. plant trunks/stems have increased in diameter (grown)

There is no difference in the change in DBH between baseline and 2015 in the impact and control groups

The mean change in DBH between baseline and 2015 is not the same in the three FCTs– the change in DBH in FCT 4 is less than that in FCT 3

The change in DBH between baseline and 2015 is not the same in the seven treatments – the change in DBH in T1 is less than that in T4

Notes: FCT = floristic community type, S = significant at the 5% significance level, p < 0.05; NS = not significant.


m a i a P a g e | 3 2

This page is intentionally blank.


m a i a P a g e | 3 3

5 CONCLUSIONS, OVERALL COMMENTS AND FUTURE WORK SMC’s Koolanooka mine has been under care and maintenance since July 2013 and the only activities currently

being carried out on the tenements are rehabilitation works and research.

5.1 CONSERVATION S IGNIFICANT SPECIES, WEEDS AND VEGETATION CONDITION

Since monitoring began in 2010 two conservation significant flora species have been located at the monitoring

sites: Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (Priority 1) and Millotia dimorpha (Priority 1). The

number of the perennial species Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka has been relatively constant since baseline and has

increased by one plant. The number of the annual species M. dimorpha recorded varies from year to year. No M.

dimorpha was located at the sites assessed in 2010 or 2011 while approximately 350 plants were recorded in

2012, 2,500 in 2013, 1,630 in 2014 and 30 in 2015. The variation is similar in both impact (100 plants initially

recorded then 2,200 then 1,100 and 10 in 2015) and control sites (250 plants initially recorded then 350 then 530

and 5 in 2015). These year to year fluctuations are not unexpected because M. dimorpha is a small annual species

and numbers would be affected by the species’ population dynamics, seasonal fluctuations (temperatures, rain

received and timing of rain in the weeks before main growing period). Some variation will also come from the

estimation of numbers by the botanists.

Mining activities have not affected the number of conservation significant flora occurring at the

monitoring sites.

Eleven general environmental weed species have been located at the monitoring plots since assessments began

and seven of these 11 species were located in September 2015. Nine weed species were recorded in 2011 (when

all 16 sites were assessed for the first time), 2012, 2013 and 2014. None of the weed species that have been

located to date is a declared species in WA and none have been listed as high risk weeds by DPaW. Sites with

consistently more weed species than others are those in the steep rocky areas favoured by goats (i.e. K02, K06 and

K08).

Mining activities have not affected the number of weed species located each year and none of the species

located at the monitoring sites is a declared plant or has a high DPaW rating.

The total number of weeds recorded each September since 2012 has varied from a low of 270 in 2015 to a high of

5,705 in 2014. At impact sites the number varied from 169 in 2015 to 3,260 in 2013 and at control sites from a

low of 101 in 2015 to a high of 3,289 in 2014.

As the mine is no longer operational and the monitoring sites are not close to used tracks, year to year

variation in weed number will not be a direct result of the mining activities but will be a reflection of a

combination of factors i.e. baseline weed numbers in the general area, spreading by goats and native

animals, dispersion of seed by wind and water, differing seasonal conditions (e.g. temperature and rainfall

in the weeks before the survey), general population dynamics and variation in the number of weeds

estimated by the botanists.

Mining has not affected the overall condition of the vegetation around the mine as the condition rating

for each site has not changed since 2012.

5.2 FIRE AND FERAL ANIMALS

No fires have affected the vegetation around the mine for more than 13 years.

Goats are common around the mine at Koolanooka and the number recorded by Maia has varied from

year to year. Six were recorded in September 2011 and 12 in September 2015; however, as few as 3 and

as many as 20 to 30 were seen by SMC personnel when the mine was operational. A fox was seen by SMC


m a i a P a g e | 3 4

and Maia personnel in 2012 and by Maia in 2013 but not in 2014 and 2015. The goats have been on the

hills for many years and their numbers vary from year to year. Maia does not know whether they are

harvested or culled at all but if they were this would affect the numbers seen each year. The fox was

probably attracted to the area looking for food when the mine was operational but it has not been seen

for the past two years; it could have moved away or been killed. Either way, mining activities do not

appear to have led to an increase in the number of feral animals.

5.3 DUST

Between 2014 and 2015 dust levels decreased at five of the 16 sites and there was no change at 11 sites. Highest

dust levels were recorded at sites within the dust buffer when the mine was operational; by September 2015 dust

levels in the buffer were similar to those in the surrounding area and highest dust levels were recorded at the sites

closest to the area where large scale rehabilitation works were carried out in 2015.

As total rainfall was lower in winter 2015 than in winter 2014 it wouldn’t explain the generally lower dust levels;

they are probably a reflection of the fact that only rehabilitation works were carried out in 2015 and ambient dust

levels are lower than they were in the past.

5.4 PLANT NUMBERS

When change between baseline and 2015 assessments in the number of plants ≥ 1 m in height is expressed as a

percentage of the total number of plants counted in each treatment group, there has been an overall reduction in

the impact dust buffer FCT 3 treatment group, the control 150 m FCT 3 group, control FCT 4 group and the impact

outside buffer FCT 5 group. When similar calculations are carried out on plants < 1 m in height there has been an

overall increase in all treatment groups between baseline and 2015.

When total deaths and recruits at sites and in treatment groups are compared, most deaths occurred in the dust

buffer impact FCT 3 group (15) followed by the control FCT 4 group (9), while most recruits were in the control

1,500 m FCT 3 group (27). When deaths and recruits are totalled for impact and control treatments overall,

deaths in the control treatment (28) were higher than those in the impact treatment (22) and recruits were higher

in the control treatment (68) than impact treatment (42).

Deaths that have occurred since baseline of plants ≥ 1 m in height were collated and, to date, nine shrubs have

died at impact sites and 16 at control sites.

The turnover of all plants in the impact treatment sites does not appear to have been affected by the mining

activities at Koolanooka. When the overall change in the impact and control groups is compared there is only a

3.6% difference - the overall increase in plants was 3.6% higher in the control group than the impact group. When

total deaths and total recruits that have occurred between baseline and 2015 are compared in impact and control

groups there have been fewer deaths and recruits in the impact group than in the control group.

The mining activities do not appear to have had a greater effect on population turnover at impact sites

relative to at control sites.

5.5 HEALTH (HR)

The mean change in health (expressed as a percentage) by treatment group between baseline and 2015

assessments and between 2014 and 2015 assessments was calculated. The treatment group in which the health

of the plants decreased the most between baseline and 2015 assessments was the impact site group within the

dust buffer (group 1, 84.4% less healthy). The next highest decrease in health was in the control FCT 4 and FCT 5

sites (46.7% and 44.4% respectively).


m a i a P a g e | 3 5

The decrease in health at the impact sites outside the dust buffer was similar to that at the control sites and

therefore the 50 m wide dust buffer was appropriate. The negative change in health of some of the control group

plants highlights the natural background change in plant health in the area generally.

While plant health has generally decreased since baseline assessments were carried out, the change in plant

health between baseline and 2015 differed between impact and control groups; the change in HR in the impact

group population was more negative than the control group population - this change is influenced by the dust

buffer plant health rating which decreased more than other treatments.

The plants within the dust buffer zone were less healthy than those in FCT 3 control sites 1,500 m from the pit;

FCT 3 control sites 150 m from the pit and the FCT 4 control sites. The difference between the other impact sites

and the control groups was not significant. This indicates that a 50 m wide dust buffer zone was appropriate at

Koolanooka, as the plants inside this band have been affected more than those outside the buffer. Differences in

the control groups indicate the general change in health of the vegetation of the different floristic communities of

the area.

The mining at Koolanooka affected the health of the plants within the dust buffer more than at sites

outside the dust buffer. A 50 m wide dust buffer was appropriate in this area.

5.6 PROPORTIONAL CANOPY VOLUME (PCV)

Canopy volume data and analyses indicate that overall: PCV increased between baseline and September 2015

assessments i.e. the plant canopies had grown; there was no difference in the change in PCV between baseline

and 2015 in the impact and control groups; there was no difference in PCV between the three FCT groups; there

was no difference in the paired comparisons between the different treatment groups.

Therefore mining at Koolanooka has not affected the PCV of the plants close to the mine relative to those

further away from the mine.

5.7 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH)

DBH data and analyses indicate that overall: plant DBH increased significantly between baseline and September

2015 assessments i.e. the plant stems/trunks had grown; there was no difference overall in the change in DBH

between baseline and 2015 in the control and impact groups; there was a difference between the three FCT

groups and the change in DBH between baseline differed in FCT 4 and FCT 3; there was a difference between the

seven treatment groups and the change in DBH of plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites within the dust buffer

zone) between baseline and 2015 is less than that in treatment group 4 (FCT 4 control sites).

Therefore the DBH of the dust buffer impact site plants appears to have been affected by the mining

activities.

5.8 OVERALL COMMENT

A 50 m wide dust buffer was appropriate around the mine at Koolanooka. The plants within the dust buffer were

less healthy than in other areas and the change in DBH in dust buffer plants was less than that of plants in some of

the areas outside the dust buffer, while the PCV of the plants in the dust buffer was no different from that of the

plants further away from the mine.

5.9 FUTURE WORK

The 2015 data and analyses indicate that dust levels are generally decreasing around the mine and that

the health of plants outside the dust buffer appears not to have been affected by the mining activities.


m a i a P a g e | 3 6

SMC’s mine at Koolanooka has been under care and maintenance since July 2013. Currently only

rehabilitation works and research are being carried out on the mining tenements.

SMC could discuss this monitoring program with DPaW / OEPA and gain permission from the CEO of the

OEPA to amend the current annual monitoring program. The time between monitoring events could be

extended or monitoring could cease once all of the rehabilitation works have been completed in areas

that could potentially affect the health of the vegetation through high dust levels.


m a i a P a g e | 3 7

6 REFERENCES Analyse‐it Software (2015). Analyse‐it statistical analysis add‐in for Microsoft Excel, Standard Edition v4.20.1. Available:

http://www.analyse–it.com.

ATA Environmental (2004). Notice of Intent, Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) Project Koolanooka Iron Ore Mine. Unpublished

Report for Midwest Corporation (now Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited).

BoM (2015). Morawa Airport climate statistics. Available:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_008296.shtml. Accessed: November, 2015.

Coakes, S. J. and Steed, L. G. (2001). SPSS Analysis without Anguish. John Wiley and Sons Australia.

Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA) (2015). Western Australian Organism List (WAOL). Department of

Agriculture and Food, Perth Western Australia. Available: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/organisms/export/-1.

Accessed: November 2015.

Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) (2013). DPaW Midwest Rankings Summary. Available:

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/plants/weeds/156-how-does-dpaw-manage-weeds.

Available: Not currently available, was accessed in 2014.

Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) (2015). How does Parks and Wildlife manage weeds? Available:

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/plants/weeds/156-how-does-dpaw-manage-weeds.

Accessed: November, 2015.

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2009). Statement that a Proposal may be Implemented (Pursuant to

Provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986). Koolanooka/Blue Hills Direct Shipping Iron Ore Mining

Project, Shires of Morawa and Perenjori. Ministerial Statement 811, November 2009. Environmental

Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia.

Executive Steering Committee for Australian Vegetation Information (ESCAVI) (2003). Australian Vegetation Attribute

Manual: National Vegetation Information System, Version 6.0. Department of the Environment and Heritage,

Canberra.

Government of Western Australia (2000). Bush Forever, Volume 2. Directory of Bush Forever Sites, 2000, Government

of Western Australia.

Government of Western Australia (GoWA) (2014). Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007, 2 July 2014,

Version 01-b0-01.

Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia) (2010a). SMC Koolanooka Project. Vegetation Monitoring Program:

Proposed Methodology. Unpublished report prepared for Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited.

Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia) (2010b). SMC Koolanooka Project. Vegetation Monitoring Program:

Monitoring Sites Established in March 2010. Unpublished report prepared for Sinosteel Midwest Corporation

Limited.

Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia) (2011). SMC: Koolanooka Mine Vegetation Monitoring, Spring 2011.

Unpublished report prepared for Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited.

Mead, R., Curnow, R. N. and Hasted, A. M. (2000). Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental Biology. Second

Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Meissner, R. & Caruso, Y. (2008). Flora and Vegetation of Banded Ironstone Formations of the Yilgarn Craton:

Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(1): 73-88.

Townend, J. (2002). Practical Statistics for Environmental and Biological Scientists. John Wiley and Sons, England.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_008296.shtml

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/plants/weeds/156-how-does-dpaw-manage-weeds

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/plants/weeds/156-how-does-dpaw-manage-weeds


m a i a P a g e | 3 8

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2005). Field Instructions for the Annual Inventory of Washington,

Oregon, California and Alaska. Supplement For: Phase 3 (FHM) Indicators. Forest Inventory and Analysis

Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.

University of California Los Angeles, Institute of Digital Research in Education (UCLA, IDRE) (2015). What statistical

analysis should I use? Available: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mult_pkg/whatstat/. Accessed: November

2015.

Western Australian Herbarium (WAH) (1998-). FloraBase - the Western Australian Flora. Available:

http://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/. Western Australian Herbarium, Department of Parks and Wildlife.

Accessed: November, 2015.

Zar, J. H. (1984). Biostatistical Analysis. Second Edition. Prentice‐Hall, Inc., New Jersey, USA.


m a i a P a g e | 3 9

7 MAPS


m a i a P a g e | 4 0


General location!(

!(

!(

PerthGeraldton

Port Hedland !( TownsMajor roadsRailLakes

LocationMap

!(

!(

!(

")")")

")")

")")

")

")")")")")")")")

M 70/1014

M 70/1013

M 70/1012

MUNGADA RD

BELL RD

FALL

ON R

D

KADJI RD

BESTRY RDSETTLEMENT RD

NORT

H RD

MULLEWA WUBIN RD

HILL RD

LOCH

ADA R

D

MORA

WA - Y

ALGO

O RD

MILL

OY R

D

CALVER RD

NORRISH RD

MOFF

ET R

D

SOLO

MON

RD

MUNCKTON RD

LUDLOW RD

MALC

OLM

RD

WHITE RD

JONES LAKE RD

KADJI LAKE RD

OLDE

N RD

BORE

RD

JOHNSON RD

NEATES RD

THREE SPRINGS - MORAWA RD

NORTON RD

MINGENEW MORAWA RD

FITZGERALD RD

PAYN

E RD

ROTHSAY RD

PINTHARUKA WEST RD

LOCHARDA RD

RYAN RD

SHAR

PE R

D

EVAS

IDE

RD

KADJI - MELLENBYE RD

TASS

EFF R

D

HOEY RD

JUDGE RD

VANDELEUR RD MURRAY RD

ODEA

RD

NORTHS RD

VALENTINE RD

BROA

D RD

TAIT RD

ROSS RD

KOOLANOOKA SOUTH RD

KEOGH RD

DREGHORN RD

GARNSWORTHY RD

CLUB

RD

MOORE RD

MULLEWA WUBIN RD

Morawa

Bowgada

390000

400000

410000

420000

430000

440000

450000

6760000

6770000

6780000

6790000

") Maia monitoring sitesTenement boundaries

0 5

KilometresDatum: GDA 1994, MGA 50

±Map: 7.1Prepared for: SMCDrawn by: RHDate: 24/11/2015Version: 1


m a i a P a g e | 4 2


Vegetation monitoring sites!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Perth

WilunaNewman

GeraldtonKalgoorlie

Port Hedland

Major roads

LocationMap

421500

423000

424500

6769500

6771000

Maia monitoring sites") Control") Impact# DPaW sites

Previous dust monitoring sites (not in use since 2015)Koolanooka TEC boundary

Tenement boundariesAccess tracksDust BufferWaste dumps

0 0.375



Service Layer Credits: © 2010 DigitalGlobe© 2010 GeoEye Earthstar GeographicsSIO © 2015 Microsoft Corporation


m a i a P a g e | 4 4


Conservation significant flora!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Perth

WilunaNewman

GeraldtonKalgoorlie

Port Hedland

Major roads

LocationMap

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")K16

K15

K14

K13

K12

K11

K10

K09

K08

K07

K06

K05

K04

K03

K02

K01

Millotia dimorpha (P1)

Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (P1)Millotia dimorpha (P1)

Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (P1)

422000

423000

424000

425000

6770000

6771000

Maia monitoring sites") Control") Impact

Tenement boundaries

0 0.25




m a i a P a g e | 4 6


Weeds!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Perth

WilunaNewman

GeraldtonKalgoorlie

Port Hedland

Major roads

LocationMap

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

Cuscuta planifloraLamarckia aureaPentameris airoides

K16

K15

K14

K13

K12

K11

K10

K09

K08

K07

K06

K05

K04

K03

K02

K01

Cuscuta planifloraLamarckia aureaPentameris airoides

Cuscuta planiflora

Pentameris airoidesSonchus oleraceus

Pentameris airoidesVulpia muralis

Cuscuta planiflora

Cuscuta planiflora

Pentameris airoides

Cuscuta planifloraEhrharta longifloraPentameris airoides

Cuscuta planifloraEhrharta longifloraHypochaeris glabraPentameris airoidesSonchus oleraceusVulpia muralis

422000

423000

424000

425000

6770000

6771000

Maia monitoring sites") Control") Impact

Tenement boundaries

0 0.25




m a i a P a g e | 4 8



m a i a P a g e | 4 9

APPENDIX 1: MONITORING SITE COORDINATES

Table A1.1: Coordinates for vegetation monitoring sites (GDA94, MGA50)

Site

North-east North-west South-east South-west

Easting (mE)

Northing (mN)

Easting (mE)

Northing (mN)

Easting (mE)

Northing (mN)

Easting (mE)

Northing (mN)

K1 422844 6771399 422836 6771382 422860 6771389 422852 6771374

K2 423015 6771023 423007 6771017 423033 6771011 423017 6771002

K3 423068 6771225 423047 6771222 423066 6771204 423046 6771200

K4 424260 6769610 424242 6769610 424260 6769589 424244 6769588

K5 424079 6769805 424062 6769794 424090 6769788 424070 6769776

K6 423092 6771339 423076 6771344 423090 6771321 423067 6771324

K7 423232 6771029 423215 6771029 423236 6771009 423219 6771008

K8 422893 6771486 422878 6771490 422890 6771469 422871 6771474

K9 422967 6770848 422946 6770851 422962 6770832 422942 6770831

K10 423021 6770684 423012 6770673 423039 6770676 423029 6770661

K11 422788 6770500 422769 6770492 422796 6770480 422777 6770476

K12 422998 6770289 422978 6770285 423002 6770270 422982 6770263

K13 422815 6770422 422795 6770415 422823 6770404 422804 6770395

K14 422925 6770720 422905 6770726 422916 6770699 422898 6770707

K15 422945 6770389 422928 6770380 422956 6770372 422939 6770362

K16 423092 6770628 423079 6770615 423107 6770615 423092 6770601


m a i a P a g e | 5 0



m a i a P a g e | 5 1

APPENDIX 2: SITE SHEETS

Note: In the following site sheets, sp. = species, subsp. = subspecies, var. = variety, P1 = Priority 1 species, RE =

range extension and * indicates an introduced species.


m a i a P a g e | 5 2



m a i a P a g e | 5 3

Site: K01 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: North facing gentle slope.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: BIF (banded iron formation) - exposed rock/plates 10%, boulders/stones 80%.

Ground Cover: Bare ground – 2, Leaf litter – 4, Wood litter – 3.

Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis and Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa with an Open Mid Shrubland of Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa and Isolated Low Shrubs of Dodonaea inaequifolia.

Disturbance Details: Previously disturbed by exploration activities; signs of rehab in the area.

Vegetation Condition: Very Good (3) Dust Cover: 2 Fire Age: None evident

Species

Acacia acuminata Monachather paradoxus

Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Myriocephalus guerinae

Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa Podolepis canescens

Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Ptilotus gaudichaudii

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Arthropodium dyeri Thysanotus manglesianus

Astroloma serratifolium Trachymene ornata

Austrostipa elegantissima Velleia rosea

Blennospora drummondii Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Calandrinia polyandra

Calycopeplus paucifolius

Crassula colorata

*Cuscuta planiflora

Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides

Dioscorea hastifolia

Dodonaea inaequifolia

Feldstonia nitens

Goodenia occidentalis

Grevillea paradoxa

Melaleuca nematophylla


m a i a P a g e | 5 4

Site: K02 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: West facing mid slope of a minor gully.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: BIF - stones and boulders.


Vegetation Association: Open Low Woodland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana with an Open Mid Shrubland of Acacia exocarpoides, Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis and Isolated Low Shrubs of Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides.

Disturbance Details: Goats and weeds.


Species

Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis *Hypochaeris glabra

Acacia exocarpoides Lawrencella davenportii

Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa Lawrencella rosea

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (P1)

*Arctotheca calendula Melaleuca radula

Astroloma serratifolium Millotia dimorpha (P1)

Austrostipa elegantissima *Monoculus monstrosus

Austrostipa scabra Myriocephalus guerinae

Bromus arenarius *Pentameris airoides

Calandrinia polyandra Podolepis lessonii

Calothamnus gilesii Rhodanthe battii

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Rhyncharrhena linearis

*Cuscuta planiflora Schoenia cassiniana

Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Dianella revoluta var. divaricata Solanum cleistogamum

Dioscorea hastifolia *Sonchus oleraceus

Dodonaea inaequifolia Trachymene ornata

Drosera macrantha *Vulpia muralis

*Ehrharta longiflora Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Erodium cygnorum


m a i a P a g e | 5 5

Site: K03 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Low relief upper to midslope.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone.


Vegetation Sub-association: Open Tall Shrubland of Acacia acuminata with a Sparse Mid Shrubland of Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa and Sparse Low Shrubland of Grevillea paradoxa.

Disturbance Details: Goats and weeds. Old exploration tracks in area and small stockpiles/bunds throughout this area.


Species

Acacia acuminata Rhodanthe battii

Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Sida sp. Golden calyces glabrous (H.N. Foote 32)

*Acetosa vesicaria Solanum cleistogamum

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Solanum lasiophyllum

Astroloma serratifolium Stylidium confluens

Austrostipa elegantissima Trachymene ornata

Bellida graminea Velleia rosea

Calandrinia polyandra Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Calycopeplus paucifolius

*Cuscuta planiflora

Dianella revoluta var. divaricata

Dioscorea hastifolia

Erodium cygnorum


Grevillea paradoxa

Lawrencella davenportii

Mirbelia microphylla

Monachather paradoxus

Myriocephalus guerinae


m a i a P a g e | 5 6

Site: K04 Size: 20 x 20 m

Habitat: Upperlope of southern range.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone - small boulders, stones and gravel.


Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana with an Open Mid Shrubland of Melaleuca radula, Open Low Shrubland of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei and Open Low Woodland of Acacia acuminata.

Disturbance Details: Old exploration activities; goats and weeds.

Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 0 Fire Age: None evident

Species

Acacia acuminata Lobelia winfridae

Acacia coolgardiensis Melaleuca nematophylla

Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Melaleuca radula

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Millotia dimorpha (P1)

Amphipogon caricinus var. caricinus Mirbelia microphylla

*Arctotheca calendula Monachather paradoxus

Arthropodium dyeri *Pentameris airoides

Austrostipa elegantissima Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Pimelea angustifolia

Crassula colorata Podolepis lessonii

Dioscorea hastifolia Poranthera leiosperma (RE)

Dodonaea inaequifolia Ptilotus polystachyus

Erodium cygnorum Rhodanthe polycephala

Eucalyptus ebbanoensis subsp. ebbanoensis Ricinocarpos muricatus

Goodenia mimuloides Ricinocarpos velutinus

Goodenia occidentalis Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Goodenia pinnatifida Solanum cleistogamum

Grevillea levis Solanum lasiophyllum

Halgania cyanea var. Allambi Stn (B.W. Strong 676) Trachymene ornata

Hemigenia sp. Yalgoo (A.M. Ashby 2624) Velleia rosea

Hydrocotyle pilifera var. glabrata Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Lawrencella davenportii Xanthosia kochii


m a i a P a g e | 5 7

Site: K05 Size: 20 x 20 m

Habitat: Upperslope (negligible slope) of southern ridge.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone - boulders and stones.


Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Melaleuca nematophylla with an Open Mid Shrubland of Eremophila clarkei and Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei, Low Open Woodland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana and Sparse Low Shrubland of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei.

Disturbance Details: Evidence of previous exploration; goats and weeds.


Species

Acacia acuminata Lobelia winfridae

Acacia exocarpoides Lomandra collina

Acacia tetragonophylla Melaleuca nematophylla

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Mirbelia microphylla

Arthropodium dyeri Myriocephalus guerinae

Austrostipa elegantissima *Pentameris airoides

Brachyscome ciliocarpa Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei

Calandrinia sp. Blackberry (D.M. Porter 171) Pimelea angustifolia

Calycopeplus paucifolius Podolepis lessonii

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Ptilotus obovatus

Comesperma volubile Ptilotus polystachyus

Crassula colorata Rhodanthe battii

Dioscorea hastifolia Rhodanthe polycephala

Dodonaea inaequifolia Scaevola spinescens

Eremophila clarkei Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Erodium cygnorum Solanum cleistogamum

Goodenia pinnatifida Solanum lasiophyllum

Grevillea paradoxa Trachymene ornata

Hakea recurva subsp. recurva *Vulpia muralis

*Hypochaeris glabra Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Lawrencella davenportii Wahlenbergia preissii

Lawrencella rosea Xanthosia kochii


m a i a P a g e | 5 8

Site: K06 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Upper rocky slope (moderate slope).

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: BIF - stones, boulders and surface plates.


Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Melaleuca nematophylla with a Low Open Woodland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana, Sparse Mid Shrubland of Dodonaea inaequifolia and Melaleuca nematophylla and Sparse Low Shrubland of Ptilotus obovatus.

Disturbance Details: Goats and weeds.


Species

Abutilon oxycarpum Erodium cygnorum

Acacia exocarpoides Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila

Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa Goodenia pinnatifida

Acacia tetragonophylla Grevillea paradoxa

*Acetosa vesicaria Hakea recurva subsp. recurva

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana *Hordeum leporinum

Aristida contorta *Lamarckia aurea

Austrostipa elegantissima Maireana planifolia

Austrostipa trichophylla Melaleuca nematophylla

Brachyscome ciliocarpa Monachather paradoxus

Bromus arenarius *Pentameris airoides

Calandrinia sp. Blackberry (D.M. Porter 171) Ptilotus gaudichaudii

Calotis hispidula Ptilotus obovatus

Calycopeplus paucifolius Ptilotus polystachyus

Cheilanthes lasiophylla Rhodanthe battii

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

*Cuscuta planiflora Sida sp. Golden calyces glabrous (H.N. Foote 32)

Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Solanum cleistogamum

Dioscorea hastifolia Solanum lasiophyllum

Dodonaea inaequifolia Trachymene ornata

Dysphania melanocarpa forma melanocarpa Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata


m a i a P a g e | 5 9

Site: K07 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Upper slope of northern ridge. Slope negligible. N -NE facing slope.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone and BIF.


Vegetation Association: Open Low Woodland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana with an Open Mid Shrubland of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei, Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia acuminata and Sparse Low Shrubland of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei.

Disturbance Details: Weeds.


Species

Acacia acuminata Melaleuca nematophylla

Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Mirbelia microphylla

Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Monachather paradoxus

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Myriocephalus guerinae

Austrostipa elegantissima *Pentameris airoides

Calandrinia eremaea Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei

Calotis hispidula Rhodanthe battii

Calycopeplus paucifolius Rhodanthe polycephala

Comesperma integerrimum Scaevola spinescens

*Cuscuta planiflora Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Solanum cleistogamum

Dioscorea hastifolia Solanum lasiophyllum

Dodonaea inaequifolia Thysanotus manglesianus

Eremophila clarkei Trachymene ornata

*Ehrharta longiflora Velleia rosea

Erodium cygnorum Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Grevillea paradoxa Xanthosia kochii


Lawrencella rosea

Lobelia winfridae


m a i a P a g e | 6 0

Site: K08 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Midslope northern end of range, 120 m from NE of site K1 in buffer.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone - stones and boulders.


Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana with a Sparse Mid Shrubland of Calycopeplus paucifolius and Isolated Low Shrubs of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei.

Disturbance Details: Grazing by goats and weeds.


Species

Abutilon oxycarpum *Lamarckia aurea

Acacia exocarpoides Maireana planifolia

Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa Melaleuca nematophylla

Acacia tetragonophylla Monachather paradoxus

*Acetosa vesicaria *Pentameris airoides

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Podolepis lessonii

*Arctotheca calendula Ptilotus gaudichaudii

Austrostipa elegantissima Ptilotus obovatus

Calandrinia sp. Blackberry (D.M. Porter 171) Ptilotus polystachyus

Calycopeplus paucifolius Rhodanthe battii

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Rhodanthe polycephala

Crassula colorata Senna glutinosa subsp. chatelainiana

*Cuscuta planiflora Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Sida sp. Golden calyces glabrous (H.N. Foote 32)

Dioscorea hastifolia Solanum cleistogamum

Erodium cygnorum Solanum lasiophyllum

Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila Trachymene ornata

Goodenia berardiana Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata


*Hypochaeris glabra


m a i a P a g e | 6 1

Site: K09 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Fan at the base of a gully - west facing.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Granite 80% composition - stones.


Vegetation Association: Tall Shrubland of Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla with a Sparse Mid Shrubland of Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides and Sparse Low Shrubland of Xanthosia kochii.

Disturbance Details: Goat tracks, rabbits, weeds and track to west approximately 20 m away.


Species

Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis *Pentameris airoides

Acacia exocarpoides Podolepis lessonii

Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Rhodanthe polycephala

Aristida contorta Solanum cleistogamum

Arthropodium dyeri Solanum lasiophyllum

Astroloma serratifolium Trachymene ornata

Austrostipa elegantissima Velleia discophora

Blennospora drummondii Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Xanthosia kochii

*Cuscuta planiflora

Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides


Drosera macrantha

Erodium cygnorum



Lobelia heterophylla

Millotia dimorpha (P1)




m a i a P a g e | 6 2

Site: K10 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: West facing (moderate) slope.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Granite.


Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla with a Low Open Woodland of Allocasuarina campestris, Sparse Low Shrubland of Xanthosia bungei and Isolated Mid Shrubs of Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides.

Disturbance Details: Goats, track nearby, water erosion.


Species

Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Isotoma ?pusilla

Acacia coolgardiensis Lawrencella davenportii

Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (P1)

Allocasuarina campestris Melaleuca cordata

Amphipogon caricinus var. caricinus Millotia dimorpha (P1)

Arthropodium dyeri Mirbelia microphylla

Astroloma serratifolium Monachather paradoxus

Austrostipa elegantissima Myriocephalus guerinae

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Ricinocarpos muricatus

Cyanicula amplexans Stylidium confluens

Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Thysanotus manglesianus

Dianella revoluta var. divaricata Trachymene ornata

Drosera macrantha Velleia discophora

Erodium cygnorum Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Gonocarpus nodulosus Xanthosia bungei


Grevillea paradoxa

Hemigenia ciliata

Hibbertia arcuata

Hyalosperma demissum


m a i a P a g e | 6 3

Site: K11 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Undulating gravelly plain at the base of the footslope.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Laterite gravel and stones.


Vegetation Association: Low Open Mallee Woodland of Eucalyptus horistes with a Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia anthochaera and Acacia acuminata, Sparse Low Shrubland of Acacia andrewsii and Isolated Low Trees of Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis.

Disturbance Details: Old exploration tracks, ripped and rehabbed. Fox sighted in 2012 & 2013. Weeds.


Species

Acacia acuminata Maireana planifolia

Acacia andrewsii Mirbelia microphylla

Acacia anthochaera Monachather paradoxus

Acacia tetragonophylla Myriocephalus guerinae

Austrostipa elegantissima Olearia dampieri subsp. eremicola

Brunonia australis Ptilotus gaudichaudii

Calotis hispidula Ptilotus obovatus

Cephalipterum drummondii Ptilotus polystachyus

*Cuscuta planiflora Rhagodia drummondii

Dianella revoluta var. divaricata Rhodanthe polycephala

Dodonaea inaequifolia Schoenia cassiniana

Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Eremophila clarkei Thysanotus manglesianus

Erodium cygnorum Trachymene ornata

Eucalyptus horistes Velleia discophora

Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis Velleia rosea

Feldstonia nitens Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata



Maireana carnosa


m a i a P a g e | 6 4

Site: K12 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Lower footslopes of main range, almost an undulating stony plain.

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Laterite pebbles, gravel and stones.


Vegetation Association: Open Mid Shrubland of Eremophila clarkei with an Open Low Shrubland of Mirbelia microphylla and Low Open Mallee Woodland of Eucalyptus oldfieldii and Eucalyptus horistes.

Disturbance Details: Evidence of previous clearing and rehab evident from mining activities 20+ years ago. The soil has been ripped and there are deep uniform furrows across the entire area. Weeds.


Species

Acacia acuminata Marsdenia australis

Acacia andrewsii Monachather paradoxus

Acacia anthochaera Myriocephalus guerinae

Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Olearia humilis

Acacia coolgardiensis Ptilotus obovatus

Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Rhagodia drummondii

*Arctotheca calendula Scaevola spinescens

Austrostipa elegantissima Trachymene ornata

Calotis hispidula Velleia discophora

Dianella revoluta var. divaricata Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata


Eremophila clarkei

Eucalyptus horistes

Eucalyptus oldfieldii

Feldstonia nitens

Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma

Hemigenia sp. Yalgoo (A.M. Ashby 2624)

Hibbertia arcuata

Maireana carnosa

Maireana georgei


m a i a P a g e | 6 5

Site: K13 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Lower footslope (Negligible to very gentle slope).

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Many ironstone and laterite pebbles with stones.


Vegetation Association: Low Open Mallee Woodland of Eucalyptus horistes with a Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia anthochaera, Sparse Low Shrubland of Acacia andrewsii and Mirbelia microphylla and Isolated Low Shrubs of Eremophila clarkei.

Disturbance Details: Fenceline and track nearby.


Species

Acacia acuminata Rhagodia drummondii

Acacia andrewsii Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Acacia anthochaera Solanum lasiophyllum

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Stenopetalum anfractum

Arthropodium dyeri Velleia discophora

Austrostipa elegantissima Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata



Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa

Eremophila clarkei

Eucalyptus horistes

Feldstonia nitens


Maireana carnosa

Maireana georgei


Olearia humilis

Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei

Pimelea angustifolia

Ptilotus obovatus


m a i a P a g e | 6 6

Site: K14 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Lower footslope (negligible to very gentle slope).

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Continuous laterite with ironstone pebbles and stones.


Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla with Isolated Mid Shrubs of Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis and Isolated Low Shrubs of Xanthosia kochii.

Disturbance Details: Weeds.


Species

Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Rhodanthe polycephala

Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Solanum cleistogamum

Aluta aspera subsp. hesperia Stylidium confluens

Aristida contorta Thysanotus manglesianus

Arthropodium dyeri Trachymene ornata

Bellida graminea Velleia rosea

Brunonia australis Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Xanthosia kochii

*Cuscuta planiflora


Erodium cygnorum


Grevillea paradoxa


Lobelia heterophylla

Melaleuca cordata




Podolepis lessonii


m a i a P a g e | 6 7

Site: K15 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Lower slope to plain (very gentle slope).

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Continuous ironstone with laterite pebbles.


Vegetation Association: Low Open Mallee Woodland of Eucalyptus oldfieldii and Eucalyptus horistes with Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis with a Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia acuminata, Sparse Mid Shrubland of Scaevola spinescens and Eremophila clarkei and Sparse Low Shrubland of Acacia andrewsii and Mirbelia microphylla.

Disturbance Details: Evidence of feral animals.


Species

Acacia acuminata Ptilotus obovatus

Acacia andrewsii Rhagodia drummondii

Acacia anthochaera Rhodanthe polycephala

Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Scaevola spinescens

Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)

Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Thysanotus manglesianus

Alyxia buxifolia Trachymene ornata

Arthropodium dyeri Velleia discophora

Austrostipa elegantissima Velleia rosea

Comesperma volubile Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata



Eremophila clarkei

Eucalyptus horistes

Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis

Eucalyptus oldfieldii

Hemigenia sp. Yalgoo (A.M. Ashby 2624)


Maireana carnosa



m a i a P a g e | 6 8

Site: K16 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Footslope (gentle to moderate slope).

Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Laterite with ironstone stones with some pebbles and boulders.


Vegetation Association: Tall Shrubland Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla with Melaleuca cordata with a Sparse Mid Shrubland of Allocasuarina campestris and Sparse Low Shrubland of Xanthosia bungei.

Disturbance Details: Track nearby; goats; weeds.


Species

Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Lawrencella davenportii

Allocasuarina campestris Lobelia heterophylla

Amphipogon caricinus var. caricinus Melaleuca cordata

Arthropodium dyeri Melaleuca nematophylla

Astroloma serratifolium Melaleuca uncinata

Austrostipa elegantissima Millotia dimorpha (P1)

Brachyscome ciliocarpa Mirbelia microphylla

Brunonia australis Monachather paradoxus

Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei

*Cuscuta planiflora Solanum cleistogamum

Cyanicula amplexans Stenopetalum anfractum

Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Stylidium confluens

Dioscorea hastifolia Stypandra glauca

Diuris corymbosa Thysanotus manglesianus

Drosera macrantha Trachymene ornata

Gonocarpus nodulosus Velleia rosea

Goodenia occidentalis Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata

Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma Xanthosia bungei

Grevillea paradoxa

Hibbertia arcuata


m a i a P a g e | 6 9

APPENDIX 3: STATISTICAL ANALYSES – HR, PCV AND DBH

Statistical analyses – Health Rating (HR)

HR, Baseline to 2015

Plant HR data are not normal, the data is ordinal and the measurements are repeated on the same plants. As a

result a Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was performed on the data to compare mean HR at baseline and 2015

assessments. The following hypotheses were tested:

HO: The shift in the location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.

HA: The shift in the location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.

The results of the test (Table A3.1) indicate that HR data collected at baseline and 2015 are not the same at the

5% significance level (p = <0.0001). Overall, the plants were less healthy in 2015 than when first measured.

Table A3.1: Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, HR baseline and 2015

Sign n Rank sum Mean rank

Positive 24 1538.0 64.08

Negative 127 9938.0 78.25

Zero 76

Median difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) -0.5

95.02% Cl -0.5 to -0.5

T statistic 1538.00

Z approximation -8.28

p-value <0.0001

Note: n = sample size, p = probability, Cl = confidence interval.

Tests were carried out to determine whether the change in HR between baseline and 2015 assessments differed

between impact and control groups, treatment groups (1 – 7) and between the three FCTs (FCT 3, FCT 4 and FCT

5). The results of these analyses follow. Treatment group numbers (1 – 7) used and discussed in the following

section are those indicated in column 1 of Table 4.9.

HR, Impact and Control Groups

To determine whether there are differences in change in HR between impact and control groups the non-

parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was performed on the data (because they are not normal and sample

size not equal). The following hypotheses were tested:

HO: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.

HA: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.

The results of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Table A3.2) indicate that the shift in location between the

distributions of the populations is not equal to 0 when tested at the 5% significance level (p = <0.0001). The

impact group population health has become more negative than the control group population.


m a i a P a g e | 7 0

Table A3.2: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, change in HR, impact and control

Treatment and test results n Rank sum Mean rank

Impact 86 7818.0 90.91

Control 141 18060.0 128.09

Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) -1.0

95.02% CI -1.0 – 0.0

W statistic 7818.00


p-value <0.0001


HR, Floristic Community Types

The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the HR data to determine whether the change in plant

health between baseline and 2015 assessments is the same in each of the FCTs. The null and alternative

hypotheses tested were:

HO: The median of the FCT populations are all equal.

HA: The median of the FCT populations are not all equal.

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups is not significant at the 5% significance level (p = 0.7930)

(Table A3.3). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the median of the FCT populations are equal and there is

no difference in HR between FCTs.

Table A3.3: Kruskal-Wallis test, change in HR, FCTs

FCT and test results n Rank sum Mean rank

FCT 3 114 80.8 0.71

FCT 4 60 440.1 7.34

FCT 5 53 1260.8 23.79

Kruskal-Wallis' statistic (H statistic) 0.46

X2 approximation 0.46

DF 2

p-value 0.7930

Note: n = sample size, p = probability, X2 = chi squared.

HR, Treatment Groups

The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the HR data to determine whether the change in plant

health between baseline and 2015 assessments is the same in each of the seven treatment groups. The null and

alternative hypotheses tested were:

HO: The median of the treatment group populations are all equal.

HA: The median of the treatment group populations are not all equal.


m a i a P a g e | 7 1

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the seven treatment groups is significant at the 5% significance level

(p = <0.0001) (Table A3.4). Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted –

the medians of the treatment group populations are not all equal.

Table A3.4: Kruskal-Wallis test, change in HR, treatment group


1 45 73649.3 1636.65

2 32 15753.1 492.29

3 37 39341.7 1063.29

4 18 1104.5 61.36

5 42 2193.1 52.22

6 23 26.1 1.13

7 30 1825.2 60.84



DF 6

p-value <0.0001

Note: n = sample size, p = probability, X2 = chi squared, DF = degrees of freedom.

As the result of the Kruskal-Wallis test was significant, multiple contrasts were carried out (using the Bonferroni

correction) to determine between which treatment group differences in the medians occur. The results of these

contrasts are listed in Table A3.5. Three of the contrasts have a significant p-value (<0.05) when a 5% significance

level is used (shaded rows in Table A3.5). The plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites within the dust buffer zone)

have become less healthy than those in treatment groups 2, 3 and 5 (FCT 3 control sites 1,500 m from the pit; FCT

3 control sites 150 m from the pit; FCT 4 control sites).

Table A3.5: Multiple contrasts (change in HR from baseline to 2015, treatment groups) - using Bonferroni

correction

Contrast Difference p-value

Change in HRT1 v Change in HRT2 -62.6431 0.0001

Change in HRT1 v Change in HRT3 -73.0637 <0.0001






Change in HRT2 v Change in HRT4 30.0208 1.0000







m a i a P a g e | 7 2

Contrast Difference p-value









Note: HRT1 to HRT7 = health rating treatment groups 1 – 7.

Statistical analyses – Projected Canopy Volume (PCV)

PCV, Baseline to 2015

Before any statistical analyses were carried out the data checks were carried out. Three outliers in the FCT 5

control group and one in the FCT 5 impact group were obvious in the PCV data and these were removed from the

dataset before analysis.

The mean PCV recorded for plants repeatedly assessed at the baseline and 2015 assessments are listed in Table

A3.6, PCV increased between baseline and 2014 assessments.

Table A3.6: Mean PCV, baseline and 2015

Assessment Number of plants measured consecutively Overall mean PCV (m3) Standard

deviation

Baseline 226 4.05 12.22

2015 5.35 19.04

A non-parametric repeated measures t-test equivalent, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, was performed on the

baseline and 2015 PCV data. The following hypotheses were tested:



The results of the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (Table A3.7) indicate that the mean ranks of PCV at baseline and

2015 assessments are the same and is significant at the 5% significance level (p = <0.0001). Therefore, the null

hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted –the PCV is larger in 2015 compared with when first

measured.

Table A3.7: Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, PCV baseline and 2015

Difference between pairs n Rank sum Mean rank

Positive 221 24531.0 111.0

Negative 0 0.0 -

Zero 1

Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) 1.615


m a i a P a g e | 7 3


95.02% CI 1.235 – 1.980

Wilcoxon’s statistic (T statistic) 24531.00

Z approximation 12.89

p-value <0.0001


Tests were carried out to determine whether the change in PCV between baseline and 2015 assessments differs

between all control and impact sites, between sites in the three FCTs and the seven different treatment groups.

The results of these analyses follow. Treatment group numbers (1 – 7) used and discussed in the following section

are those indicated in column 1 of Table 4.10.

PCV, Impact and Control Groups

To determine whether there are differences in change in PCV between impact and control groups the non-





The results of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Table A3.8) indicate that the shift in location between the

distributions of the populations is equal to 0 when tested at the 5% level (p = 0.2212).

Table A3.8: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, change in PCV, impact and control


Impact 85 10046.5 118.19

Control 137 14706.5 107.35

Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) 0.110

95.02% CI -0.060 – 0.390

W statistic 10046.50

Z approximation 1.22

p-value 0.2212


PCV, Floristic Community Types

To determine whether there are differences in change in proportional canopy volume between FCT groups the

non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the data. The following hypotheses were tested:

HO: The median of the populations are all equal.

HA: The median of the populations are not all equal.

The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups is significant at the 5% significance level, the test statistic is

less than 0.05 (p = 0.0910) (Table A3.9). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the median of the FCT

populations are equal and there is no difference in PCV between FCTs.


m a i a P a g e | 7 4

Table A3.9: Kruskal-Wallis test, change in PCV, FCTs


FCT 3 113 9090.1 80.44

FCT 4 60 2325.0 38.75

FCT 5 49 8359.2 170.60

Kruskal-Wallis H statistic 4.79


DF 2

p-value 0.0910


PCV, Treatment Groups

To determine whether there are differences in change in PCV between the different treatment groups (i.e. sites at

different locations and in different FCTs) the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the data. The

following hypotheses were tested:




statistic is less than 0.05 (p = 0.1067) (Table A3.10). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the median of the

FCT populations are equal and there is no difference in PCV between treatment groups.

Table A3.10: Kruskal-Wallis Test, change in PCV, treatment groups

Treatment group and test results n Rank sum Mean rank

1 45 149.4 3.32

2 31 943.3 30.43

3 37 15631.4 422.47

4 18 15341.7 852.32

5 42 550.1 13.10

6 22 715.9 32.54

7 27 9804.1 363.11



DF 6

p-value 0.1067



m a i a P a g e | 7 5

Statistical analyses – Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

DBH, Baseline to 2015

Before any statistical analyses were carried out the data checks were carried out. One outlier in the FCT 5 control

group, two outliers in the FCT 3 150 m control group and two in the FCT 4 control group were obvious in the DBH

data and these were removed from the dataset before analysis.

The mean DBH recorded for those plants assessed each year between baseline and 2015 are listed in Table A3.11;

there appears to have been a small increase in mean DBH between baseline and 2015 assessments.

Table A3.11: Overall mean DBH, baseline and 2015

Assessment Number of Plants Measured Consecutively Overall Mean DBH (mm) Standard Deviation

Baseline 140 38.18 35.23

2015 39.75 35.54

The non-parametric repeated measures t-test equivalent, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, was performed on DBH

data to compare baseline DBH with that in 2015.

The following hypotheses were tested:

HO: The shift in the location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.

HA: The shift in the location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.

The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Table A3.12) indicate that the shift in location between the

distributions of the DBH data collected at the baseline and 2015 assessments is not the same (p = 0.0065 at the 5%

significance level). DBH has increased since baseline assessment.

Table A3.12: Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, DBH, baseline and 2015


Positive 49 3351.0 68.39

Negative 86 5829.0 67.78

Zero 0

Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift)

-1.790

95.03% CI -3.010 to -0.530

Wilcoxon’s statistic (T statistic) 3351.00


p-value 0.0065


Tests were carried out to determine whether the change in DBH between baseline and 2015 assessments differs

between control and impact sites, between sites in the seven different treatment groups and in the three FCTs.

The results of these analyses follow. Treatment group numbers (1 – 7) used and discussed in the following section

are those indicated in column 1 of Table 4.11.


m a i a P a g e | 7 6

DBH, Impact and Control Groups

To determine whether there are differences in change in DBH between impact and control groups the non-





The results of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Table A3.13) were not significant (P => 0.05) indicate that the

shift in the distributions of the populations arose through sampling effects and the independent variable

(treatment) had no influence on the change in DBH between impact and control groups.

Table A3.13: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, change in DBH, impact and control

Treatment and test results n Rank Sum Mean Rank

Impact 56 3465.0 61.88

Control 79 5715.0 72.34

Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) -2.14

95.03% CI -4.72 to 0.47

W statistic 3465.00


p-value 0.1256


DBH, Floristic Community Types

To determine whether there are differences in change in DBH between FCT groups the non-parametric Kruskal-

Wallis test was performed on the data. The following hypotheses were tested:



The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups is significant, the test statistic is less than 0.05 (p = 0.0033

at the 5% significance level) (Table A3.14). Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative

hypothesis is accepted – the median of the populations are not all equal.

Table A3.14: Kruskal-Wallis test, change in DBH, FCTs


FCT 3 61 7782.3 127.58

FCT 4 41 9634.4 234.99

FCT 5 33 110.9 3.36

Kruskal-Wallis H statistic 11.46


DF 2

p-value 0.0033



m a i a P a g e | 7 7

As the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic was significant multiple contrasts, using the Bonferroni correction, were carried

out between the three different FCTs to determine which groups differed. The results of these contrasts are

presented in Table A3.15. Significant differences occur between FCT 3 and FCT 4 and the change in DBH between

baseline and 2015 in FCT 4 is less than that in FCT 3.

Table A3.15: Multiple contrasts (change in DBH from baseline to 2015 in FCT Groups) - using Bonferroni

correction

Contrasts Difference P value

FCT 3 v FCT 4 -26.6244 0.0019

FCT 3 v FCT 5 -13.1284 0.3280

FCT 4 v FCT 5 13.4959 0.3843

DBH, Treatment Groups

To determine whether there are differences in change in DBH between the different treatment groups (i.e. sites at

different locations and in different FCTs) the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the data. The

following hypotheses were tested:




statistic is less than 0.05 (p = 0.0318) (Table A3.16). Therefore the null hypothesis is not accepted – the median of

the populations are not all equal.

Table A3.16: Kruskal-Wallis Test, change in DBH, treatment groups

Treatment group and test results n Rank sum Mean rank

1 25 1204.5 48.18

2 18 1153.0 64.06

3 20 1501.0 75.05

4 14 1288.0 92.00

5 29 2213.0 76.31

6 18 1225.0 68.06

7 16 1285.5 80.34



DF 6

p-value 0.0318


As the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic was significant pairwise multiple contrasts were then carried out between the

different treatment groups (using the Bonferroni correction) to determine which groups differed significantly.

One of the contrasts has a significant p-value when a 5% significance level is used (shaded row in Table A3.17) -

the contrast between T1 and T4. The change in DBH of plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites within the dust

buffer zone) between baseline and 2015 is less than that in treatment group 4 (FCT 4 control sites).


m a i a P a g e | 7 8

Table A3.17: Multiple Contrasts (change in DBH from baseline to 2015, treatment groups) - using Bonferroni

Correction

Contrasts Difference P value

T1 v T2 -15.8756 1.0000

T1 v T3 -26.8700 0.5131

T1 v T4 -43.8200 0.0231

T1 v T5 -28.1303 0.2064

T1 v T6 -19.8756 1.0000

T1 v T7 -32.1638 0.2479

T2 v T3 -10.9944 1.0000

T2 v T4 -27.9444 1.0000

T2 v T5 -12.2548 1.0000

T2 v T6 -4.0000 1.0000

T2 v T7 -16.2882 1.0000

T3 v T4 -16.9500 1.0000

T3 v T5 -1.2603 1.0000

T3 v T6 6.9944 1.0000

T3 v T7 -5.2938 1.0000

T4 v T5 15.6897 1.0000

T4 v T6 23.9444 1.0000

T4 v T7 11.6563 1.0000

T5 v T6 8.2548 1.0000

T5 v T7 -4.0334 1.0000

T6 v T7 -12.2882 1.0000

Note: T1 to T7 = DBH treatment groups 1 – 7.

Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka ......Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited:...

Documents

Transcript of Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka ......Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited:...