parker range (mt caudan) iron ore project...the parker range iron ore project mt caudan deposit...
TRANSCRIPT
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 1 of 21
Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project
MS1054 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT 2019-2020 Proponent: Polaris Metals Pty Ltd
Address: 1 Sleat Road, Applecross, WA 6153
Postal Address: Locked Bag 3, Canning Bridge LPO, Applecross, WA 6153
Contact: Tim Berryman Phone: +61 8 9329 3713 Email: [email protected]
12 June 2020
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 2 of 21
Revision History
Revision
Number Issue Date Prepared By Reviewed By Distribution
A 12/06/2020 N Smith T Berryman DWER
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 3 of 21
CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 The Proponent ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Objective .......................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Compliance Audit Table ............................................................................................................................. 5
3. Statement of Compliance ........................................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Internal Audits ............................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 External Audits .............................................................................................................................. 13
4. Non-complainces and Corrective Actions ................................................................................................ 13
4.0 Non compliances ........................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Corrective actions .......................................................................................................................... 13
5. Monitoring Results................................................................................................................................... 13
5.1 Vegetation and Weed Monitoring ................................................................................................. 13
5.2 Significant Flora monitoring .......................................................................................................... 14
5.3 Fauna Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 14
6. Company endorsement by general Manager Environment of mineral resources limited ...................... 16
7. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF THE COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT ........................................................ 17
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................... 18
APPENDIX 2: PHOENIX (2020) BASELINE HEALTH ASSESSMENT OF VEGETATION AND WEED MONITORING FOR
THE PARKER RANGE IRON ORE PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX 3: PHOENIX (2020) BASELINE SIGNIFICANT FLORA PLANT HEALTH MONITORING FOR THE PARKER
RANGE IRON ORE PROJECT.............................................................................................................................. 20
APPENDIX 4: PHOENIX (2020) BASELINE MALLEEFOWL MONITORING REPORT FOR THE PARKER RANGE IRON
ORE PROJECT ................................................................................................................................................... 21
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 4 of 21
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd (Cazaly) received approval by the Minister for Environment; Water on 12 April 2012 to develop the Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project (Project) approximately 15 km southeast of the town of Marvel Loch in the Shire of Yilgarn in the Eastern Wheatbelt of Western Australia.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) issued Ministerial Statement 1060 to Cazaly on the 17 July 2017 to amend Condition 3 on Ministerial Statement 892 to extend the time limit of authorisation to the 12 April 2022.
The Parker Range Iron Ore Project Mt Caudan Deposit (PRIOP) was recently acquired by Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) (through Polaris Metals Pty Ltd (Polaris), a 100% owned Subsidiary of MRL) from Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd in August 2019.
Polaris propose to mine iron ore from the Parker Range deposit by conventional open pit hard rock mining methods at a rate of approximately 5 Mtpa. The estimated life of the mine is 6 years based on current economically mineable JORC resources.
Approximately 62 Mt of waste rock is expected to be generated from the mining operation.
Implementation of the proposed Project is expected to occur in July 2020 (subject to all necessary approvals being obtained and compliance with all relevant conditions of approvals).
1.2 The Proponent
Following the Asset Sale Agreement and pursuant to section 38(6) and 38(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (EP Act), Polaris was nominated as the person responsible for the Proposal.
Proponent: Polaris Metals Pty Ltd
Address: 1 Sleat Road, Applecross, WA 6153
Postal Address: Locked Bag 3, Canning Bridge LPO, Applecross, WA 6153
Phone: +61 8 9329 3600
ABN: 18 0852 235 70
1.3 Objective
The objective of this document is to provide a Compliance Assessment Report (CAR) to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) in accordance with condition 4-6 of Ministerial Statement No. 892 and the Compliance Assessment Plan approved on 12 July 2013. The CAR covers the Project’s status of compliance with Ministerial Statement 892 for the period 12 April 2019 to 12 April 2020.
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 5 of 21
2. COMPLIANCE AUDIT TABLE
Project – Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project
o Phases that apply in this table = Pre-Construction, Construction, Operation, Decommissioning, Overall (several phases).
o The Audit Table provides a summary interpretation of the condition requirements applying to the Proposal under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA). Please refer to the Statement approval issued for the Proposal for the agreed condition wording and abbreviations.
o Code prefixes: M = Minister’s condition, P = Proponent’s commitment.
o Acronyms list: CEO = Chief Executive Officer of the OEPA; DEC = Department of Environment and Conservation (now separately DBCA (Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and DWER (Department of Water and Environmental Regulation)); DIA = Department of Indigenous Affairs (now DPLH (Department of Planning Lands and Heritage)); DMP = Department of Mines and Petroleum (now Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS)); EPA = Environmental Protection Authority; DoH = Department of Health; DoW = Department of Water (Amalgamated into DWER), Minister for Env = Minister for the Environment; OEPA = Office of the Environmental Protection Authority.
o Compliance Status: C = Compliant, CLD = Completed, NA = Not Audited, NC = Non-compliant, NR = Not Required at this stage. Please note the terms VR = Verification Required and IP = In Process.
Audit Code Subject Action How Evidence Satisfy Advice Phase When Status Further information
892:M1.1 Proposal Implementation
The proponent shall implement the proposal as documented and described in schedule 1 of this statement subject to the conditions and procedures of this statement.
Implement project in accordance with criteria outlined in Schedule 1.
Compliance Assessment Report.
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing NR Project not commenced.
892:M2.1 Proponent Nomination and Contact Details
The proponent for the time being nominated by the Minister for Environment under sections 38(6) or 38(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 is responsible for the implementation of the proposal.
Notify of any change in proponent details in writing.
Compliance Assessment Reports identifying the Name of Polaris (the proponent).
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing C Polaris is the proponent.
892:M2.2 Proponent Nomination and Contact Details
The proponent shall notify the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (CEO) of any change of the name and address of the proponent for the serving of notices or other correspondence within 30 days of such change.
Notify the CEO of any change in proponent details in writing.
Copy of written notification of the CEO of any change in proponent details.
CEO Overall Within 30 days of such change
NR No change.
892:M3.1 Time Limit of Authorisation
The authorisation to implement the proposal provided for in this statement shall lapse and be void five years after the date of this statement if the proposal to which this statement relates is not substantially commenced.
Notify in writing. Copy of written notification to CEO of substantial commencement.
CEO Overall Prior to 12 April 2022
NR Project not commenced. Cazaly submitted a request to the EPA on 28 June 2016 (s46) to extend MS892 commencement timeframe to 12 April 2022.
The EPA issued Statement 1060 on the 17 July 2017 to amend Condition 3 on MS 892 to extend the time limit of authorisation to 12 April 2022.
892:M3.2 Time Limit of Authorisation
The proponent shall provide the CEO with written evidence which demonstrates that the proposal has substantially commenced on or before the expiration of five years from the date of this statement.
Provide evidence to the CEO in writing to demonstrate the proposal has substantially commenced. Include photographs.
Copy of written notification to CEO of substantial commencement.
CEO Overall Prior to 12 April 2022
NR Project not commenced.
892:M4.1 Compliance Reporting
The proponent shall prepare and maintain a compliance assessment plan to the satisfaction of the CEO.
Preparation of a Compliance Assessment Plan (CAP) and an audit table in compliance with the requirements of the OEPA.
Approved CAP.
Endorsement of CAP by DWER.
CEO Overall Originally due by 12 January 2013, then 28 June 2013.
C CAP submitted to the then OEPA 28 June 2013. Final CAP re-submitted 10 July 2013, approved 12 July 2013.
892:M4.2 Compliance Reporting
The proponent shall submit to the CEO the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1 at least six months prior to the first compliance report required by condition 4-6, or prior to implementation, whichever is sooner. The compliance assessment plan shall indicate: 1. the frequency of compliance reporting; 2. the approach and timing of compliance assessments; 3. the retention of compliance assessments; 4. the method of reporting of potential non-compliances and
corrective actions taken; 5. the table of contents of compliance assessment reports; and 6. public availability of compliance assessment reports.
The compliance assessment plan shall indicate: 1. the frequency of compliance reporting; 2. the approach and timing of compliance assessments; 3. the retention of compliance assessments; 4. Reporting of potential non-compliances and corrective actions taken; 5. the table of contents of compliance reports; and 6. public availability of compliance reports.
Approved CAP.
Endorsement of CAP by DWER.
CEO Pre- construction
Originally due by 12 January 2013, then 28 June 2013.
CLD CAP submitted to the then OEPA 28 June 2013. Final CAP re-submitted 10 July 2013, approved 12 July 2013.
892:M4.3 Compliance Reporting
The proponent shall assess compliance with conditions in accordance with the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1.
As specified in the CAP. Submission and Acknowledgement of receipt of completed audit table by OEPA.
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing C Completion of this audit table fulfills this condition.
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 6 of 21
892:M4.4 Compliance Reporting
The proponent shall retain reports of all compliance assessments described in the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1 and shall make those reports available when requested by the CEO.
Records and reports will be maintained in accordance with Polaris’ document management system requirements so that they can be retrieved if requested.
Availability at the request of the CEO.
CEO Overall When requested by the CEO.
C No requests received.
892:M4.5 Compliance Reporting
The proponent shall advise the CEO of any potential non- compliance within seven days of that non-compliance being known.
Notification to CEO in writing. Copy of written notification and acknowledgement of receipt of notification by DWER.
CEO Overall Within 7 days of non- compliance being known.
C No non-compliances in this period.
892:M4.6 Compliance Reporting
The proponent shall submit to the CEO the first compliance assessment report fifteen months from the date of issue of this statement addressing the twelve month period from the date of issue of this statement and then annually from the date of submission of the first compliance assessment report. The compliance assessment report shall: 1. be endorsed by the proponent’s Managing Director or a person delegated to sign on the Managing Director’s behalf; 2. include a statement as to whether the proponent has complied with the conditions; 3. identify all potential non-compliances and describe corrective and preventative actions taken; 4. be made publicly available in accordance with the approved compliance assessment plan; and 5. indicate any proposed changes to the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1.
In accordance with CAP. Acknowledgement of receipt of CAR by OEPA.
Endorsement of CAR by Director.
CAR uploaded to MRL website.
CEO Overall The first CAR was required to be submitted by 12 July 2013. A CAR is required annually on 12th
July from the date of submission of the first CAR.
C The first CAR was submitted by Cazaly to the CEO 12 July 2013. Placed on the Cazaly website on 31 July 2013.
Submission of this CAR and required content fulfills the annual CAR requirements and will be uploaded to the MRL website.
892:M5.1 Public Availability of Data
Subject to condition 5-2, within three months of approval by the CEO and for the remainder of the life of the proposal the proponent shall make publicly available, in a manner to the satisfaction of the CEO, all validated environmental data (including sampling design, sampling methodologies, empirical data and derived information products (e.g. maps)) relevant to the assessment of this proposal and implementation of this statement.
Access to environmental data via MRL website.
Availability of data.
CEO Overall Ongoing C Environmental data has been made available on the MRL website (www.mineralresources.com.au).
892:M5.2 Public Availability of Data
If any data referred to in condition 5-1 would: i. involve the disclosure of any data which is confidential or
commercially sensitive to the proponent or a third party including any model, formula or process which is a trade secret; or
ii. involve an infringement of copyright held by a third party, the proponent may submit a request for approval from the CEO to not make this data publically available. In making such a request the proponent shall provide the CEO with the data and an explanation and reasons why the data should not be made publically available.
Submission of request for approval from the CEO to not make this data publicly available.
Acknowledgement of request and acceptance by the DWER.
CEO Overall Ongoing NR No requests have been made to the CEO to not make data publically available.
892:M6.1 Flora and Vegetation
The proponent shall undertake monitoring of the health and abundance of vegetation within a 250 metre buffer area around areas approved for disturbance at the mine site and within a 125 metre buffer around the upper haul road as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 in schedule 1.
Environmental monitoring in accordance with M6.2
Vegetation Monitoring Report submitted with CAR.
Min for Env
Pre- construction then Overall
Ongoing NR Ground disturbing activities not yet commenced. Baseline surveys completed in spring of 2019 (refer to Appendix 2 - Phoenix (2020) Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project).
892:M6.2 Flora and Vegetation
The monitoring required under condition 6-1 is to commence prior to ground disturbing activities required for the implementation and operation of the proposal and be carried out to the requirements of the CEO on advice of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and will include: 1. the provision of baseline data; 2. identification of baseline and control sites; 3. definition of monitoring frequency, timing, intensity and replication; 4. definition of health and abundance; 5. identification of what and how parameters will be used to measure decline or rate of decline in health or abundance; and 6. definition of management responses required should a 25 per cent (or greater) decline in health or abundance be recorded.
Environmental monitoring in accordance with M6.2
Monitoring Report submitted with CAR.
CEO DEC Pre- construction then Overall
Ongoing NR Baseline surveys completed in spring of 2019 (refer to Appendix 2 - Phoenix (2020) Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project).
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 7 of 21
892:M6.3
Flora and Vegetation
Should the potential impact sites show a 25 per cent (or greater) decline in health or abundance as compared to the reference sites, the proponent shall provide a report to the CEO within 21 days of the decline being identified which: 1. describes the decline; and 2. provides information which allows determination of the likely root cause of the decline.
Provide report to the CEO of the decline being identified.
Acknowledgement of receipt of report by DWER within 21 days of the decline being identified.
CEO Overall Within 21 days of the decline being identified.
NR Ground disturbing activities not yet commenced.
892:M6.4 Flora and Vegetation
If the decline in health or abundance identified in condition 6-3 is determined by the CEO to be caused by activities undertaken in implementing the proposal the proponent shall implement the actions identified in condition 6-2-6 and continue to implement such actions until the CEO determines that the remedial actions may cease.
Implementation of actions in accordance with 6.2.6.
Correspondence with OEPA.
CEO Overall Ongoing NR Ground disturbing activities not yet commenced.
892:M6.5 Flora and Vegetation
The proponent shall undertake weed management to ensure that: 1. No new species of declared weeds and environmental weeds are
introduced into the proposal area and that the abundance and distribution of existing weeds is not increased as a direct or indirect result of implementation of the proposal.
2. Prior to ground disturbing activities the proponent shall undertake a baseline weed survey to determine the species and extent of declared weeds and environmental weeds present at weed monitoring sites within the project footprint including the mine area (schedule 1 Figure 2) and the upper haul road (schedule 1 Figure 3) and at least three reference sites on nearby undisturbed land beyond 200 metres from the disturbance footprint in consultation with the DEC.
3. To determine whether changes in weed cover and type within the project footprint have occurred and are likely to have resulted from implementation of the proposal or broader regional changes, monitoring of baseline and reference sites surveyed as required by condition 6-5-2 shall commence within one year after initial ground disturbing activity required for the implementation of the proposal. These sites are to be monitored annually for two years during the time of year agreed to by the CEO on advice of the DEC. Thereafter monitoring shall take place at least every two years at the time of year agreed above for the life of the proposal, with monitoring within a two year period to coincide with the year of any favourable rainfall events.
4. If the results of monitoring under condition 6-5-3 indicate that adverse changes in weed cover and type within the project footprint are proposal attributable, the proponent shall report the monitoring findings to the CEO and DEC within three months of completion of the monitoring and shall immediately undertake weed control and rehabilitation in the affected areas, where proposal attributable weed cover has adversely changed, using native flora species of local provenance.
5. The proponent shall continue to implement the remedial measures required by condition 6-5-4 until approval is given by the CEO to cease.
Weed monitoring plan to be developed and implemented.
Weed monitoring report submitted annually with CAR.
CEO, DEC DEC Pre- construction then Overall
Ongoing NR Ground disturbing activities not yet commenced. Baseline surveys completed in spring of 2019 (refer to Appendix 2 - Phoenix (2020) Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project).
892:M7.1 Conservation Significant Flora
The proponent shall ensure that there is no loss of plants of the Declared Rare Flora species Isopogon robustus due to ground disturbing activities.
DRF monitoring plan to be developed and implemented.
DRF monitoring report submitted annually with CAR.
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing NR Ground disturbing activities not yet occurred.
892:M7.2 Conservation Significant Flora
The proponent shall ensure the long term maintenance of genetic diversity of the Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan species within the Parker Range region through the following actions: 1. Prior to ground disturbing activities required for the implementation
and operation of the proposal, the proponent shall collect seed and plant material of the Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan populations that will be cleared as a result of this proposal. The seed and plant material will be vested in an appropriate facility which can ensure long-term viability of seed storage and protection of identified mother stock of genetic significance for storage and approved restoration works to the
Implementation of actions as required by M7.2.
Written notification from DEC re: appropriateness of proposed seed storage and stock. Written notification of storage details.
CEO DEC Overall Prior to disturbance. Ongoing
NR
Ground disturbing activities not yet occurred. Collection and storage of plant material completed, seeds unavailable to be collected (not in seed) – CEO has confirmed compliance with condition (DWER Ref: DWERT5033, DWERT5034, DWERT5037).
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 8 of 21
satisfaction of the CEO on advice of the DEC 2. The proponent shall undertake genetic analysis including:
a) Spatial analysis of population genetic structure; b) Genetic analysis of the mating system; and c) Genetic analysis of realized dispersal, to the satisfaction of the
CEO to determine the relative genetic diversity of the populations of Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and populations of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan using the seed and plant material collected in accordance with condition 7-2-1.
3. The proponent shall develop a rehabilitation and research program within six months of ground disturbing activities for Priority flora species with particular focus on the species Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range to the satisfaction of the CEO on advice of the DEC. This program shall:
a) include a time or timeframe for commencement and completion of the rehabilitation and research program;
b) focus on shallow soil analysis, water use efficiency, restoration practices, transplantation trials and seed trials;
c) be undertaken in consultation with the DEC; and d. be based on the nature of the impact on genetic diversity determined in condition 7- 2-2.
Submission of Genetic Analysis report with CAR Submission of results of action required by a rehabilitation and research program in the CAR
CLD NR
Genetic analysis completed by DPaW to fulfil this requirement. Report has been previously provided to DWER. Ground disturbing activities not yet commenced.
892:M7.3 Conservation Significant Flora
Prior to ground disturbing activities required for the implementation and operation of the proposal the proponent shall undertake a targeted survey of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range to the satisfaction of the CEO on the advice of the DEC to determine the local and regional impact to this species.
Undertake a targeted survey of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range to the satisfaction of the CEO on the advice of the DEC to determine the local and regional impact to this species.
Acknowledgement from DEC on adequateness of the report. Submission of survey report with CAR.
CEO DEC Pre- construction
Prior to ground disturbance.
C Survey report submitted to DWER on 28 February 2020. CEO has confirmed compliance with condition (DWER Ref: DWERT5033, DWERT5034, DWERT5037).
892:M7.4 Conservation Significant Flora
The proponent shall provide a copy of the survey report required in condition 7-3 to the CEO and the DEC within three months of completion.
Submission of the targeted survey report to the CEO and DEC within 3 months.
Acknowledgement from the DWER of receipt of report.
CEO, DEC Pre- construction
Within 3 months of completion of report.
C Survey report submitted to DWER on 28 February 2020. CEO has confirmed compliance with condition (DWER Ref: DWERT5033, DWERT5034, DWERT5037).
892:M7.5 Conservation Significant Flora
The proponent shall ensure that due to ground disturbing activities: there are no indirect impacts to the Declared Rare Flora
Isopogon robustus; and that indirect impacts to Priority 1 flora Lepidosperma sp. Mt
Caudan do not result in a loss of health and abundance outside the project footprint.
Undertake monitoring in accordance with M7.6 and M7.7.
Submission of monitoring results with CAR.
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing NR Proposal not yet implemented (i.e. no ground disturbance), not required at this stage. Baseline surveys completed in spring of 2019 (refer to Appendix 3 - Phoenix (2020) Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project).
892:M7.6 Conservation Significant Flora
To verify the requirements of 7-5 are met the proponent shall undertake monitoring in accordance with condition 7-7 of the health and abundance of declared rare flora Isopogon robustus and Priority 1 flora Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan at reference and potential impact sites.
Undertake environmental monitoring in accordance the monitoring plan required in accordance with M7.7.
Submission of monitoring results with CAR.
Min for Env
Pre- construction then Overall
Ongoing NR Proposal not yet implemented (i.e. no ground disturbance), not required at this stage. Baseline surveys completed in spring of 2019 (refer to Appendix 3 - Phoenix (2020) Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project).
892:M7.7 Conservation Significant Flora
To meet the requirements under condition 7-6 the proponent shall prepare a monitoring plan prior to ground disturbing activities for the approval of the CEO on advice of the DEC. The monitoring plan shall include: 1. the provision of baseline data; 2. identification of baseline and control sites; 3. definition of monitoring frequency, timing, intensity and replication; 4. definition of health and abundance; 5. identification of what and how parameters will be used to measure
decline or rate of decline in health or abundance; and 6. definition of trigger levels and management responses.
Preparation of monitoring plan in accordance with the DEC
Written notification of submission and written approval of the plan from the DWER.
CEO DEC Pre- construction then Overall
Prior to ground disturbance.
C Significant Flora Monitoring and Management Plan approved by CEO 20 May 2020 (DWER Ref: DWERT5033, DWERT5034, DWERT5037).
892:M7.8 Conservation Significant Flora
Should the potential impact sites show a decline in health or abundance as determined by condition 7-7 compared to the reference sites the proponent shall provide a report to the CEO within 21 days of the decline being identified which: 1. describes the decline; and 2. provides information which allows determination of the likely root
cause of the decline.
Preparation and submission of report outlining the decline within 21 days to the DWER.
Acknowledgement of receipt of report by DWER within 21 days.
CEO Overall Within 21 days of the decline being identified.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 9 of 21
892:M7.9 Conservation Significant Flora
If the decline in health or abundance identified in conditions 7-7 and 7-8 is determined by the CEO to be caused by activities undertaken in implementing the proposal the proponent shall, implement the actions identified in condition 7-7-6 and continue to implement such actions until the CEO determines that the remedial actions may cease.
Implement the actions identified in the monitoring plan.
Remedial actions to be presented in the CAR and advised to the DWER.
CEO Overall Ongoing NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M8.1 Fauna The proponent shall avoid, or where this is unavoidable minimise the loss of conservation significant fauna such as the Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata), Western Rosella (Platycerus icterotis xanthogenys) and the White-browed Babbler (Pomatstomus superciliosus).
Maintenance of speed limits. Disturbance limited to that in Schedule 1.
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing NR Proposal not yet implemented (i.e. no ground disturbance), not required at this stage.
892:M8.2 Fauna To meet the requirements of condition 8-1 the proponent shall ensure that a maximum 40 kilometre per hour speed limit is enforced on all roads within the mine area as indicated in Figure 2 of schedule 1 (with the exception of the Parker Range Bypass Road public road) and a maximum of 60 kilometres per hour along the upper haul road as indicated in Figure 3 of schedule 1 during implementation of the proposal.
Enforcement of all speed limits. Random monitoring of vehicle speeds by Polaris personnel and reported in the CAR.
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M8.3 Fauna The proponent shall record and report the death or injury of any fauna protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or Scheduled species under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 as a result of the implementation of this proposal to the CEO on the advice of the DEC within seven days of that death or injury being known.
Maintenance of records and notification to the DWER of any death or injury of fauna protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016
Submission of records and acknowledgement from the DWER on receipt of notification.
CEO Overall Within 7 days of that injury or death being known.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M8.4 Fauna The proponent may clear one inactive Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) mound within the mine footprint at the following coordinates 741160E and 6498677N identified in schedule 1 Figure 6.
Clearing limited to only that approved. Clearing undertaken to be reported in CAR.
Min for Env
Pre- construction
During clearing activities.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M8.5 Fauna The proponent shall ensure that the proposal does not adversely affect the population size of Malleefowl populations within one kilometre of the project area as identified in schedule 1 Figure 7.
Development and implementation of the Malleefowl Management Plan.
Results of monitoring to be reported in CAR.
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M8.6 Fauna To verify that the requirements of Condition 8-5 are met the proponent shall prepare a Malleefowl management plan prior to ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the CEO on advice of the DEC which requires the: 1. submission of baseline monitoring of Malleefowl habitat and, active
and inactive Malleefowl mounds, within one kilometre of the proposal area (schedule 1 Figure 7), prior to ground disturbing activities;
2. the determination of a level of impact including the reduction in number of active Malleefowl mounds and number of Malleefowl deaths based on the results of condition 8-6-1 which would indicate an adverse impact to local Malleefowl populations; and
3. monitoring of the numbers of active mounds and numbers of inactive mounds as identified in condition 8-6-1. This monitoring is to be carried out to the requirements of the CEO on advice of the DEC.
Development and implementation of the Malleefowl Management Plan. Monitoring undertaken in accordance with the Plan.
Written approval for the Malleefowl Management Plan. Results of monitoring to be reported in CAR.
CEO DEC Pre- construction Then Overall
Prior to ground disturbing activities.
NR Significant Fauna Management Plan approved by CEO 20 May 2020 (DWER Ref: DWERT5033, DWERT5034, DWERT5037).
892:M8.7 Fauna In the event that fauna mortalities reported under condition 8-3 and monitoring required by condition 8-6 indicate an adverse impact as defined under condition 8-6-2 on the abundance of the Malleefowl population within one kilometre of the proposal area: 1. the proponent shall report such findings to the CEO and the DEC
within 21 days of the decline being identified; 2. provide to the CEO the results of an investigation into the findings
and the potential cause of the decline; 3. if the adverse impact is determined by the CEO to be significant and
a result of activities undertaken in implementing the proposal, the proponent shall submit actions to be taken to remediate the decline to the CEO within 21 days of the determination made by the CEO; and
4. the proponent shall implement actions to remediate the decline in the health or abundance of Malleefowl populations upon approval of the CEO and shall continue until such time the CEO on the advice of the DEC determines that the remedial actions may cease.
Report such findings to the CEO and the DBCA within 21 days of the decline being identified; provide to the CEO the results of an investigation into the findings and the potential cause of the decline; if the adverse impact is determined by the CEO to be significant and a result of activities undertaken in implementing the proposal, the proponent shall submit actions to be taken to remediate the decline to the CEO within 21 days of the determination made by the CEO; and the proponent shall implement actions to remediate the decline in the health or abundance of Malleefowl populations upon approval of the CEO and shall continue until such time the CEO on the advice of the DBCA determines that the remedial actions may cease.
Acknowledgement of receipt of reports from the DWER. Results to be presented in the CAR.
CEO, DWER
Overall Within 21 days of the decline being identified. Within 21 days of determination of significant adverse impact. Ongoing
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 10 of 21
892:M9.1 Trench Management
The proponent shall ensure that open trenches associated with construction of underground pipelines are cleared of trapped fauna by fauna-rescue teams at least twice daily. Details of all fauna recovered shall be recorded, consistent with condition 9-5. The first daily clearing shall take place no later than three hours after sunrise and shall be repeated between the hours of 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. The open trenches shall also be cleared of trapped fauna by fauna- rescue teams, and fauna details recorded, no more than half an hour prior to backfilling of trenches.
A minimum of twice daily inspections of open trenches associated with construction of underground pipelines and clearing of trapped fauna.
Reporting of daily inspection records in the trench and fauna management report (M9.6) CAR.
Min for Env
Construction
A minimum of twice daily inspections during construction no later than 3 hours after sunrise and repeated between 3- 6pm). Ongoing during construction.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M9.2 Trench Management
The proponent shall ensure that a suitable number of fauna-rescue personnel involved in trench management shall obtain the appropriate licences as required for fauna rescue under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 prior to undertaking actions required by condition 9-1.
Ensure all fauna rescue personnel have appropriate fauna licences for fauna rescue.
Reporting of fauna personnel licence information in trench and fauna management report (M9.6) and CAR.
Min for Env
Construction
During construction.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M9.3 Trench Management
Open trench lengths shall not exceed a length capable of being inspected and cleared by the fauna-rescue teams within the required times as set out in condition 9-1. The length of trench that each fauna rescue team may inspect and clear in one day is not to exceed six kilometres per clearing period, unless otherwise agreed by the CEO on advice of the DEC.
The length of trench that each fauna rescue team may inspect and clear in one day is not to exceed six kilometres per clearing period, unless otherwise agreed by the CEO on advice of the DBCA.
Written agreement from CEO where 6km is to be exceeded.
CEO DBCA Construction
During construction.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M9.4 Trench Management
Trenches shall remain open no longer than 90 days without prior approval of the CEO.
Approval from CEO to be sought where trenches to remain open longer than 90 days.
Written approval from the CEO.
CEO Construction
During construction.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M9.5 Trench Management
Ramps with angles of repose no greater than 12 degrees, providing egress points and/or fauna refuges providing suitable shelter from the sun and predators for trapped fauna are to be placed in the trench at intervals not exceeding 50 metres
Installation of ramps, suitable egress points and suitable shelter at intervals not exceeding 50m.
Results of daily inspections in trench and fauna management report (M9.6) and CAR.
Min for Env
Construction
During construction.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M9.6 Trench Management
The proponent shall produce a report on trench and fauna management within the open trenches to be provided to the CEO and the DEC no later than 21 days after the completion of underground pipeline installation. The report shall include the following: 1. the dates of when specific sections of the trench (or the entirety
thereof) were opened and closed; 2. details of all fauna inspections including any dates when fauna
inspections were not undertaken; 3. details of the fauna teams undertaking the works (i.e. names and
accreditations); 4. the number and species of fauna cleared from trenches and their
release location details; and 5. fauna injuries and mortalities including where required under the
licence, vouchering of specimens to the standard required by the Museum of Western Australia.
Submission of report on trench and fauna management to the CEO no later than 21 days after the completion of underground installation.
Acknowledgement of receipt of the report from the DWER.
CEO, DBCA
Construction
No later than 21 days after the completion of underground pipe installation.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M9.7 Trench Management
In the event of a forecast of rainfall likely to cause partial or complete flooding of an open trench, all lengths of trench with potential to be flooded should be backfilled, with trench inspections and fauna clearing undertaken immediately prior to backfilling. The decision on whether the trench should be backfilled shall be undertaken in consultation with the DEC Department of Environment and Conservation
Liaise with the DBCA as to the requirement for trench backfilling where flooding could occur. When rainfall is forecast that is likely to cause partial or complete flooding of trenches.
Acknowledgement of consultation from the DBCA.
Min for Env
DBCA Construction
Prior to the rainfall event
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M9.8 Trench Management
All mortalities of fauna listed in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 including the cause, location, number, species and any actions shall be reported and taken to the CEO and the DEC within 48 hours of the mortality being identified.
Reporting of all fauna mortalities to the CEO and DBCA within 48 hours of the fauna mortality being identified.
Acknowledgement of receipt of the report from the CEO and DEC within 48 hours.
CEO, DBCA
Construction
Within 48 hours of mortality being identified.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M9.9 Trench Management
A euthanasia plan shall be prepared and approved by the DEC should the need arise to euthanize any injured fauna.
Development and approval of a Euthanasia Plan by the DBCA.
Written approval from the DBCA on the Euthanasia Plan.
DBCA Pre- construction
Prior to ground disturbing activities.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 11 of 21
892:M10.1 Residual Impacts and Risk Management Measures
The proponent shall implement Project A, Project B and Project C set out in this condition to mitigate residual impacts to conservation significant fauna, eight priority flora, and potential indirect impacts to a Declared Rare Flora.
Implementation of Projects A, B and C. Reporting in CAR. Min for Env
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M10.2 Residual Impacts and Risk Management Measures
Project A – Within six months of the date of this statement, unless otherwise agreed by the CEO, the proponent shall constitute the Parker Range Conservation Trust (PRCT) with:
a) a corporate trustee; b) a board of directors comprising a representative of the
proponent and an independent biodiversity expert with knowledge of the Parker Range region;
c) an advisory committee comprising environmental experts and representatives from interested stakeholder groups;
d) an initial purpose to strategically acquire land for rehabilitation and conservation;
e) a broad charter to study, conserve, manage and rehabilitate ecological communities in the Yilgarn Shire; and
f) an obligation to report annually on its activities to the DEC and the CEO.
Cazaly to constitute the PRCT with: a) a corporate trustee; b) a board of directors comprising a
representative of the proponent and an independent biodiversity expert with knowledge of the Parker Range region;
c) an advisory committee comprising environmental experts and representatives from interested stakeholder groups;
d) an initial purpose to strategically acquire land for rehabilitation and conservation;
e) a broad charter to study, conserve, manage and rehabilitate ecological communities in the Yilgarn Shire; and
f) an obligation to report annually on its activities to the DEC and the CEO.
Reporting in CAR. CEO, DEC Pre- construction or otherwise agreed to be CEO
Extension of 12 months from the date of substantial commencement to constitute the PRCT (DWER Ref: DWERT5089, REPORT20/69). Annual reporting on its activities to DBCA and CEO.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage. CEO has confirmed extension of 12 months from the date of substantial commencement to constitute the PRCT (DWER Ref: DWERT5089, REPORT20/69).
892:M10.3 Residual Impacts and Risk Management Measures
Project B – Within one year of the date of this statement, unless otherwise agreed by the CEO, the proponent shall contribute funds to the PRCT consistent with schedule 2 for the purpose of acquiring (in consultation with the DEC and the Department of Mines and Petroleum) at least 630 hectares of land for rehabilitation that will:
a) provide habitat preferred by the Western Rosella and Malleefowl;
b) be consistent with neighbouring native vegetation; and c) form habitat corridors between remnant native vegetation
where appropriate.
Contribute funds to the PRCT consistent with Schedule 2 to acquire 630 ha of land.
Details of land acquired to be reported in CAR.
CEO Pre- construction or otherwise agreed to be CEO
Extension of 12 months from the date of substantial commencement to contribute funds to the PRCT consistent with Schedule 2 to acquire 630 ha of land. (DWER Ref: DWERT5089, REPORT20/69).
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage. CEO has confirmed extension of 12 months from the date of substantial commencement to contribute funds to the PRCT consistent with Schedule 2 to acquire 630 ha of land. (DWER Ref: DWERT5089, REPORT20/69). The Fauna Offset Strategy has identified Lot 451 as the proposed land for acquisition for rehabilitation. DBCA has confirmed that Lot 451 presented in the Fauna Offset Strategy contains habitat suitable for Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) and Western Rosella (Platycerus icterotis xanthogenys).
892:M10.4 Residual Impacts and Risk Management Measures
If for any reason Project B is unsuccessful, the proponent will provide equivalent funds to the PRCT.
Correspondence with the DWER. Reporting in CAR. Min for Env
Overall As required. NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M10.5 Residual Impacts and Risk Management Measures
Project C – The proponent shall contribute funds to the PRCT at intervals consistent with the funding schedule in schedule 2 for the purposes of undertaking rehabilitation work associated with Project B and/or for additional research, rehabilitation, management and conservation projects consistent with the charter of the PRCT.
Contribution of funds to the PRCT at intervals consistent with schedule in Schedule 2 and Fauna Offset Strategy.
Details to be reported in CAR.
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing - As outlined in Schedule 2 and Fauna Offset Strategy.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M10.6 Residual Impacts and Risk Management Measures
The proponent shall fund Projects A, B and C in accordance with the financial commitments in schedule 2 adjusted by reference to the Perth consumer price index, with indexation against the 2011 base year.
Review of CPI and adjustment of fund structure reflected in Fauna Offset Strategy
Details to be reported in the CAR
Min for Env
Overall Ongoing - As outlined in Schedule 2 and Fauna Offset Strategy.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M10.7 Residual Impacts and Risk Management Measures
Upon completion of the proposal, including mine closure, the proponent shall use its best endeavours to ensure that the PRCT transfers the land acquired in Project B, plus any remaining funds in the PRCT, to the DEC or an alternative organisation on approval of the CEO, and the PRCT will be terminated.
Consultation with the PRCT and in consultation with the DBCA prepare a program for transfer of funds
Report endorsed by the DBCA and included in the CAR
CEO, DBCA
Decomm-issioning
Completion of proposal, including mine closure
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M11.1 Air Quality The proponent shall monitor dust emissions at the nearest sensitive receptors to the Liddell Road property (located at coordinates 698176E and 6533022N and identified in Figure 8) during implementation of the proposal against an ambient PM10 target of 50 micrograms per cubic metre averaged over a 24 hour period. Note: monitors should be sited in accordance with AS/NZS 3580.1.1:2007 or equivalent; and monitoring should be undertaken in accordance with AS/NZS 3580.9.6:2003, AS 3580.9.8-2008, AS/NZS 3580.9.11:2008, or equivalent.
Dust monitoring. Results of monitoring presented in CAR.
Min for Env
Operation
During implementation of the proposal
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M11.2 Air Quality In the event that dust emission levels are in excess of the PM10 target defined by condition 11-1, the proponent shall notify the CEO within seven days of the exceedance.
Notify the CEO within 7 days of exceedance. Acknowledgement of notification from the CEO within 7
CEO Operation
Within 7 days of exceedance
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 12 of 21
days.
892:M11.3 Air Quality The proponent shall within 14 days of the exceedance of the PM10 target defined by condition 11-1 being recorded, provide a report to the CEO outlining the causes for the exceedance and management measures being implemented to address the cause of the exceedance.
Submission of a report to the CEO within 14 days of an exceedance.
Acknowledgement of receipt of the report from the CEO within 14 days of exceedance.
CEO Operation
Within 14 days of exceedance.
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M11.4 Air Quality The proponent shall maintain a complaints register for the duration of the proposal and investigate any dust complaints within 24 hours and commence measures to address the cause of any dust complaints.
Maintain a complaints register for the duration of the proposal. Investigation of any dust complaints within 24 hours
Results to be presented in the CAR.
Min for Env
Operation
Ongoing during operations
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
892:M11.5 Air Quality The proponent shall submit annual reports on the PM10 concentrations at the Liddell Road property to the CEO and the Chief Executive Officer of the DEC. The report shall: 1. detail the methodology and results of the testing; 2. compare the results of the testing with the expected levels
described in the Parker Range Project: Air Quality Impact Assessment. Ecotech Pty Ltd, version P9(Final), February 2011;
3. identify management actions to be undertaken should actual emissions be higher than PM10 target of50 micrograms per cubic metre averaged over a 24 hour period; and
4. detail complaints received and measures taken to address the complaints
Submission of annual reports to the CEO and DEC with dust monitoring results
Acknowledgement of receipt of annual dust monitoring results or results presented in CAR
CEO, DEC Operation
Annually during operations
NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 13 of 21
3. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The Project is compliant with the conditions of MS 892. A ‘Statement of Compliance’ is attached as Appendix 1.
3.1 Internal Audits
As the Project has not commenced, no internal audits have been undertaken at this stage.
3.2 External Audits
No external audits of the Project’s compliance with MS 892 were undertaken during this reporting period.
4. NON-COMPLAINCES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
4.0 Non compliances
There were no non-compliances during this reporting period.
4.1 Corrective actions
None required.
5. MONITORING RESULTS
Baseline surveys were completed by Phoenix Environmental Sciences (Phoenix) in 2019-2020 in accordance with conditions 6, 7 and 8 of MS892.
5.1 Vegetation and Weed Monitoring
Condition 6 of MS 892 requires development of a monitoring plan for vegetation health and weed status and the completion of a baseline survey.
MRL commissioned Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd (Phoenix) to undertake a baseline survey in Spring of 2019 to assess vegetation health and weed establishment for the Project. A baseline survey to assess vegetation health and weed establishment was previously undertaken by Botanica Consulting for the Project in 2011. A total of 28 20 m x 20 m quadrats were installed:
16 quadrats within a 250 m buffer of the development envelope (impact sites)
Eight quadrats outside of the 250 m buffer (reference)
four weed monitoring quadrats adjacent to roads/vehicle access areas within the development envelope (weed sites).
Advice from Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) in 2019 to meet the conditions of MS 892 resulted in changes to the parameters to be measured for the baseline survey, however the same monitoring quadrats were revisited as part of the Phoenix survey.
The results of the baseline surveys are included in Phoenix (2020) Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (Appendix 2).
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 14 of 21
5.2 Significant Flora monitoring
Condition 7 requires development of a monitoring plan to detect impacts on significant flora from the mine construction and operation.
Phoenix was commissioned to undertake baseline surveys to assess plant health of Isopogon robustus (Threatened) and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (Priority 1). Following review of previous baseline surveys and advice from DWER on the outcomes and methodology to meet the conditions of MS 892, the parameters to be measured for the baseline surveys were revised. The DWER advice required:
amendments to the health scale to not include flowering as a measure of health;
identification of what and how parameters will be used to measure decline in health and abundance;
definition of plant health and abundance; and
clarification as to how any observed decline in health or abundance may be attributable to mining operations.
To satisfy the requirements of Condition 7-3 and 7-4, targeted surveys of populations of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (P1) were required to determine current population sizes, area of known occupancy and area of suitable habitat. This data was to be used to determine, impacts to the known population size and proportionate removal of known area of occupancy.
A literature review preceded the field survey to identify alternative vegetation health scales. In addition, previous reports were reviewed to determine plant numbers expected to be present in each impact monitoring quadrat and estimates of plant numbers in Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range populations.
Field work to assess the health of significant flora Isopogon robustus (Threatened) and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (Priority 1) involved sampling of twelve 20 m x 20 m quadrats at the Project. For the monitoring of Isopogon robustus a total of seven quadrats were sampled; six impact monitoring quadrats outside of the 250 m buffer and one reference quadrat. For Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan, a total of five quadrats were sampled; three impact monitoring quadrats and two reference quadrats.
The results of the baseline surveys are included in Phoenix (2020) Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (Appendix 3).
5.3 Fauna Monitoring
Condition 8 requires submission of baseline monitoring of Malleefowl habitat and, active and inactive Malleefowl mounds, within 1 km of the proposed area. To satisfy the requirements of Condition 8-6-1, Phoenix was commissioned to undertake a baseline Malleefowl mound monitoring survey.
A desktop review preceded the field survey to identify previously recorded Malleefowl mounds within the development envelope. In addition, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys were conducted to detect potential Malleefowl mounds in the development envelope and 2 km buffer. The desktop review identified 53 mounds recorded by the Malleefowl Preservation Group (2011a, 2011b), KLA (2010) or Phoenix. Of these, 32 were excluded from the Malleefowl Mound Register as they were old, insignificant or recorded in error. The LiDAR survey detected a total of 52 potential mounds.
Field work to complete baseline monitoring of Malleefowl mounds involved visiting previously recorded mounds and potential mounds identified by the LiDAR survey to verify their presence and activity status. Mounds were classified as active, inactive or long unused as per the National Malleefowl Monitoring Manual. The inactive classification was broken down into two sub-classes (sub-class 1 and sub-class 2) to provide a more precise description of the level of Malleefowl activity and to allow for a monitorable dataset. Mound classification was based on the following definitions:
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 15 of 21
Active - currently being used by Malleefowl as an incubator for their eggs, and are likely to contain eggs.
Inactive (sub-class 1) – mound shows signs of recent Malleefowl activity, such as scats, tracks or fresh scrapings.
Inactive (sub-class 2) - no evidence of recent activity but mound remains well formed and in good condition for future use.
Long unused - evidence of an extended period of inactivity such as dense shrubs or trees growing from hollow or mound very degraded/poorly formed. Highly unlikely to become active in the future.
Habitat assessments were carried out throughout the development envelope and 2 km buffer to determine the habitat type and suitability for Malleefowl breeding.
The results of the baseline surveys are included in Phoenix (2020) Baseline Malleefowl monitoring report for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (Appendix 4).
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 16 of 21
6. COMPANY ENDORSEMENT BY GENERAL MANAGER ENVIRONMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES LIMITED
The General Manager Environment of Mineral Resources Ltd has endorsed this Compliance Assessment
Report. Polaris Metals Pty Ltd is a 100% owned subsidiary of Mineral Resources Limited.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE INFORMATION ABOVE ACCURATELY REFLECTS
THE INFORMATION AND COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT UNDERTAKEN FOR THE PARKER RANGE (MT CAUDAN)
PROJECT.
Name: Tim Berryman Position: General Manager Environment
Signed: Date:
12/6/2020
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 17 of 21
7. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF THE COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
This CAR will be made publicly available via the Mineral Resources Ltd website (www.mineralresources.com.au) and will remain on the website for the life of the Project.
Polaris will advise DWER of the internet link to the Report 14 days from the date of making the Report publicly available.
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 18 of 21
Appendix 1: Statement of Compliance
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 19 of 21
Appendix 2: Phoenix (2020) Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
February 2020
Final Report
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd i
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project.
Final Report
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Version history
Authors Reviewer/s Version Version number
Date submitted
Submitted to
S. Findlay, G. Wells
K. Crews Draft for client comments
0.1 29-Jan-20 N. Smith, L. Purves
S. Findlay, G. Wells
K. Crews Final, client comments addressed
1.0 10-Feb-20 N. Smith, L. Purves
©Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2020
The use of this report is solely for the Client for the purpose in which it was prepared. Phoenix Environmental Sciences accepts no responsibility for use beyond this purpose.
All rights are reserved and no part of this report may be reproduced or copied in any form without the written permission of Phoenix Environmental Sciences or the Client.
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
1/511 Wanneroo Rd BALCATTA WA 6021
P: 08 6323 5410
Project code: 1299-PR-MRL-BOT
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd ii
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... IV
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 State approval requirements .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Previous survey ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Requirements for the current baseline assessment ............................................................... 7
1.4 Purpose and scope of this report ............................................................................................ 7
2. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Literature review ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Field survey ............................................................................................................................. 8
3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 10
3.1 Literature review ................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Weeds ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Weather ........................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Vegetation health ................................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Vegetation health quadrats .......................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Weed monitoring quadrats ........................................................................................... 15
3.2.3 Priority species .............................................................................................................. 16
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 17
5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 19
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Parker Range Iron Ore Project location .......................................................................... 3 Figure 1-2 Parker Range Iron Ore approved project area and new development envelope ........... 4 Figure 1-3 Vegetation health and weed monitoring quadrats ........................................................ 6 Figure 3-1 Annual climate and weather data for Southern Cross (no. 012320) (BoM 2019) and mean monthly data for the 12 months preceding the field survey ...................................................... 11
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Vegetation health rating scale ............................................................................................ 5 Table 2-1 Dust deposition scale .......................................................................................................... 9 Table 2-2 Plant health scale (Casson et al. 2009) ............................................................................... 9 Table 3-1 List of weed species/declared weeds recorded within a 20 km radius of the development
envelope (DBCA 2019b) .................................................................................................... 10 Table 3-2 Species richness and vegetation cover for the vegetation health impact and reference
quadrats surveyed in 2019 ................................................................................................ 12 Table 3-3 Vegetation health of impact and reference monitoring quadrats surveyed in spring 2019,
mean values for dominant species health and dust ratings are provided ........................ 13 Table 3-4 Vegetation cover for weed monitoring quadrats surveyed in 2019 ................................. 15
Appendices
Appendix 1 Site locations
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd iii
Appendix 2 List of species occurring in the impact and reference health monitoring quadrats, spring survey 2019
Appendix 3 Vegetation impact and reference quadrat descriptions, spring 2019 vegetation monitoring
Appendix 4 Plant health and dust ratings Appendix 5 Quadrat site photos
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) are proceeding to implement the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (the Project), located approximately 45 km south-east of Southern Cross.The Project was approved under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2010/5435) on 3 November 2011 via the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and WA. The Project was approved under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) on 12 April 2012, subject to conditions and procedures outlined in ministerial statement (MS) 892.
Condition 6 of MS 892 requires development of a monitoring plan for vegetation health and weed status.
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd (Phoenix) was commissioned by MRL to undertake a baseline survey to assess vegetation health and weed establishment for the Project.
A previous baseline survey was undertaken for the Project by Botanica Consulting in 2011. Advice from Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on the outcomes and methodology of the previous survey capacity to meet the conditions of MS 892 resulted in changes to the parameters to be measured for the baseline survey. The EPA advice required:
• identification of what and how parameters will be used to measure decline in plant health and abundance
• definition of plant health and abundance
• use of a plant health scale that does not use flowering as a measure of health
• identification of what data will be collected to monitor for weeds
• clarification of how any observed decline in health or abundance may be attributable to mining operations.
A desktop review of relevant databases and previous survey reports preceded the field survey to identify weed species that may potentially occur in the Project and determine the locations of previously recorded weed species. The desktop assessment determined the potential for at least sixteen weed species to occur, including two Declared Pests, *Chrysanthemoides monilifera and *Moraea miniata. However, no weed species had been recorded in the weed monitoring quadrats or in any of the vegetation health impact quadrats from pervious surveys. During the current survey one weed species, *Centaurea melitensis, was found within an impact quadrat and is the first record of this species for the Project. However, no weed species were recorded within the weed monitoring quadrats.
Advice from the EPA recommended the use of a different plant health scale for the current survey than used previously, that did not use flowering as a measure of plant health. The desktop assessment identified a suitable plant health scale developed by DEC (now DBCA) which was applied for the current survey.
Field work involved sampling of 28 quadrats; 16 impact quadrats, eight reference quadrats, and four weed monitoring quadrats. The following metrics were recorded for each vegetation health impact monitoring quadrat:
• list of each species present
• species richness, i.e. number of plant species in the quadrat, annual and perennial
• percentage vegetation cover within each canopy level (upper, mid, low)
• percentage vegetation cover of the dominant species in each canopy level
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd v
• species identitification of any weeds present
• percentage vegetation cover of all weeds present
• photographs of vegetation from all four corners of the quadrat.
The following metrics were recorded for each weed monitoring quadrat:
• list of each species present
• number of native species present
• percentage vegetation cover of native species
• number of weed species present
• percentage vegetation cover of all weed species present.
In addition, plant health was recorded for up to 10 plants of the dominant species for each canopy level represented in the quadrat vegetation (upper, mid and low). A scale of dust accumulation on the plant’s foliage was also recorded to provide an indication of potential impacts on plants from the mining operations.
The species richness, canopy and dominant species vegetation cover, average health and dust measures of the dominant species for each canopy layer will be used to measure decline or rate of decline in health or abundance in future monitoring. Data collected for weeds will be used to calculate a weediness index that will be used to monitor for weed infestations.
Significant differences were identified in the species richness, canopy and dominant plant vegetation cover and average health of plants within and across vegetation health impact and reference quadrats. Subsequently, to monitor for changes to vegetation health over time, the proportional change in metrics within each quadrat will be determined and then compared between quadrats.
Declines in abundance or mean health scores identified in vegetation impact monitoring quadrats would be compared with those of reference quadrats to assess whether declines are a result of climatic conditions (i.e. drought, cyclones) or impacts from the development and/or operations of the mine. Should any decline in a vegetation impact monitoring quadrat not be reflected in reference quadrats then investigations will be conducted to determine the cause of the decline. Data may be correlated to changes in the dust deposition scale to indicate whether the change may be related to mine site operations. In addition, site photos and field notes would be reviewed to detect other possible causes for the change.
There were a number of notable differences in the results of the current survey when compared with the previous survey:
• three priority species were found within impact quadrats in the current survey, only one priority species had been previously recorded
• species richness of the majority of quadrats for the current survey was higher than in the prior survey
• long-lived perennial species recorded in high numbers in the quadrats in the previous survey were not present during the current survey and were not evident in the site photos of the previous survey.
In addition, there were inconsistencies in species lists in the previous survey report and some monitoring quadrats had not been permanently marked with posts. It is therefore suggested that the most recent survey data be used as the new baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Project.
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
1. INTRODUCTION
Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) are proceeding to implement the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (the Project). The Project was approved under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (EPBC 2010/5435; DSEWPaC 2011) on 3 November 2011 via the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia (WA). The Project was approved under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) on 12 April 2012, subject to conditions and procedures outlined in ministerial statement (MS) 892 (Minister for Environment; Water 2012).
The Project is located 55 km southeast of Southern Cross, in the Goldfields region of Western Australia (Figure 1-1). The approved project area under MS 892 and EPBC 2010/5435 is 418.1 ha including the upper haul road (4.1 ha) (Figure 1-1). MRL are seeking a minor amendment to the approved project area (referred to in this report as the development envelope), which is 418.9 ha, excluding the upper haul road (Figure 1-1). This report adopts the revised development envelope in place of the approved project area.
Condition 6 of MS 892 relates to the management and monitoring of vegetation and weeds, as outlined below.
1.1 STATE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Although not explicitly stated, condition 6 of MS 892 requires development of a monitoring plan for vegetation health and weed status, including the provision of baseline data, prior to ground disturbing activities. Full details of Condition 6 as stated in Minister for Environment; Water (2012) are provided below.
6 Flora and vegetation
6-1 The proponent shall undertake monitoring of the health and abundance of vegetation within a 250 m buffer area around areas approved for disturbance at the mine site and within a 125 m buffer around the upper haul road1 as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 in schedule 1.
6-2 The monitoring required under condition 6-1 is to commence prior to ground disturbing activities required for the implementation and operation of the proposal and be carried out to the requirements of the CEO on advice of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) and will include:
1. the provision of baseline data;
2. identification of baseline and control sites;
3. definition of monitoring frequency, timing, intensity and replication;
4. definition of health and abundance;
5. identification of what and how parameters will be used to measure decline or rate of decline in health or abundance; and
6. definition of management responses required should a 25% (or greater) decline in health or abundance be recorded.
1 The upper haul road near Moorine Rock and rail siding approved under MS 892 is not currently proposed for
development and has been excluded from this baseline survey.
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
6-3 Should the potential impact sites show a 25% (or greater) decline in health or abundance as compared to the reference sites, the proponent shall provide a report to the CEO within 21 days of the decline being identified which:
1. describes the decline; and
2. provides information which allows determination of the likely root cause of the decline.
6-4 If the decline in health or abundance identified in condition 6-3 is determined by the CEO to be caused by activities undertaken in implementing the proposal the proponent shall implement the actions identified in condition 6-2-6 and continue to implement such actions until the CEO determines that the remedial actions may cease.
6-5 The proponent shall undertake weed management to ensure that:
1. No new species of declared weeds and environmental weeds are introduced into the proposal area and that the abundance and distribution of existing weeds is not increased as a direct or indirect result of implementation of the proposal.
2. Prior to ground disturbing activities the proponent shall undertake a baseline weed survey to determine the species and extent of declared weeds and environmental weeds present at weed monitoring sites within the project footprint including the mine area (schedule 1 Figure 2) and the upper haul road1 (schedule 1 Figure 3) and at least three reference sites on nearby undisturbed land beyond 200 metres from the disturbance footprint in consultation with the DEC.
3. To determine whether changes in weed cover and type within the project footprint have occurred and are likely to have resulted from implementation of the proposal or broader regional changes, monitoring of baseline and reference sites surveyed as required by condition 6-5-2 shall commence within one year after initial ground disturbing activity required for the implementation of the proposal. These sites are to be monitored annually for two years during the time of year agreed to by the CEO on advice of the DEC. Thereafter monitoring shall take place at least every two years at the time of year agreed above for the life of the proposal, with monitoring within a two year period to coincide with the year of any favourable rainfall events.
4. If the results of monitoring under condition 6-5-3 indicate that adverse changes in weed cover and type within the project footprint are proposal attributable, the proponent shall report the monitoring findings to the CEO and DEC within three months of completion of the monitoring and shall immediately undertake weed control and rehabilitation in the affected areas, where proposal attributable weed cover has adversely changed, using native flora species of local provenance.
5. The proponent shall continue to implement the remedial measures required by condition 6-5-4 until approval is given by the CEO to cease.
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 19-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
!
!
LAKEKOORKOORDINE
LAKE COTTONLAKE POLARIS
MARV
ELLO
CHYE
LLOWD
INERO
AD
SOUTHERNCROSS
MARVEL LOCH ROAD
FORRESTANIA
SOUTHERN CROSS ROAD
PARKER RANGE ROAD
MARVEL LOCHYELLOWDINE ROAD
GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY
SOUTHERN CROSS
720000 770000
6500
000
6550
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1299-PR-MRL-BOT\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\1300_1_Project_Location.mxd
0 7 14Kilometres
1:400,000
Mineral Resources Ltd Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
°
(at A4)
19-Feb-20DateProject No 1299
AJKC
Parker Range Iron OreProject location
Figure 1-1Approved project area (MS 892)New development envelope
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
!PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 19-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
!
!
GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY
SOUTHERN CROSS
MARVEL LOCH
710000 730000
6500
000
6520
000
6540
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1299-PR-MRL-BOT\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\1299_1-2_ProjectArea.mxd
0 5 10Kilometres
1:250,000
Mineral Resources LtdParker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA94 MGA zone 50
°
(at A4)
19-Feb-20DateProject No 1299
AJGW
Parker Range Iron OreProject approved projectarea and new developmentenvelope
Figure 1-2Approved project area (MS 892)New development envelope
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
0 1 2Kilometres
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
1.2 PREVIOUS SURVEY
A baseline survey to assess vegetation health and weed establishment was previously undertaken for the Project in 2011 (Botanica Consulting 2011b). A total of 28 20 m x 20 m quadrats were installed (Figure 1-3; Appendix 1):
• 16 quadrats within a 250 m buffer of the development envelope (impact sites)
• Eight quadrats outside of the 250 m buffer (reference)
• four weed monitoring quadrats adjacent to roads/vehicle access areas within the development envelope (weed sites).
The location of the reference sites was selected in conjunction with the Department of Environment and Conservation (Botanica Consulting 2011b), now the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA).
The previous baseline assessment recorded several metrics:
• species richness in the quadrat
• total plant abundance
• plant density (m2)
• total percentage vegetation cover
• percentage vegetation cover for each canopy layer
• species identitification of any weeds present
• percentage cover of weeds.
In addition, the vegetation in the quadrat was assigned a health score according to the scale provided in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Vegetation health rating scale
Health rating
Health description
Definition
5 Excellent Plants are highly vigorous (healthy, strong and growing well), leaves are lush (very green and healthy). Plants are in flower and producing fruit. New growth is present.
4 Very Good Plants are moderately vigorous, leaves are lush. Plants have no flowers/dry
3 Good Plants are not vigorous, leaves are not lush. Plants have no flowers and no fruit. No new growth is present flowers and no fruit. New growth is present.
2 Poor Plants are not vigorous, leaves are not lush. Plants have no flowers and no fruit. No new growth is present flowers and no fruit. New growth is present.
1 Dead Plants are dead
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
Figure 1-3Vegetation health and weed monitoring locations
°
Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Projection: Transverse MercatorDatum: GDA 1994
Client: MRLProject: Parker Range Iron Ore Project (Mine)
This d
rawing
is sub
ject to
COPY
RIGHT
and i
s prop
erty o
f Pho
enix E
nviron
menta
l Scien
ces
Date: 19-Feb-20Author: AJ
0 0.5 1Kilometres1:30,000
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
IQ1RQ7
IQ16
RQ5
RQ4
RQ3
IQ9
IQ8
IQ7
WQ4
WQ3
WQ2
WQ1
IQ11
IQ10
IQ3
IQ2
IQ6
RQ6
RQ8
IQ5
IQ4
IQ15
IQ14
IQ13
RQ2
IQ12
RQ1
740000 742000
65
00
00
0
Document Path: P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1299-PR-MRL-BOT\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\1299_3_QuadratLocations.mxd
Approved project area (MS892)New development envelope
") Flora and vegetation quadrat
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
1.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CURRENT BASELINE ASSESSMENT
Advice from EPA Services (Jessica Allen pers. com. via email to Les Purves of MRL 12 November 2019) on the outcomes and methodology of the previous survey capacity to meet the conditions of Ministerial Statement 892 were reviewed and changes to the parameters to be measured were implemented for the current baseline survey. Further detail is provided in section 1.4.
1.4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide the baseline data (including data required in conditions 6-2(1) and 6-5(2)) to inform a vegetation health and weed monitoring and management plan for the Project.
The scope of work in relation to conditions of MS 892 was as follows:
• undertake a baseline vegetation health survey of impact2 quadrats within a 250 m buffer of the development envelope, as well as reference sites to determine current status of vegetation health accordance with condition 6.1 and 6.2 of MS 892
• undertake a baseline weed survey of quadrats within a 250 m buffer of the development envelope, as well as reference sites, to determine current status of weeds in accordance with condition 6.5 of MS 892.
Further to these requirements, the scope of works for the current baseline assessment was to:
• provide an alternative health measure that does not include flowering
• demonstrate how the health measure and other metrics may be used to assess the 25% trigger value
• provide a measure to link potential impacts on plants to the mining operations if applicable.
An assessment of vegetation health and weed status of the 125 m buffer of the upper haul road was not completed as part of the monitoring program. MRL have indicated that they have no intention of utilising the upper haul road as part of the Project operations. Should MRL seek to utilise the upper haul road, further monitoring will be completed prior to disturbance to confirm baseline data.
2 Impact quadrat refers to sites within 250 m of the development envelope that could be potentially impacted due to moining activities
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
2. METHODS
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to conducting the field survey, a review of a vegetation condition monitoring manual (Casson et al. 2009) was undertaken to identify an alternative vegetation health scale.
Previous vegetation and flora assessments for the Project were reviewed to identify weed species previously recorded and provide a list of species recorded in monitoring quadrats to facilitate identification during the field survey. In addition, a search of NatureMap (DBCA 2019b) was conducted to identify weed species recorded within 20 km of the development envelope.
The Bureau of Meteorology website (BoM 2019) was interrogated to identify the closest active weather station to the development envelope to provide long term monthly rainfall and temperature averages for comparison to monthly total just prior to the field surveys.
2.2 FIELD SURVEY
The field survey was conducted by Dr Grant Wells and Shenade Findlay from 13-23 November 2019.
As the previous monitoring quadrats had been selected in consultation with the DBCA (then DEC) (Botanica Consulting 2011b), these quadrats were revisited (Figure 1-3). This was also undertaken to provide baseline data from two monitoring periods.
A single GPS location had been recorded for each of the monitoring plots (Botanica Consulting 2011b) requiring some searching for quadrat marker posts in denser vegetation. To facilitate locating marker posts for future surveys a GPS location for each post was recorded during the current field survey. In addition, some of the previous plots had no or just two permanent marker posts. In these instances, steel fence droppers were used to mark out new quadrats.
The following metrics were recorded for each vegetation health monitoring quadrat:
• list of each species present
• species richness, i.e. number of plant species in the quadrat, annual and perennial
• percentage vegetation cover within each canopy level (upper2, mid, low)
• percentage vegetation cover of the dominant species in each canopy level
• height (m) of each of the dominant species in each canopy level (up to 10 individuals)
• identity of any weed species present
• percentage vegetation cover of all weeds present.
The dominant species in each canopy level (up to 10 individuals), were tagged, numbered (1 to 10) and their GPS location recorded. In addition, each plant was allocated a dust level rating (Table 2-1) and health score, using a scale from Casson et al. (2009) (Table 2-2). Where less than ten individuals occurred in the quadrat (e.g. large Eucalyptus spp.), the health and dust rating were recorded for each of the individuals present. Where no dominant species were present, no recording was taken for that canopy layer.
2 Upper represented by tree species, mid represented by shrubs >1m height, lower represented by shrubs, grasses and forbs <1m in height.
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
The following metrics were recorded for each weed monitoring quadrat:
• list of each species present
• number of native species present
• percentage vegetation cover of native species
• number of weed species present
• percentage vegetation cover of all weed species present.
The number of weed species and cover of weed species (where present) was utilised to calculate the ‘weediness index’ (Loomes et al. 2008):
cover of weed species + number of weed species
cover of native species number of native species
Table 2-1 Dust deposition scale
Dust Rating
Description
0 No evidence of dust deposition
1 Evidence of dust deposition (minor discolouration indicating fine dust particles on surface of leaves)
2 Minor, dust build up visible on surface of some leaves
3 Moderate, dust build up with more than 50% of leaves covered
4 Heavy, dust build up covers entire surface of all leaves
Table 2-2 Plant health scale (Casson et al. 2009)
Health rating
Description
0 Healthy, no dead leaves
1 Occasional dead leaves
2 Epicormic shoots (therefore stressed)
3 Tips of branches stressed or dying
4 Entire or whole branches dying or dead (NB some lower branches excluded from this assessment)
5 More than half tree/shrub dead
6 Tree dead
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
3. RESULTS
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1.1 Weeds
A desktop assessment (Botanica Consulting 2011b) determined that records of 14 weeds occurred within a 10 km radius of the development envelope (Table 3-1). This included two Declared Pests, *Chrysanthemoides monilifera and *Moraea miniata. *Chrysanthemoides monilifera is also listed as a Weed of National Significance (WoNS) (DoEE 2019).
Interrogation of the NatureMap database (DBCA 2019b) identified records for eight weed species within a 20 km radius of the development envelope, none of which were a Declared Pest or WoNS, and included two species not identified in the previous desktop assessment (Table 3-1). The combined results from the two assessments indicate potential for at least 16 weed species to occur in the development envelope and buffer.
No weed species were previously recorded in the weed monitoring quadrats or in any of the vegetation health monitoring quadrats (Botanica Consulting 2011a, b). Four weed species, *Bromus rubens, *Lysimachia arvensis, *Sonchus oleraceus and *Ursinia anthemoides have been recorded within the development envelope (Botanica Consulting 2010; KLA 2010).
Table 3-1 List of weed species/declared weeds recorded within a 20 km radius of the development envelope (DBCA 2019b)
Species Source
Family Species Botanica Consulting (2011b) DBCA (2019b)
Asteraceae *Arctotheca calendula *
Asteraceae *Centaurea melitensis *
Asteraceae *Chrysanthemoides monilifera *
Asteraceae *Hypochaeris glabra * *
Asteraceae *Sonchus oleraceus * *
Asteraceae *Ursinia anthemoides * *
Brassicaceae *Carrichtera annua *
Fabaceae *Medicago minima *
Iridaceae *Moraea miniata *
Poaceae *Aira cupaniana * *
Poaceae *Bromus rubens *
Poaceae *Cenchrus ciliaris *
Poaceae *Pentameris airoides * *
Poaceae *Vulpia bromoides *
Poaceae *Vulpia myuros *
Primulaceae *Lysimachia arvensis * *
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
3.1.2 Weather
The nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather station with comprehensive data collection and historic climate data is located at Southern Cross (No. 012320, Latitude: 31.25⁰S Longitude: 119.34⁰E) approximately 45 km northwest of the development envelope. Southern Cross records the highest maximum mean monthly temperature in January (36.2°C), and the lowest minimum mean in July (3.8°C) (BoM 2019) (Figure 3-1). The average annual rainfall is 306.0 mm with January, March and July recording the highest monthly averages (31.3 mm, 36.1 mm and 35.1 mm respectively).
Daily mean temperatures and rainfall for Southern Cross in the 12 months preceding the survey (November 2018–October 2019) were only slightly variable to annual long-term averages (Figure 3-1). Mean maximum temperatures were approximately average to slightly above average while mean minimum temperatures were mostly equal to average. Rainfall was variable against long term annual averages with total annual rainfall (226.4 mm) lower than the average annual rainfall (306.0 mm). The three months prior to the survey in November 2019 experienced below average rainfall (BoM 2019).
Figure 3-1 Annual climate and weather data for Southern Cross (no. 012320) (BoM 2019) and mean monthly data for the 12 months preceding the field survey
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Rai
nfa
ll (m
m)
Tem
pe
ratu
re (°C
)
Mean rainfall (mm) for years 1996 to 2019
Total monthly rainfall from November 2018 to October 2019
Mean maximum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1996 to 2019
Mean minimum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1996 to 2019
Mean daily max temperature from November 2018 to October 2019
Mean daily min temperature from November 2018 to October 2019
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
3.2 VEGETATION HEALTH
3.2.1 Vegetation health quadrats
3.2.1.1 Species richness and vegetation cover
A total of 116 species were recorded in the impact quadrats (Appendix 2). Species richness varied substantially between quadrats (Table 3-2; Appendix 3), ranging from 4-19 species in the reference quadrats and 6-24 in the impact quadrats. Average species richness for impact and reference quadrats was ca.14 species per quadrat. Similarly, there were large disparities between cover values of the different canopy levels between quadrats.
Table 3-2 Species richness and vegetation cover for the vegetation health impact and reference quadrats surveyed in 2019
Quadrat no. Species richness Vegetation cover (%)
Upper Mid Low
Impact quadrats
IQ1 24 60 20 40
IQ2 15 15 20 45
IQ3 20 10 50 60
IQ4 18 20 40 40
IQ5 13 20 45 10
IQ6 14 10 65 5
IQ7 9 20 60 60
IQ8 6 80 0 10
IQ9 17 40 40 15
IQ10 8 40 30 5
IQ11 11 10 1 10
IQ12 14 25 30 10
IQ13 16 20 15 35
IQ14 14 20 20 5
IQ15 15 10 70 30
IQ16 7 30 10 35
Reference quadrats
RQ1 19 60 15 40
RQ2 15 10 10 10
RQ3 19 10 90 60
RQ4 18 25 30 40
RQ5 8 30 40 1
RQ6 19 20 20 10
RQ7 6 75 10 5
RQ8 4 25 2 10
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
3.2.1.2 Plant health and dust ratings
Health ratings for individual plants of dominant species varied within and between quadrats (Table 3-3; Appendix 4). Generally, most species showed signs of stress and were allocated a health rating of 3 (tips of branches stressed or dying).
Plants in two impact quadrats and one reference quadrat, IQ13, IQ15 and RQ8, contained at least one dominant species with an average health score of 1, indicating healthy plants with only occasional dead leaves. Similarly, plants with a health rating of 5, more than half tree/shrub dead, occurred in both impact quadrats (IQ7 and IQ10) and an reference quadrat (RQ6). No dominant species were allocated a rating of 6 (plant dead).
No signs of dust build up were present for dominant plants within the impact and reference quadrats, with all dust ratings recorded as 0. A summary of the results for the spring 2019 vegetation monitoring is provided in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Vegetation health of impact and reference monitoring quadrats surveyed in spring 2019, mean values for dominant species health and dust ratings are provided
Canopy level
Cover (%) No. of
individuals Species
Mean plant health
Mean dust
rating
RQ1
Upper 60 10 Eucalyptus capillosa 3.3 0
Lower 10 10 Hibbertia exasperata 3.3 0
RQ2
Upper 10 10 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 3 0
Mid 3 10 Eremophila oppositifolia 3.4 0
Lower 5 10 Scaevola spinescens 2.8 0
RQ3
Upper 70 10 Allocasuarina corniculata 3.1 0
Mid 20 10 Melaleuca cordata 3.3 0
RQ4
Upper 25 5 Eucalyptus capillosa 2.6 0
Mid 20 10 Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis
1 0
Lower 20 10 Melaleuca cordata 2.6 0
RQ5
Upper 10 1 Eucalyptus salubris 3 0
Upper 20 1 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 3 0
Mid 25 10 Melaleuca laxiflora 3.2 0
RQ6
Upper 15 3 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 3.3 0
Mid 7 10 Eremophila ionantha 3.5 0
Lower 12 10 Acacia merallii 2.6 0
RQ7
Upper 75 10 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 3.2 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
Canopy level
Cover (%) No. of
individuals Species
Mean plant health
Mean dust
rating
Lower 5 5 Olearia muelleri 3.6 0
RQ8
Lower 25 6 Eucalyptus tephroclada 2.7 0
Mid 10
Melaleuca hamata 1.3 0
IQ1
Mid 30 10 Allocasuarina spinosissima 3.3 0
IQ2
Mid 30 11 Allocasuarina corniculata 2.6 0
IQ3
Upper 10 6 Eucalyptus horistes 2.7 0
Mid 35 10 Allocasuarina corniculata 3.2 0
IQ4
Mid 25 10 Allocasuarina corniculata 2.7 0
IQ5
Upper 20 10 Eucalyptus eremophila 2.7 0
Mid 20 10 Melaleuca hamata 3.1 0
IQ6
Upper 10 9 Eucalyptus capillosa 2.3 0
Mid 35 10 Melaleuca hamata 3.5 0
IQ7
Upper 20 5 Acacia acuminata 4 0
Mid 40 10 Leptospermum roei 1.6 0
Lower 35 10 Hibbertia eatoniae 3.5 0
IQ8
Upper 75 10 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 3.1 0
Lower 5 5 Olearia muelleri 3.2 0
IQ9
Upper 40 7 Eucalyptus capillosa 3.7 0
Mid 20 10 Melaleuca hamata 3.7 0
Lower 15 10 Phebalium tuberculosum 3.3 0
IQ10
Upper 40 9 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 3 0
Mid 20 11 Melaleuca hamata 3.4 0
IQ11
Upper 10 1 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 3 0
Lower 2 10 Scaevola spinescens 2.3 0
IQ12
Upper 13 3 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 2.3 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
Canopy level
Cover (%) No. of
individuals Species
Mean plant health
Mean dust
rating
Upper 12 3 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 2.3 0
Mid 20 10 Melaleuca pauperiflora 2.8 0
Lower 6 10 Microcybe multiflora 2 0
IQ13
Upper 20 3 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 2.7 0
Mid 12 10 Eucalyptus salubris 1.3 0
Lower 10 10 Scaevola spinescens 2.2 0
IQ14
Upper 20 2 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 3.4 0
Mid 20 10 Melaleuca pauperiflora 3.4 0
Lower 5 10 Eremophila oppositifolia 3.1 0
IQ15
Upper 10 1 Eucalyptus livida 3 0
Mid 30 10 Allocasuarina acutivalvis 1.2 0
Lower 50 10 Acacia beauverdiana 1.2 0
IQ16
Upper 5 1 Eucalyptus salubris 2 0
Upper 30 5 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 3 0
Mid 10 10 Melaleuca pauperiflora 2.7 0
Lower 10 10 Acacia enervia subsp. enervia 2.7 0
3.2.2 Weed monitoring quadrats
No weed or alien species were recorded within the four weed monitoring quadrats. The native vegetation cover varied among the four quadrats from 85% in WQ1 to 35% in WQ3 (Table 3-4).
One weed species, *Centaurea melitensis, was found outside of the weed quadrats, in a vegetation monitoring quadrat (VMQ11). The calculated weediness index for this quadrat was 0.12.
Table 3-4 Vegetation cover for weed monitoring quadrats surveyed in 2019
Quadrat Weed cover (%) Native vegetation cover (%)
W1 0 85
W2 0 75
W3 0 35
W4 0 45
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
3.2.3 Priority species
A Priority 1, a Priority 2 and a Priority 4 species were recorded within the impact monitoring quadrats during the spring 2019 survey.
The Priority 1 species, Westringia acifolia was found at a single location in the impact monitoring quadrat IQ3. Westringia acifolia is a shrub, 0.3 m in height. Only one population of this species has been previously recorded, approximately 60 km west of the development envelope within the Avon Wheatbelt bioregion (DBCA 2019a).
The Priority 2 species Acacia concolorans was recorded quadrats IQ14, WQ3 and WQ4. Acacia concolorans is an intricate, sprawling or compact, pungent shrub, 0.1-0.5 m high with yellow flowers from July to August. The species grows in red/brown loam and clay and occurs on low lateritic hills and flats. Acacia concolorans occurs in the Avon Wheatbelt, Mallee and Coolgardie bioregions (DBCA 2019a).
The Priority 4 species, Banksia shanklandiorum was found in the impact monitoring quadrat IQ1. Banksia shanklandiorum, is an upright, non-lignotuberous shrub, 0.4-2.5 m in height and up to 3 m wide. This species flowers June to August and occurs in white/yellow sand with lateritic gravel. Banksia shanklandiorum is distributed within the Avon Wheatbelt bioregion (DBCA 2019a).
Additional targeted searches for Westringia acifolia (P1) and Microcorys sp. nov will be conducted from the 11th to the 14th of Feburary 2020. Subsequent updates will be made to this Baseline report proceeding these searches.
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
4. DISCUSSION
This vegetation health and weed survey provides baseline measurable parameters that will be used to monitor vegetation in the vicinity of the development envelope for potential impacts from Project activities. Amendments to the monitoring methods and parameters from the previous baseline assessment (Botanica Consulting 2011b) have been made to address advice from EPA Services (Jessica Allen pers. com. via email to Les Purves of MRL 12 November 2019) on the outcomes and methodology of the previous survey capacity to meet the conditions of MS 892. These included:
• use of the Casson et al. (2009) plant health scale which does not include flowering as a measure of plant health
• plant health ratings were recorded for a minimum of 10 plants (dominant in at least one canopy level) per quadrat and up to 30 plants (10 from each canopy level) to generate a mean value of plant health that may be compared between monitoring seasons and impact and reference quadrats. This replaces the single measure of plant health for the entire quadrat provided in the prior survey (Botanica Consulting 2011b)
• species richness (number of different species present in the quadrat) was recorded and provides a measure of the abundance of different species
• visual estimates of vegetation cover for the vegetation canopy levels, upper (trees) mid (mid (>1 m) to tall (>2 m)) and low (shrubs, grasses, forbs <1 m) and vegetative cover of the dominant species in each stratum provide measures of plant abundance
• use of the weediness scale of Loomes et al. (2008) provides a measure of the abundance of weed species, including annual species, that may be compared between monitoring events to identify the establishment and/or increase in weed abundance
• a scale of dust deposition on plant foliage has been included to provide an indication of whether mine construction and/or operations may be impacting vegetation health. Any identified decline in vegetation health parameters may be correlated with any change in dust deposition to identify potential impacts from operations requiring further investigation. In addition, site photos from all four permanently marked (and GPS recorded) corners of the quadrats (Appendix 5) may be used to identify other forms of disturbance or impact that may have contributed to vegetation health decline, for example, fire damage, machinery impacts e.g. clearing or flooding.
The current survey identified substantial differences in species richness, the composition of species, vegetation cover of canopy levels and the average health of plants within and between reference and impact quadrats. Subsequently, to monitor for changes to vegetation health over time, the proportional change in metrics within each quadrat will be determined and then compared between quadrats. For example, any increase or decrease in species richness within a quadrat will be determined by dividing the species recorded in the current monitoring period to that of the previous monitoring period and the baseline data obtained from the current survey to quantify proportionate (percentage of) change. This value would then be compared between impact quadrats and reference quadrats to determine whether there is a similar trend across quadrats or whether it is restricted to one or few quadrats. Should any change be recorded this may be correlated to changes in the dust deposition scale to indicate whether the change may be related to mine site operations. Site photos and field notes would also be reviewed to detect other possible causes for the change.
Levels of dust build-up on plants was not assessed in the previous survey (Botanica Consulting 2011b), and during the spring 2019 survey, no dust build-up was recorded for any species across both the vegetation impact and reference quadrats. Monitoring the level of dust build-up on individual plants
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
will aid as a further indicator of the impact of mining development and/or operations. Changes in dust levels will be correlated with health scores and other changes observed such as fire and mining operations.
There were a number of notable differences in the results of the current survey with that of the Botanica Consulting (2011b) survey:
• Three priority species were found within impact monitoring quadrats in the current survey; Westringia acifolia (P1), Acacia concolorans (P2) and Banksia shanklandiorum (P4) and a potentially new species, belonging to the Microcorys genus, was also recorded within two of the impact monitoring quadrats. Only one priority species, Banksia shanklandiorum (P4), had been previously recorded in the impact monitoring quadrats (Botanica Consulting 2011b).
• Species richness of the majority of quadrats for the current survey was higher than in the prior survey, for example, five more species were recorded in quadrats VMQ13, VMQ15 and AQ4.
• Long-lived perennial species recorded in high numbers in the previous survey, e.g. Melaleuca pauperiflora in VMQ3 (40 plants), VMQ4 (21 plants) and AQ8 (20 plants) were not present during the current survey.
As the previous survey was conducted nine years ago and there is disparity with the recently collected data, it is suggested that the most recent survey data (spring 2019) be used as the new baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Project.
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
[Type here]
5. REFERENCES
BoM. 2019. Climate statistics for Australian locations. Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meterology. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
Botanica Consulting. 2010. Flora and vegetation of the Parker Range region, Western Australia. Botanica Consulting, Boulder, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Botanica Consulting. 2011a. Vegetation and weed monitoring program of the Parker Range Iron Ore Project: Moorine Rock Upper Haul Road. Botanica Consulting, Boulder. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Botanica Consulting. 2011b. Vegetation and Weed Monitoring Program of the Parker Range Iron Ore Project: Mt Caudan Deposit. Tenements M77/741, M77/742, M77/764, P77/3685, P77/3770, L77/220, L77/228 and L77/229. Botanica Consulting, Boulder, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Casson, N., Downes, S. & Harris, A. 2009. Native vegetation condition assessment and monitoring manual for Western Australia. Australian Government and Department of Environment and Conservation. Unpublished report prepared for the Native Vegetation Integrity Project.
DBCA. 2019a. Florabase. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Available at: https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/
DBCA. 2019b. NatureMap. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Available at: https://naturemap.dpaw.wa.gov.au/default.aspx
DoEE. 2019. Weeds of National Significance. DEpartment of Environment and Energy, Canberra, ACT. Available at: http://environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeds/lists/wons.html
DSEWPaC. 2011. Parker Range Iron Ore Project - Mount Caudan Deposit - EPBC No. 2010/5435. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, ACT.
KLA. 2010. Parker Range Iron Ore project Mt Caudan deposit: Public environmental review. Keith Lindbeck & Associates Environmental Management Consultants, Winthrop, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Loomes, R., Wilson, J. & Froend, R. 2008. 2007 Vegetation Monitoring - Swan Coastal Plain (Bunbury, Busselton-Capel Groundwater Areas). Centre for Ecosystem Management, ECU Joondalup, Joondalup. Prepared for Department of Water.
Minister for Environment; Water. 2012. Ministerial Statement No. 892: Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project. Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA.
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 1 Site locations
Site Location Coordinates
RQ1 119.56013, -31.63331
RQ2 119.55243, -31.64945
RQ3 119.53471, -31.62367
RQ4 119.53848, -31.63413
RQ5 119.54717, -31.61557
RQ6 119.56142, -31.60631
RQ7 119.56627, -31.62249
RQ8 119.54489, -31.64381
IQ1 119.53949, -31.64029
IQ2 119.55447, -31.64008
IQ3 119.54453, -31.63912
IQ4 119.56068, -31.63381
IQ5 119.54896, -31.61669
IQ6 119.56142, -31.60631
IQ7 119.56108, -31.60811
IQ8 119.55975, -31.60918
IQ9 119.56355, -31.62193
IQ10 119.56236, -31.62208
IQ11 119.55879, -31.63152
IQ12 119.55747, -31.63020
IQ13 119.55037, -31.64650
IQ14 119.54977, -31.64468
IQ15 119.54073, -31.63236
IQ16 119.54228, -31.63074
WQ1 119.53874, -31.61687
WQ2 119.55680, -31.61949
WQ3 119.55302, -31.63259
WQ4 119.54808, -31.64889
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 2 List of species occurring in the impact and reference health monitoring quadrats, spring survey 2019
Family Species
Apocynaceae Alyxia buxifolia
Asparagaceae Lomandra effusa
Asteraceae *Centaurea melitensis
Asteraceae Olearia axillaris
Asteraceae Olearia dampiera subsp. eremicola
Asteraceae Olearia muelleri
Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina acutivalvis
Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina campestris
Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina carincinus
Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina corniculata
Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina helmsii
Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina spinosissima
Chenopodiaceae Sclerolaena diacantha
Chenopodiaceae Rhagodia drummondii
Chenopodiaceae Maireana georgei
Cupressaceae Callitris preissii
Dilleniaceae Hibbertia ancistrophylla
Dilleniaceae Hibbertia exasperata
Dilleniaceae Hibbertia pungens
Dilleniaceae Hibberita eatoniae
Dilleniaceae Hibbertia nutans
Eriaceae Leucopogon sp. Outer Wheatbelt
Eriaceae Acrotriche lancifolia
Euphorbiaceae Bertya dimerostigma
Euphorbiaceae Beyearia sulcata var. sulcata
Fabaceae Acacia accuminata
Fabaceae Acacia beauverdiana
Fabaceae Acacia camptoclada
Fabaceae Acacia colletoides
Fabaceae Acacia conclurens (P2)
Fabaceae Acacia enervia subsp. enervia
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Family Species
Fabaceae Acacia erinacea
Fabaceae Acacia hemiteles
Fabaceae Acacia heteroneura var. petila
Fabaceae Acacia merrallii
Fabaceae Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa
Fabaceae Acacia steedmanii
Fabaceae Acacia synchronicia
Fabaceae Acacia yorkakinensis
Fabaceae Daviesia argillaceae
Fabaceae Daviesia nematophylla
Fabaceae Gastrolobium spinosum
Goodeniaceae Scaevola spinescens
Laminaceae Microcorys sp.
Laminaceae Westringia acifolia (P1)
Laminaceae Westringia cephalantha
Lauraceae Cassytha melantha
Lauraceae Cassytha nodiflora
Myrtaceae Baeckea grandibracteata
Myrtaceae Banksia shanklandiorum (P4)
Myrtaceae Beaufortia calyptoides
Myrtaceae Beaufortia interstans
Myrtaceae Beaufortia orbifolia
Myrtaceae Beaufortia puberula
Myrtaceae Calytrix leschenaultii
Myrtaceae Chamelaucium pauciflorum
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus burracoppinensis
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus calycogona
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus capillosa
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus eremophila
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus incrassata
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus horistes
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus livida
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Family Species
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus salubris
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus tephroclada
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus transcontinentalis
Myrtaceae Euromyrtus maidenii
Myrtaceae Leptospermum erubescens
Myrtaceae Leptospermum roei
Myrtaceae Leptospermum spinescens
Myrtaceae Melaleuca cordata
Myrtaceae Melaleuca eleuterostachya
Myrtaceae Melaleuca hamata
Myrtaceae Melaleuca lateriflora
Myrtaceae Melaleuca laxiflora
Myrtaceae Melaleuca pauperiflora
Myrtaceae Thryptomene australis subsp. brachyandra
Myrtaceae Thryptomene kochii
Myrtaceae Verticordia aeriosaphala
Myrtaceae Verticordia brachypoda
Myrtaceae Verticordia chrysantha
Myrtaceae Verticordia insignis subsp. compta
Myrtaceae Verticordia roei subsp. roei
Myrtaceae Verticordia stenopetala
Myrtaceae Micromyrtus racemosa
Rutaceae Drummondita hassellii
Poaceae Austrostipa elegantissima
Proteaceae Grevillea acacioides
Proteaceae Grevillea acuaria
Proteaceae Grevillea didymobotrya subsp. didymobotrya
Proteaceae Grevillea huegelii
Proteaceae Grevillea oncogyne
Proteaceae Grevillea paradoxa
Proteaceae Hakea chordophylla
Proteaceae Hakea erecta
Proteaceae Hakea minyma
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Family Species
Proteaceae Hakea multilineata
Proteaceae Hakea scoparia
Proteaceae Hakea subsulcata
Proteaceae Isopogon scabriusculus subsp. stenophyllus
Proteaceae Persoonia coriacea
Proteaceae Petrophile ericifolia
Rutaceae Phebalium filifolium
Rutaceae Phebalium tuberculosum
Rutaceae Microcybe multiflora subsp. multiflora
Santalaceae Exocarpos aphyllus
Santalaceae Leptomeria preissiana
Santalaceae Santalum acuminatum
Sapidaceae Dodonaea bursarifolia
Scrophulariaceae Eremophila decipiens
Scrophulariaceae Eremophila drummondii
Scrophulariaceae Eremophila ionantha
Scrophulariaceae Eremophila maidenii
Scrophulariaceae Eremophila oppositifolia
Scrophulariaceae Eremophila scoparia
Solanaceae Solanum hoplopetalum
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 3 Vegetation impact and reference quadrat descriptions, spring 2019 vegetation monitoring
IQ1
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 60 Mid: 20 Lower: 40
Species in quadrat
Acacia heteroneura var. petila
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa
Allocasuarina spinoissima
Allocasurina campestris
Banksia shanklandiorum (P4)
Beaufortia calyptoides
Beaufortia puberula
Cassytha melantha
Chamelaucium pauciflorum
Drummondita hassellii
Microcorys sp.
Eucalyptus burracoppinensis
Eucalyptus incrassata
Grevillia didymobotrya subsp. didymobotrya
Hakea erecta
Isopgon scabriusculus subsp. stenophyllus
Leptospermum spinescens
Melaleuca cordata
Micromyrtus racemosa
Persoonia coriacea
Petrophile ericifolia
Phebalium filifolium
Verticordia aereiflora
Verticordia chrysantha
Verticordia roei subsp. roei
Verticordia stenopetala
IQ2
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 15 Mid: 20 Lower: 45
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Species in quadrat
Acacia enervia subsp. enervia
Allocasuarina corniculata
Beaufortia puberula
Drummondita hassellii
Eucalyptus burracoppinensis
Eucalyptus horistes
Euromyrtus maidenii
Grevillea acuaria
Grevillea oncogyne
Grevillia didymobotrya subsp. didymobotrya
Isopogon scabriusculus subsp. stenophyllus
Melaleuca calyptroides
Melaleuca cordata
Phebalium filifolium
Thryptomene kochii
IQ3
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 10 Mid: 50 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Allocasurina corniculata
Banksia shanklandiorum
Beaufortia puberula
Bertya dimerostigma
Beyeria sulcata
Calitris prissii
Daviesia nematophylla
Drummondita hassellii
Eucalyptus horistes
Euromyrtus maidenii
Grevillea oncogyne
Grevillia didymobotrya subsp. didymobotrya
Hakea scoparia
Isopogon scabriusculus subsp. stenophyllus
Lomandra effusa
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Melaleuca calyptroides
Melaleuca hamata
Micromyrtus racemosa
Westringia acifolia (P1)
Thryptomene kochii
IQ4
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 40 Lower: 40
Species in quadrat
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa
Allocasuarina corniculata
Baeckea grandibracteata
Banksia shanklandiorum (P4)
Beaufortia interstans
Beaufortia orbifolia
Bertya dimerostigma
Beyaeria sulcata var. sulcata
Callitris preissii
Drummondita hasellii
Eucalyptus horistes
Eucalyptus incrassata
Grevillia didymobotrya subsp. didymobotrya
Hakea scoparia
Micromyrtus racemosa
Thryptomene kochii
Verticordia brachypoda
Verticordia insignis subsp. compta
IQ5
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 45 Lower: 10
Species in quadrat
Acacia colletoides
Beryta dimerostigma
Deviesia argillacea
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Eucalyptus eremophila
Grevillea huegelii
Grevillea oncogyne
Lomandra effusa
Melaleuca eleuterostachya
Melaleuca hamata
Melaluca laxiflora
Olearia dampiera subsp. eremicola
Santalum acuminatum
Scaevola spinescens
IQ6
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 10 Mid: 65 Lower: 5
Species in quadrat
Bertya dimerostigma
Beyearia sulcata
Callitris preissii
Davesia argillaceae
Dodonaea bursariifolia
Eucalyptus capillosa
Grevillia huegelii
Hibbertia pungens
Leptospermum erubescens
Melaleuca eleuterostachya
Melaleuca hamata
Melaleuca laxiflora
Micromyrtus racemoso
Olearia axillaris
IQ7
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia accuminata
Allocasuarina corniculata
Allocasuarina helmsii
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Amphipogam carincinus
Euryomyrtus maidenii
Hakea minyma
Hibertia eatoniae
Leptospermum roei
Thryptomene kochii
IQ8
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia merrallii
Austrostipa elegantissima
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Eucalyptus transcontinentalis
Olearia muelleri
Westringia cephalantha
IQ9
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia colletoides
Acacia hemiteles
Allocasuarina acutivalvis
Allocasuarina campestris
Alyxia buxifolia
Beyaria sulcata var. sulcata
Eucalyptus capillosa
Grevillia acacioides
Hibertia eatoniae
Melaluca eleuterostachya
Melaluca hamata
Melaluca laxiflora
Micromyrtus racemosa
Olearia muelleri
Phebalium tuberculosum
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Phebalium filifolium
Santalum acuminatum
IQ10
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia hemiteles
Alyxia buxifolia
Daviesia argillacea
Eucalyptus transcontinentalis
Melaleuca lateriflora
Melaluca hamata
Phebalium tuberculosum
Santalum acuminatum
IQ11
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia erinacea
Acacia hemiteles
*Centaurea melitensis
Eremophila decipiens
Eremophila scoparia
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Exocarpos aphyllus
Maireana georgei
Scaevola spinescens
Sclerolaena diacantha
Senna cardiosperma
IQ12
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Alyxia buxifolia
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Austrostypa elogantisima
Eremophila decipiens
Eremophila oppositifolia
Eremophila scoparia
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Eucalyptus transcontinentalis
Exocarpus aphyllus
Grevillea acuaria
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Micrcybe multiflora subsp. multiflora
Oleara muelleria
Rhagodia drummondii
Scaevola spinescens
IQ13
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia camptoclada
Acacia colletoides
Acacia conclurens (P2)
Acacia erinacea
Acacia synchronicia
Alyxia buxifolia
Austrostipa elegantissima
Eremophila drummondii
Eremophila ionantha
Eremophila oppositifolia
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Eucalyptus salubris
Exocarpos aphyllus
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Olearia muelleri
Scaevola spinescens
IQ14
Vegetation cover (%)
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia camptoclada
Acacia colletoides
Acacia conclurrens (P2)
Acacia erinacea
Alyxia buxifolia
Austrostipa elegantissima
Eremophila ionantha
Eremophila oppositifolia
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Exocarpos aphyllus
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Olearia muelleri
Scaevola spinescens
IQ15
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia beauverdiana
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa
Acacia steedmanii
Acacia yorkakinensis
Allocasaurina acutivalvis
Microcybe multiflora
Leucopogon sp. Outer Wheatbelt
Eucalyptus livida
Grevillea acacioides
Grevillia paradoxa
Hakia multilineata
Hibertia nutans
Melaleuca hamata
Micromyrtus racemosa
Thryptomene australia subsp. brachyandra
IQ16
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 60 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Acacia camptoclada
Acacia enervia subsp enervia
Acacia erinacea
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Eucalyptus salubris
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Scaevola spinescens
RQ1
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 60 Mid: 15 Lower: 40
Species in quadrat
Acacia erinacea
Acrotriche lancifolia
Allocasuarina corniculata
Austrostipa elegantissima
Alyxia buxifolia
Dodonaea caespitosa
Eremophila oppositifolia
Eucalyptus capillosa
Exocarpos aphyllus
Grevillea acuaria
Hibbertia exasperata
Lepidospermum sp. Mount Caudan
Melaleuca hamata
Micromyrtus racemosa
Olearia muelleri
Phebalium tuberculosum
Santalum acuminatum
Scaevola spinescens
Westringia cephalantha
RQ2
Vegetation cover (%)
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Upper: 10 Mid: 10 Lower: 10
Species in quadrat
Acacia colletoides
Acacia camptoclada
Acacia erinacea
Acacia synchronicia
Alyixia buxifolia
Austrostipa elegantissima
Eremophila decipiens
Eremophila ionantha
Eremophila oppositifolia
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Exocarpos aphyllus
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Olearia muelleri
Scaevola spinesens
RQ3
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 10 Mid: 90 Lower: 60
Species in quadrat
Allocasuarina spinosissima
Beaufortia puberula
Callitris preissii
Calytrix leschenaultii
Cassytha melantha
Eucalyptus burracoppinensis
Eucalyptus capillosa
Drummondita hassellii
Euryomyrtus maidenii
Grevillea paradoxya
Hakea chordophylla
Hakea erecta
Isopgon scabriusculus subsp. pubifloris
Melaleuca calyptroides
Melaleuca cordata
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Micromyrtus racemosa
Phebalium filifolium
Thryptomene kochii
Verticordia insignis subsp. compta
RQ4
Vegetation cover (%)
Canopy: 25 Mid: 30 Lower: 40
Species in quadrat
Acacia hemiteles
Acacia neurophylla
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa
Acacia steedmanii
Allocasuarina accutivelvus subsp. accutivelvus
Beaufortia intersans
Cassytha nodiflora
Leucopogon sp. Outer Wheatbelt
Eucalyptus capillosa
Grevillia acacioides
Grevillia paradoxa
Hibertia eatoniae
Melaleuca cordata
Melaluca hamata
Microcybe multiflora subsp. multiflora
Micromyrtus racemosa
Westringia cephalantha
RQ5
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 30 Mid: 40 Lower:0.1
Species in quadrat
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Eucalyptus salubris
Exocarpos aphyllus
Melaleuca hamata
Melaleuca laxiflora
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Santalum acuminatum
RQ6
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 20 Mid: 20 Lower: 10
Species in quadrat
Acacia enervia subsp. enervia
Acacia erinacea
Acacia hemiteles
Acacia merellii
Alyxia buxifolia
Austrostipa elegantissima
Eremophila decipiens
Eremophila ionantha
Eremophila scoparia
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Eucalyptus sp.
Exocarpus aphyllus
Grevillea acuaria
Olearia muelleri
Olearia sp.
Rhagodia drummondii
Santalum acuminatum
Scaevola spinescens
Solanum hoplopetalum
RQ7
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 75 Mid: 10 Lower: 5
Species in quadrat
Acacia hemiteles
Eucalyptus transcontinentalis
Melaluca pauperiflora
Olearia muelleri
Santalum acuminatum
Scaevola spinescens
RQ8
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Vegetation cover (%)
Upper: 25 Mid: 2 Lower: 10
Species in quadrat
Acrotriche lancifolia
Eucalyptus calycogona
Hakea scoparia
Melaluca hamata
WQ1
Species in quadrat Native veg cover (%): 85
Acacia heteroneura var. petila
Acacia nigriplosa
Allocasuarina corniculata
Beaufortia puberula
Beaufortia calyptoides
Beyearia sulcata var. sulcata
Callitris preissii
Cassytha nodiflora
Drumondita hassillii
Microcorys sp.
Eucalyptus horistes
Gastrolobium spinosum
Hakea subsulcata
Hibbertia ancistrophylla
Isopogan scabriusculus subsp. pubifloris
Leptomeria preissiana
Melaleuca cordata
Micromyrtus racemosa
Persoonia coriacea
Stenanthemum stipulosum
Verticordia eriocephata
Verticordia mitoides
Verticordia roei subsp. roei
WQ2
Species in quadrat Native veg cover (%): 75
Acacia erinacea
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Acacia hemiteles
Allocasuarina corniculata
Alyxia buxifolia
Austrostipa elegantissima
Eremophila oppositifolia
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Exocarpos aphyllus
Grevillia aquaria
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Olearia muelleri
Phebalium tuberuculosum
Scaevola spinescens
WQ3
Species in quadrat Native veg cover (%): 35
Acacia conclurens
Alyxia buxifolia
Cryptandra nutans
Daviesia argillacea
Eremophila granitica
Grevillea acuaria
Melaleuca lateriflora
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Microcybe multiflora subsp. multiflora
Olearia muelleri
WQ4
Species in quadrat Native veg cover (%): 45
Acacia conclumens
Austrostipa elegantissima
Eremophila ionantha
Eremophila oppositifolia
Eucalyptus salmonophloia
Melaleuca pauperiflora
Olearia muelleri
Scaevola spinescens
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 4 Plant health and dust ratings
Canopy level Cover
(%) Species
Height (m)
Health rating
Dust rating
RQ1
Upper 60 Eucalyptus capillosa 12.0 3 0
10.0 3 0
12.0 3 0
10.0 3 0
7.0 3 0
9.0 4 0
9.0 4 0
8.0 3 0
9.0 4 0
10.0 3 0
Lower 10 Hibbertia exasperata 0.5 3 0
0.6 3 0
0.5 3 0
0.7 3 0
0.5 3 0
0.7 4 0
0.6 3 0
0.6 4 0
0.5 4 0
0.7 3 0
RQ2
Upper 10 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 15.0 3 0
9.0 3 0
Mid 30 Eremophila oppositifolia 4.5 4 0
3.0 4 0
3.0 4 0
2.8 4 0
0.7 4 0
1.3 3 0
2.1 3 0
1.2 1 0
2.1 4 0
1.9 3 0
Lower 5 Scaevola spinescens 1.1 3 0
0.8 3 0
0.5 1 0
0.6 3 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Canopy level Cover
(%) Species
Height (m)
Health rating
Dust rating
1.1 3 0
1.3 4 0
0.5 3 0
1.0 3 0
0.5 2 0
0.8 3 0
RQ3
Upper 70 Allocasuarina corniculata 1.8 3 0
2.5 4 0
2.0 4 0
2.2 3 0
2.5 4 0
2.1 3 0
1.7 3 0
2.0 3 0
2.0 3 0
2.5 1 0
Mid 20 Melaleuca cordata 1.5 3 0
1.3 3 0
0.7 4 0
1.5 4 0
1.3 3 0
1.5 3 0
1.7 3 0
1.6 3 0
1.4 3 0
1.5 4 0
RQ4
Upper 25 Eucalyptus capillosa 6.0 4 0
3.5 2 0
8.0 1 0
8.0 3 0
12.0 3 0
Mid 20 Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis 1.1 1 0
1.5 1 0
1.1 1 0
1.5 1 0
1.6 1 0
1.8 1 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Canopy level Cover
(%) Species
Height (m)
Health rating
Dust rating
1.4 1 0
2.0 1 0
1.4 1 0
1.5 1 0
Lower 20 Melaleuca cordata 3.0 1 0
0.7 3 0
1.0 3 0
1.0 3 0
2.0 1.1 0
1.2 3 0
1.3 3 0
1.0 4 0
0.7 3 0
0.5 2 0
RQ5
Upper 10 Eucalyptus salubris 8.0 3 0
Upper 20 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 12.0 3 0
Mid 25 Melaleuca laxiflora 2.5 3 0
2.1 3 0
2.5 3 0
1.8 3 0
2.2 4 0
2.5 3 0
2.6 3 0
2.4 3 0
2.5 3 0
2.6 4 0
RQ6
Upper 15 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 11.0 3 0
12.0 3 0
10.0 4 0
Mid 7 Eremophila ionantha 0.8 3 0
1.2 5 0
1.3 3 0
1.5 3 0
1.0 3 0
0.7 3 0
1.2 3 0
1.6 4 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Canopy level Cover
(%) Species
Height (m)
Health rating
Dust rating
1.0 4 0
1.0 4 0
Lower 12 Acacia merallii 0.2 3 0
0.2 3 0
0.2 1 0
0.2 4 0
0.3 4 0
0.2 3 0
0.4 3 0
0.2 3 0
0.1 1 0
0.2 1 0
RQ7
Upper 75 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 6.0 3 0
4.0 3 0
6.0 3 0
7.0 4 0
8.0 3 0
7.0 4 0
8.0 3 0
6.0 3 0
9.0 3 0
6.0 3 0
Lower 5 Olearia muelleri 0.2 3 0
0.4 3 0
0.4 4 0
0.5 4 0
0.6 4 0
RQ8
Upper 25 Eucalyptus tephroclada 8.0 3 0
6.0 1 0
6.0 1 0
6.0 4 0
6.0 3 0
9.0 4 0
Mid 10 Melaleuca hamata 1.0 1 0
1.5 1 0
1.5 1 0
1.5 1 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Canopy level Cover
(%) Species
Height (m)
Health rating
Dust rating
1.1 3 0
0.8 1 0
1.0 1 0
1.2 1 0
0.7 2 0
2.0 1 0
IQ1
Mid 30 Allocasuarina spinosissima 3.0 3 0
2.1 4 0
3.0 3 0
2.0 3 0
3.0 3 0
3.0 4 0
2.2 3 0
3.0 4 0
2.5 3 0
2.5 3 0
IQ2
Mid 30 Allocasuarina corniculata 2.5 3 0
2.6 3 0
3.0 3 0
3.1 1 0
2.6 3 0
2.8 1 0
2.6 3 0
2.5 3 0
2.5 3 0
3.0 3 0
IQ3
Upper 10 Eucalyptus horistes 3.0 4 0
4.0 4 0
4.0 3 0
2.0 1 0
2.1 1 0
4.0 3 0
Mid 35 Allocasuarina corniculata 2.5 3 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
2.0 3 0
2.5 3 0
3.0 4 0
2.5 3 0
2.5 3 0
3.0 4 0
2.5 3 0
2.7 3 0
3.0 3 0
IQ4
Mid 25 Allocasuarina corniculata 2.0 3 0
2.0 4 0
2.0 3 0
3.0 3 0
1.5 3 0
2.0 3 0
2.0 3 0
2.0 1 0
3.0 1 0
2.5 3 0
IQ5
Upper 20 Eucalyptus eremophila 5.0 1 0
7.0 3 0
9.0 4 0
6.0 3 0
6.0 1 0
5.0 3 0
9.0 3 0
10.0 3 0
8.0 3 0
5.0 3 0
Mid 20 Melaleuca hamata 3.0 3 0
2.5 3 0
2.5 3 0
3.0 3 0
3.0 3 0
2.7 4 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
2.9 3 0
2.5 3 0
3.2 3 0
3.0 3 0
IQ6
Upper 10 Eucalyptus capillosa 1.5 1 0
6.0 1 0
6.0 1 0
5.0 3 0
8.0 3 0
7.0 3 0
5.0 3 0
5.0 3 0
8.0 3 0
Mid 35 Melaleuca hamata 2.2 3 0
4.0 3 0
3.0 4 0
2.5 4 0
2.6 4 0
2.2 4 0
3.0 3 0
3.0 3 0
2.0 4 0
2.4 3 0
IQ7
Upper 20 Acacia acuminata 7.0 4 0
7.0 5 0
8.0 3 0
7.0 3 0
8.0 5 0
Mid 40 Leptospermum roei 2.0 1 0
2.0 3 0
1.5 3 0
2.1 1 0
2.2 3 0
2.3 1 0
1.7 1 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
2.0 1 0
1.6 1 0
1.5 1 0
Lower 35 Hibbertia eatoniae 0.6 4 0
0.7 3 0
0.6 4 0
0.6 4 0
0.6 3 0
0.7 3 0
0.7 4 0
0.7 4 0
0.8 3 0
0.7 3 0
IQ8
Upper 75 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 14.0 3 0
9.0 1 0
12.0 3 0
14.0 3 0
8.0 4 0
9.0 4 0
10.0 3 0
10.0 4 0
10.0 4 0
13.0 2 0
Lower 5 Olearia muelleri 0.3 4 0
0.3 4 0
0.5 4 0
0.3 3 0
0.3 1 0
IQ9
Upper 40 Eucalyptus capillosa 7.0 3 0
8.0 3 0
4.0 3 0
6.0 4 0
6.0 2 0
9.0 4 0
9.0 3 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Mid 20 Melaleuca hamata 3.5 4 0
3.5 3 0
2.5 4 0
3.0 4 0
3.0 4 0
5.0 4 0
3.0 3 0
5.0 4 0
3.5 4 0
3.5 4 0
Lower 15 Phebalium tuberculosum 1.4 4 0
1.6 3 0
0.9 4 0
1.0 4 0
1.2 3 0
1.4 3 0
1.0 3 0
1.3 3 0
1.6 3 0
1.4 3 0
IQ10
Upper 40 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 6 3 0
8 3 0
10 3 0
12 3 0
8 3 0
7 3 0
4.5 1 0
6 3 0
7 4 0
Mid 20 Melaleuca hamata 6 4 0
3 5 3 0
3.5 4 0
4 5 0
2.5 1 0
3 1 0
5 5 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
5 4 0
5 4 0
6 3 0
4 4 0
IQ11
Upper 10 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 10.0 3 0
Lower 2 Scaevola spinescens 0.5 3 0
0.6 4 0
0.7 4 0
1.1 3 0
0.3 1 0
0.4 1 0
1.2 4 0
0.5 1 0
0.6 1 0
0.6 1 0
IQ12
Upper 13 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 12 3 0
11 3 0
12 1 0
Upper 12 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 12 3 0
14 3 0
14 1 0
Mid 20 Melaleuca pauperiflora 3.7 3 0
2.4 3 0
3 3 0
3 3 0
3 3 0
3.1 1 0
3.5 3 0
4 3 0
5 3 0
3 3 0
Lower 6 Microcybe multiflora 1 3 0
1.2 2 0
1.2 2 0
1 2 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
0.8 2 0
1.2 2 0
0.9 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
1.3 2 0
IQ13
Upper 20 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 10 3 0
11 1 0
11 4 0
Mid 12 Eucalyptus salubris 2 0 0
2.5 1 0
2 1 0
2 3 0
2.5 1 0
3.1 1 0
3 1 0
3.3 1 0
2.2 1 0
2.3 3 0
Lower 10 Scaevola spinescens 0.5 1 0
0.8 1 0
0.5 3 0
0.5 1 0
0.4 1 0
0.6 1 0
1.3 4 0
1 3 0
1 3 0
1.3 4 0
IQ14
Upper 20 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 12.0 3 0
12.0 3 0
Mid 20 Melaleuca pauperiflora 3.8 3 0
4 4 0
4 4 0
4 3 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
3.9 3 0
4.2 3 0
4.5 4 0
4.2 4 0
4.6 3 0
4.5 3 0
Lower 5 Eremophila oppositifolia 1.5 3 0
1.4 3 0
2.3 3 0
2.5 4 0
2.7 4 0
0.6 1 0
1.5 3 0
2.3 4 0
2 3 0
1.5 3 0
IQ15
Upper 10 Eucalyptus livida 5.0 3 0
Mid 30 Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis 1.7 1 0
2.1 1 0
2 1 0
2.2 1 0
1.8 1 0
1.5 3 0
1.8 1 0
1.7 1 0
2 1 0
1.5 1 0
Lower 50 Acacia beauverdiana 2 1 0
2 1 0
2 1 0
2 3 0
2.5 1 0
2.1 1 0
2.5 1 0
2 1 0
1.5 1 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
2 1 0
IQ16
Upper 5 Eucalyptus salubris 4.0 2 0
Upper 30 Eucalyptus salmonophloia 10 3 0
12 3 0
12 3 0
12 3 0
8 3 0
Mid 10 Melaleuca pauperiflora 3.5 1 0
2.2 3 0
3.5 3 0
2.2 3 0
2.5 3 0
4 4 0
2.4 1 0
2.5 3 0
2.1 3 0
2.6 3 0
Lower 10 Acacia enervia subsp. enervia 0.4 4 0
0.4 3 0
0.6 4 0
0.5 1 0
0.5 3 0
0.6 3 0
0.5 3 0
0.4 3 0
0.7 1 0
0.5 3 0
Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 5 Quadrat site photos
Quadrat site photographs Reference sites RQ1
NW NE
SW SE
RQ2
NW
NE
SW
SE
RQ3
NW
NE
SW
SE
RQ4
NW
NE
SW
SE
RQ5
NW
NE
SW
SE
RQ6 NW
NE
SW
SE
RQ7
NW
NE
SW
SE
RQ8
NW
NE
SW
SE
Impact sites Q1
NW
NE
SW
SE
Q2
NW
NE
SW
SE
Q3
NW NE
SW
SE
Q4
NW NE
SW
SE
Q5
NW NE
SW
SE
Q6
NW NE
SW
SE
Q7
NW NE
SW
SE
Q8
NW NE
SW
SE
Q9
NE
SW
SE
Q10
NW
NE
SW
SE
Q11
NW
NE
SW
SE
Q12
NW
NE
SW
SE
Q13
NW
NE
SW
SE
Q14
NW
NE
SW
SE
Q15
NW
NE
SW
SE
Q16
NW
NE
SW
SE
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 20 of 21
Appendix 3: Phoenix (2020) Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
February 2020
Final Report
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd i
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project.
Final Report
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Version history
Authors Reviewer/s Version Version number
Date submitted
Submitted to
S. Findlay, G. Wells
K. Crews Draft for client comments
0.1 24-Jan-20 N. Smith, L. Purves
S. Findlay, G. Wells
K. Crews Final, client comments addressed
1.0 10-Feb-20 N. Smith, L. Purves
©Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2020
The use of this report is solely for the Client for the purpose in which it was prepared. Phoenix Environmental Sciences accepts no responsibility for use beyond this purpose.
All rights are reserved, and no part of this report may be reproduced or copied in any form without the written permission of Phoenix Environmental Sciences or the Client.
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
1/511 Wanneroo Rd BALCATTA WA 6021
P: 08 6323 5410
Project code: 1299-PR-MRL-BOT
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd ii
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... IV
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 State approval requirements .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Federal approval requirements .............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Proponent commitments ........................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Previous surveys ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Requirement for the current baseline assessment................................................................. 9
1.7 Purpose and scope of this report ............................................................................................ 9
2. METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Literature review ................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Field survey ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Isopogon robustus ......................................................................................................... 11
2.2.2 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan ....................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range ................................................................................... 13
3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Literature review ................................................................................................................... 16
3.1.1 Plant health scales ........................................................................................................ 16
3.1.2 Weather ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.2 Significant flora health monitoring ....................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Isopogon robustus ......................................................................................................... 18
3.2.2 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan ....................................................................................... 19
3.3 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range targeted searches ............................................................. 20
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.1 Significant flora health monitoring ............................................................................... 21
4.1.2 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range targeted searches ..................................................... 23
5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 25
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Parker Range Iron Ore Project location .......................................................................... 4 Figure 1-2 Parker Range Iron Ore approved project area and new development envelope ........... 5 Figure 1-3 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan and Isopogon robustus quadrat locations ....................... 7 Figure 1-4 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range population and quadrat locations .............................. 8 Figure 2-1 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range plants in highly disturbed areas ............................... 15 Figure 3-1 Annual climate and weather data for Southern Cross (no. 012320) (BoM 2017) and mean monthly data for the 12 months preceding the field survey ...................................................... 17 List of Tables
Table 1-1 Vegetation health rating scale ............................................................................................ 6 Table 2-1 Isopogon robustus plant health scale (Casson et al. 2009) ............................................... 12 Table 2-2 Dust deposition scale ........................................................................................................ 12 Table 2-3 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan plant health scale .............................................................. 13
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd iii
Table 3-1 Summary of data from Isopogon robustus reference and impact monitoring quadrats surveyed in spring 2019 ................................................................................................ 18
Table 3-2 Summary of data from Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan reference and impact monitoring quadrats surveyed in spring 2019 ..................................................................................... 19
Table 3-3 Summary of data from Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range population searches ............... 20 Appendices
Appendix 1 Site locations Appendix 2 Raw data from Isopogon robustus monitoring quadrats Appendix 3 Raw data from Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan monitoring quadrats Appendix 4 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range quadrat counts for Spring 2019 Appendix 5 Raw data from Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range relevé surveys
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) are proceeding to implement the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (the Project), located approximately 45 km south-east of Southern Cross.. The Project was approved under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2010/5435) on 3 November 2011 via a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and WA. The Project was approved under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) on 12 April 2012, subject to conditions and procedures outlined in the ministerial statement (MS) 892. A condition of the state approval, Condition 7 – Conservation Significant Flora, must be met prior to ground disturbing activities. Condition 7 requires development of a monitoring plan to detect impacts on significant flora from the mine construction and operation.
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd (Phoenix) was commissioned by MRL to undertake baseline surveys to assess plant health of Isopogon robustus (Threatened) and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (Priority 1). Following review of previous baseline surveys and advice from Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on the outcomes and methodology to meet the conditions of MS 892, the parameters to be measured for the baseline surveys were revised. The EPA advice required:
• amendments to the health scale to not include flowering as a measure of health
• identification of what and how parameters will be used to measure decline in health and abundance
• definition of plant health and abundance
• clarification as to how any observed decline in health or abundance may be attributable to mining operations.
To satisfy the requirements of Condition 7-3 and 7-4, targeted surveys of populations of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (P1) were required to determine current population sizes, area of known occupancy and area of suitable habitat. This data was to be used to determine, impacts to the known population size and proportionate removal of known area of occupancy.
A literature review preceded the field survey to identify alternative vegetation health scales. In addition, previous reports were reviewed to determine plant numbers expected to be present in each impact monitoring quadrat and estimates of plant numbers in Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range populations.
Field work to assess the health of significant flora Isopogon robustus (Threatened) and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (Priority 1) involved sampling of twelve 20 m x 20 m quadrats at the Project. For the monitoring of Isopogon robustus a total of seven quadrats were sampled; six impact monitoring quadrats outside of the 250 m buffer and one reference quadrat. For Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan, a total of five quadrats were sampled; three impact monitoring quadrats and two reference quadrats.
Within the Isopogon robustus quadrats each plant was tagged with an aluminium tag, assigned a number and its GPS location recorded. Within the Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan quadrats, the total number of individual plants was recorded and 20 of these were selected, tagged with an aluminium tag and their GPS location recorded.
Additionally, the following metrics were recorded within all quadrats:
• the height and width of each tagged plant in the quadrat
• flower condition
• the health of each plant
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd v
• the level of dust deposition evident on each plant.
Health was assessed by separate scales for Isopogon robustus and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan. The scale of dust deposition on plant foliage has been included for both significant species to provide an indication of whether mine construction and/or operations may be impacting the health of these plants.
Substantial differences were identified in the species abundance and health of plants within and across impact monitoring and reference quadrats for both significant species. Therefore, to monitor for changes to health over time, the proportional change in metrics within each quadrat will be determined and then compared between quadrats. Declines in abundance or health scores identified in impact monitoring quadrats will be compared with those of reference quadrats to assess whether declines are a result of climatic conditions (i.e. drought, cyclones) or impacts from the development and/or operations of the mine. Should any decline in a impact monitoring quadrat not be reflected in reference sites then investigations will be conducted to determine the cause of the decline. Data may be correlated to changes in the dust deposition scale to indicate whether the change may be related to mine site operations. In addition, site photos and field notes will be reviewed to detect other possible causes for the change.
Targeted searches were undertaken of the six known populations of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range previously recorded within the Parker Range area. The boundary of population 6 had been recorded in a previous survey. The location of all remaining populations was identified by a single GPS location. A search was conducted of population 6 within and outside of the recorded boundary to determine whether the population had grown and all plants sighted were counted. For the other populations, a search was conducted of the population locations to locate plants. Once plants were located the surrounding area was searched by foot in a series of parallel meandering transects to define the boundary of each population. During the targeted searches for the species a seventh population was found. The population was discovered late in the field survey and subsequently there was insufficient time to complete a full survey and establish the population size.
Population 2 was largely confined to a small gravel pit. A thorough search of this area was conducted, and all individual plants were counted. Populations 1, 3, 4 and 5 were too large and/or dense to count all individuals in the field time available and so an estimated total was determined. Within the population boundary four 5x5m quadrats (non-permanent) were used to obtain a count of plants within a 25m² square area. The number of plants per 25m² square area were averaged and this value was then extrapolated for the total area of the population.
Population estimates from this survey were substantially higher than previous estimates. As the former survey provided no data on population area for the majority of populations it is possible that plants were recorded over a different range resulting in the large disparity in population sizes. However, population 1 occupied a small restricted area and yet the population estimate was orders of magnitude higher in this survey than the earlier count of the species at this location.
Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range is a disturbance opportunist with plants most abundant in recently disturbed sites. A large number of small juvenile plants and seedlings were observed during the current survey and it appears as though population numbers have increased since the time of the previous survey in response to multiple disturbances.
Two populations of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range occur within the development envelope of the Project. The combined areas of these two populations was recorded to be ca.14 ha representing 25% of the estimated total ca.56 ha currently recorded for Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range. The populations had a combined total of 3,831 plants which represent 4.7% of the total 81,341 plants estimated to occur in the six populations fully surveyed. An estimated 9,750 ha of suitable habitat for this species has been mapped for the Parker Range PEC.
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) are proceeding to commence the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (the Project). The Project was approved under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2010/5435; DSEWPaC 2011) on 3 November 2011 via a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and WA. The Project was approved under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) on 12 April 2012, subject to conditions and procedures outlined in ministerial statement (MS) 892 (Minister for Environment; Water 2012).
The Project is located 55 km southeast of Southern Cross, in the Goldfields region of Western Australia (Figure 1-1). The approved Project area under MS 892 and EPBC 2010/5435 is 472.95 ha (Figure 1-1) excluding the upper haul road (4.1 ha). MRL are seeking a minor amendment to the approved project area (referred to in this report as the development envelope), which is 421.82 ha (Figure 1-1). This report adopts the revised development envelope in place of the approved project area.
Condition 7 of MS 892 and conditions 1 and 2 of EPBC 2010/5435 relate to the management of conservation significant flora, as outlined below.
1.1 STATE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Condition 7-7 of MS 892 requires development of a monitoring plan to detect impacts on significant flora from the mine construction and operation, including the provision of baseline data, prior to ground disturbing activities (Minister for Environment; Water 2012). In addition, condition 7-3 of MS 892 requires a targeted survey of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range prior to ground disturbing activities in order to determine impacts on the species. Full details of Condition 7 as stated in Minister for Environment; Water (2012) are provided below.
7 Conservation Significant Flora
Clearing
7-1 The proponent shall ensure that there is no loss of plants of the Declared Rare Flora (now listed as Threatened) species Isopogon robustus due to ground disturbing activities.
7-2 The proponent shall ensure the long-term maintenance of genetic diversity of the Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan species within the Parker Range region through the following actions:
1. Prior to ground disturbing activities required for the implementation and operation of the proposal, the proponent shall collect seed and plant material of the Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan populations that will be cleared as a result of this proposal. The seed and plant material will be vested in an appropriate facility which can ensure long-term viability of seed storage and protection of identified mother stock of genetic significance for storage and approved restoration works to the satisfaction of the CEO on advice of the DEC.
2. The proponent shall undertake genetic analysis including:
a. Spatial analysis of population genetic structure;
b. Genetic analysis of the mating system; and
c. Genetic analysis of realized dispersal,
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2
to the satisfaction of the CEO to determine the relative genetic diversity of the populations of Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and populations of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan using the seed and plant material collected in accordance with condition 7-2-1.
3. The proponent shall develop a rehabilitation and research program within six months of ground disturbing activities for Priority flora species with particular focus on the species Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range to the satisfaction of the CEO on advice of the DEC. This program shall:
a. include a time or timeframe for commencement and completion of the rehabilitation and research program;
b. focus on shallow soil analysis, water use efficiency, restoration practices, transplantation trials and seed trials;
c. be undertaken in consultation with the DEC; and
d. be based on the nature of the impact on genetic diversity determined in condition 7-2-2.
7-3 Prior to ground disturbing activities required for the implementation and operation of the proposal the proponent shall undertake a targeted survey of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range to the satisfaction of the CEO on the advice of the DEC to determine the local and regional impact to this species.
7-4 The proponent shall provide a copy of the survey report required in condition 7-3 to the CEO and the DEC within three months of completion.
Indirect impacts
7-5 The proponent shall ensure that due to ground disturbing activities:
• there are no indirect impacts to the Declared Rare Flora Isopogon robustus; and
• that indirect impacts to Priority 1 flora Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan do not result in a loss of health and abundance outside the project footprint.
7-6 To verify the requirements of 7-5 are met the proponent shall undertake monitoring in accordance with condition 7-7 of the health and abundance of declared rare flora Isopogon robustus and Priority 1 flora Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan at reference and potential impact sites.
7-7 To meet the requirements under condition 7-6 the proponent shall prepare a monitoring plan prior to ground disturbing activities for the approval of the CEO on advice of the DEC. The monitoring plan shall include:
1. the provision of baseline data;
2. identification of baseline and control sites;
3. definition of monitoring frequency, timing, intensity and replication;
4. definition of health and abundance;
5. identification of what and how parameters will be used to measure decline or rate of decline in health or abundance; and
6. definition of trigger levels and management responses.
7-8 Should the potential impact sites show a decline in health or abundance as determined by condition 7-7 compared to the reference sites the proponent shall provide a report to the CEO within 21 days of the decline being identified which:
1. describes the decline; and
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 3
2. provides information which allows determination of the likely root cause of the decline.
7-9 If the decline in health or abundance identified in conditions 7-7 and 7-8 is determined by the CEO to be caused by activities undertaken in implementing the proposal the proponent shall, implement the actions identified in condition 7-7-6 and continue to implement such actions until the CEO determines that the remedial actions may cease.
1.2 FEDERAL APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
EPBC 2010/5435 includes the following conditions relating to the Threatened flora Isopogon robustus:
1. Prior to commencement of operations the person undertaking the action must ensure that baseline flora surveys are conducted in order to investigate the local population of Isopogon robustus within a 350 m buffer around the project area. The surveys must by undertaken by a qualified botanist and results submitted to the department.
2. In order to protect the Isopogon robustus from impacts associated with the Project, within 12 months of commencement of operations, the person must obtain the Minster’s approval of an Isopogon robustus Monitoring Plan. This plan must include:
a) the desired outcomes/objectives of implementing the plan;
b) results of completed baseline surveys;
c) details of parameters that will be used to measure decline or rate of decline in health or abundance;
d) definition of proposed trigger levels and management responses; and
e) the timing, responsibilities and management measures to mitigate and avoid adverse impacts to Isopogon robustus, including the management and reduction of identified threats to the species (such as exotic species), and measures to monitor and manage relevant dust parameters.
1.3 PROPONENT COMMITMENTS
Indirect impacts to vegetation health identified in the Public Environmental Review (PER) for the approved project (KLA 2010) included impacts from dust deposition. The considered potential impact zone from dust was determined to be up to 250 m from mining and processing areas and 125 m from haul roads. Subsequently, monitoring within and outside of a 250 m buffer area (Figure 1-3) to determine impacts to vegetation and plant health was a proposed environmental management action in the PER. In addition a commitment to maintain a buffer zone of a minimum 350 m (Figure 1-3) between the impact area of disturbance and the Isopogon robustus populations was provided in the PER for the approved project (KLA 2010).
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 19-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
!
!
LAKEKOORKOORDINE
LAKE COTTONLAKE POLARIS
MARV
ELLO
CHYE
LLOWD
INERO
AD
SOUTHERNCROSS
MARVEL LOCH ROAD
FORRESTANIA
SOUTHERN CROSS ROAD
PARKER RANGE ROAD
MARVEL LOCHYELLOWDINE ROAD
GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY
SOUTHERN CROSS
720000 770000
6500
000
6550
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1299-PR-MRL-BOT\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\1300_1_Project_Location.mxd
0 7 14Kilometres
1:400,000
Mineral Resources Ltd Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
°
(at A4)
19-Feb-20DateProject No 1299
AJKC
Parker Range Iron OreProject location
Figure 1-1Approved project area (MS 892)New development envelope
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
!PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 19-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
!
!
GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY
SOUTHERN CROSS
MARVEL LOCH
710000 730000
6500
000
6520
000
6540
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1299-PR-MRL-BOT\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\1299_1-2_ProjectArea.mxd
0 5 10Kilometres
1:250,000
Mineral Resources LtdParker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA94 MGA zone 50
°
(at A4)
19-Feb-20DateProject No 1299
AJGW
Parker Range Iron OreProject approved projectarea and new developmentenvelope
Figure 1-2Approved project area (MS 892)New development envelope
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
0 1 2Kilometres
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 6
1.5 PREVIOUS SURVEYS
Baseline surveys to assess significant flora plant health, Isopogon robustus (Threatened) (Botanica Consulting 2011a) and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (Priority 1) (Botanica Consulting 2011b) were previously undertaken for the Project in 2011.
For the monitoring of Isopogon robustus a total of seven 20 m x 20 m quadrats were installed (Figure 1-3):
• six impact monitoring quadrats outside of the 250 m buffer
• one reference quadrat, 1 km south-east of the development envelope.
For the monitoring of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan, a total of five 20 m x 20 m quadrats were installed (Figure 1-3):
• three impact monitoring quadrats outside of the 250 m buffer
• two reference quadrats, 9 km and 1.5 km north of the development envelope
The location of the monitoring quadrats was determined by placing them in selected existing populations of the species. Analogue sites were selected in conjunction with the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (Botanica Consulting 2011a, b), now the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA).
The previous baseline assessment recorded the abundance (total number of plants present) and the overall health of all plants within the quadrat according to the scale provided in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1 Vegetation health rating scale
Health Rating
Health Description
Definition
5 Excellent Plants are highly vigorous (healthy, strong and growing well), leaves are lush (very green and healthy). Plants are in flower and producing fruit. New growth is present.
4 Very Good Plants are moderately vigorous, leaves are lush. Plants have no flowers/dry
3 Good Plants are not vigorous, leaves are not lush. Plants have no flowers and no fruit. No new growth is present flowers and no fruit. New growth is present.
2 Poor Plants are not vigorous, leaves are not lush. Plants have no flowers and no fruit. No new growth is present flowers and no fruit. New growth is present.
1 Dead Plants are dead
To satisfy the requirements of Condition 7-3 and 7-4 targeted surveys to locate populations of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (P1) and to determine populations sizes were conducted (Botanica Consulting 2012). The surveys identified six populations (Figure 1-4) one of which occurred completely in the development envelope for the Project. This population comprised 3,039 plants estimated to represent 17.6% of the known populations of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range.
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
Figure 1-3Lepidosperma sp. MountCaudan and Isopogonrobustus quadrat locations
°
Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Projection: Transverse MercatorDatum: GDA 1994
Client: MRLProject: Parker Range Iron Ore Project (Mine)
This d
rawing
is sub
ject to
COPY
RIGHT
and i
s prop
erty o
f Pho
enix E
nviron
menta
l Scien
ces
Date: 19-Feb-20Author: AJ
0 1 2Kilometres
1:50,000
") ")")
")
")
")")!(
!(!(
!(
#*
!(
IQ1IQ6
IQ5
IQ4
IQ3 IQ2
740000 742000 744000
6500
000
Document Path: P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1299-PR-MRL-BOT\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\1299_3_QuadratLocations_Targeted.mxd
Approved project area (MS892)New development envelope250 m buffer of thedevelopment envelope350 m buffer of thedevelopment envelope
#*Lepidosperma sp. MountCaudan new population
!(Lepidosperma sp. MountCaudan quadrats
") Isopogon robustus quadrats
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
R1
R2
R1-2
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
Figure 1-4Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range population and quadrat locations
°
Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Projection: Transverse MercatorDatum: GDA 1994
Client: MRLProject: Parker Range Iron Ore Project (Mine)
This d
rawing
is sub
ject to
COPY
RIGHT
and i
s prop
erty o
f Pho
enix E
nviron
menta
l Scien
ces
Date: 19-Feb-20Author: AJ
0 1 2Kilometres
1:70,000
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
Population 1 Population 2
Population 3Population 6
Population 4
Population 7
Population 5
735000 740000
6490
000
6500
000
Document Path: P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1299-PR-MRL-BOT\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\1299_1-4_Chamelaucium.mxd
Approved project area(MS 892)New developmentenvelopePopulation boundary
!( Quadrat
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 9
1.6 REQUIREMENT FOR THE CURRENT BASELINE ASSESSMENT
Advice from EPA services (Jessica Allen pers. com. via email to Les Purves of MRL 12 November 2019) on the outcomes and methodology of the previous survey (Botanica Consulting 2011a) and its capacity to meet the conditions of MS 892 was as follows:
“The 2011 monitoring program developed for Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan is basic in that two variables were recorded (number of individuals and “health”) from the three impact quadrats and two reference quadrats. The same data is recorded for Isopogon robustus from six impact quadrats and one reference quadrat. It may be difficult to attribute any change by confining variables to the basic requirements. An analysis of the potential cause of changes to health or abundance that could result from operations may provide more useful data to monitor and attribute any changes. A 1-5 scale is not suitable to measure a 10% change in species health, given that it is a 5-point scale which represents a broad 20% change. Additionally, the health scale is excessively responsive to seasonal variables, for example the monitoring program for Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan states that the health of the species overall is rated at 3 as flower heads had dried out after flowering. Had the monitoring taken place two months earlier, the health may have been a higher rating.”
Following submission of a report on the outcomes of the surveys for Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (Botanica Consulting 2012), the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) requested that additional information regarding regional and local impacts be incorporated into a revised report. The DEC (now DBCA) specifically requested the targeted survey report include “information on the number of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range individuals to be impacted against the total number of individuals known, the number and proportion of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range populations to be impacted against the total number of populations known, the amount of suitable Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range habitat to be impacted against the total amount of suitable habitat and the area of occupancy to be impacted against the total area of occupancy known”.
Botanica Consulting (2012) did not provide data pertaining to the area of the populations surveyed or description of habitats for the species. In addition, the surveys were conducted in 2011 and therefore the current status/size of the populations was unknown. Subsequently it was determined that all known populations required resurvey to provide the information requested by OEPA and DBCA.
1.7 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide the baseline data to inform a significant flora monitoring and management plan for the Project that will be prepared to meet condition 7-7 of MS 892 and condition 2 of EPBC 2010/5435. It is also intended to address condition 7-3 of MS 892 regarding targeted survey requirements for Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range.
The scope of work in relation to conditions of MS 892 and EPBC 2010/5435 was as follows:
• undertake targeted searches for Isopogon robustus and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan within the Project tenements (mine area) and a baseline monitoring survey of all known and new locations of each species. Baseline survey for Isopogon robustus to include 350 m buffer of the development envelope (Figure 1-3) in accordance with condition 1 of EPBC 2010/5435; baseline survey for Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan to include a 250 m buffer of the development envelope (Figure 1-3)
• undertake a targeted survey of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range within an area of 20 km of the Project to determine the local and regional impact to this species (MS 892).
The previous surveys conducted (Botanica Consulting 2010a, b, c, 2011a, b, 2012) provided targeted searches of each of the significant flora and an initial baseline assessment of health for Isopogon
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 10
robustus and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan. The scope of works for the current assessment of Isopogon robustus and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan was to provide an additional baseline health survey within the established monitoring quadrats that:
• provided an alternative health measure that does not include flowering
• demonstrated how the health measure and other metrics may be used to assess the 10% trigger value
• provided a measure to link potential impacts on plants from the mining operations.
Required works for Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range included resurvey of all known populations within 20 km of the development envelope to determine:
• current population size
• area of known occupancy
• area of suitable habitat
• impacts to the known population size
• proportion removal of known area of occupancy.
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 11
2. METHODS
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Prior to conducting the field survey, a literature review was undertaken to identify an alternative vegetation health scale. In addition, previous survey reports were reviewed (Botanica Consulting 2011a, b, 2012) to determine plant numbers expected to be present in each monitoring quadrat and estimates of plant numbers in Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range populations.
The Bureau of Meteorology website (BoM 2019) was interrogated to identify the closest active weather station to the Project to provide long term monthly rainfall and temperature averages for comparison to monthly totals and averages just prior to the field surveys.
2.2 FIELD SURVEY
The field surveys were conducted by Dr Grant Wells and Shenade Findlay from 13-23 November 2019.
As the previous monitoring quadrats for Isopogon robustus and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan had been selected in consultation with the DBCA (then DEC) (Botanica Consulting 2011a, b), the quadrats were revisited. This was also undertaken to provide baseline data from two monitoring periods.
A single GPS location had been recorded for each of the monitoring plots (Botanica Consulting 2011a, b) requiring some searching for quadrat marker posts in denser vegetation during the current survey. To facilitate locating marker posts for future surveys a GPS location for each post was recorded during the current field survey. In addition, some of the previous plots had no or just two permanent marker posts. In these instances, steel fence droppers were used to mark out new quadrats.
All recorded populations of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (Botanica Consulting 2012; DBCA 2019) were revisited and surveys conducted to determine area of occupancy and population size.
2.2.1 Isopogon robustus
A count of all plants in the quadrat was conducted. Each of the plants present in the quadrat were tagged with an aluminium tag and assigned a number. A GPS location for each plant was recorded.
The following metrics were recorded:
• the height and width of each plant present in the quadrat
• flower condition
• the health of each plant (Table 2-1)
• the level of dust deposition evident on each plant (Table 2-2).
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 12
Table 2-1 Isopogon robustus plant health scale (Casson et al. 2009)
Health rating
Description
0 Healthy, no dead leaves
1 Occasional dead leaves
2 Epicormic shoots (therefore stressed)
3 Tips of branches stressed or dying
4 Entire or whole branches dying or dead (NB some lower branches excluded from this assessment)
5 More than half tree dead
6 Tree dead
Table 2-2 Dust deposition scale
Dust Rating
Description
0 No evidence of dust deposition
1 Evidence of dust deposition (minor discolouration indicating fine dust particles on surface of leaves)
2 Minor, dust build up visible on surface of some leaves
3 Moderate, dust build up with more than 50% of leaves covered
4 Heavy, dust build up covers entire surface of all leaves
2.2.2 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan
A count of all plants in the quadrat was conducted. Twenty plants were selected, tagged with an aluminium tag and assigned a number. A GPS location for each plant was recorded.
The following metrics were recorded for each plant tagged:
• the height and width of each plant present in the quadrat
• flower condition
• the level of dust deposition evident on each plant (Table 2-2)
• the health of each plant (Table 2-3).
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 13
Table 2-3 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan plant health scale
Health rating
Description
0 No dead leaves
1 Occasional leaf tip dieback
2 More than half leaves with leaf tip dieback
3 Occasional completely dead leaves, more than 50% leaves with leaf tip dieback
4 More than half of leaves completely dead
5 Plant dead
2.2.3 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range
Six populations of the Priority 1 species Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range were previously recorded within the Parker Range area (Botanica Consulting 2012). During targeted searches for the species, a seventh populations was identified.
The boundary of population 6 was previously recorded (Botanica Consulting 2012). This boundary was placed onto an electronic tablet utilising GISPro software. In the field the searchers location within the boundary of the population could then be visualised to ensure the full extent of the previously recorded population was traversed. A count of all individuals observed was made. Searches were also conducted outside of the recorded boundary to determine whether the population had grown to extend outside of this area.
No population boundaries were available for any other population. The location of all remaining populations was identified by a single GPS location.
A search was conducted at each population location record to locate plants. Once plants were located the surrounding area was searched by foot in a series of parallel meandering transects. Where plants were intercepted along the transect a GPS location was recorded. Transects were continued until no plants were sighted after progressing several hundred metres following which the search moved approximately 50 m perpendicular to the transect and then the search proceeded back in the direction of the recorded plants. This transect was continued until the search passed the point of the initial plant locations and had progressed for several hundred metres without further detection of plants. This process was repeated to define the boundary of the population.
Following definition of the population boundary it was evident that population 2 was largely confined to a small gravel pit. Subsequently, a thorough search of this area was conducted and all individual plants were counted.
Populations 1, 3, 4 and 5 (Figure 1-3) were too large and/or dense to count all individuals in the field time available and so an estimated total was determined. Within the defined population boundary, four 5x5m quadrats (non-permanent) were used to obtain a count of plants within a 25 m² square area. The number of plants per 25 m² square area were averaged and this value was then extrapolated for the total area of the population (Appendix 4). For population 1, this was the final population estimate as plants appeared relatively evenly spread throughout the defined population area. For populations 3, 4 and 5, the figure extrapolated for the population area was reduced by a third to provide a more conservative estimate as it was apparent during searches to define the population boundaries that large sections of the defined population area did not contain plants.
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 14
Population 7 was discovered late in the field survey and as a result there was inadequate time to completely traverse the area to define the population boundary and establish an estimate of population size.
The plants of populations 1, 2, 3 and 6 were located primarily in highly disturbed areas including gravel borrow pits, exploration tracks and pads, areas disturbed from roadworks and areas disturbed during construction of the emu proof fence (Figure 2-1). Subsequently, relevé surveys were conducted within populations 5, 4 and 7 to provide descriptions of suitable habitat for the species (Appendix 5).
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 15
Road and track edges on
boundary of gravel borrow pit
at population 6
Count quadrat in area cleared
for roadwork and recently
burnt at population 1
Gravel pit at population 2
Figure 2-1 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range plants in highly disturbed areas
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 16
3. RESULTS
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1.1 Plant health scales
Review of Casson et al. (2009) identified the health scale could be applied to Isopogon robustus in the current survey. However, Casson et al. (2009) contained no health scale for grasses/sedges/caespitose forbs and the scale used for the Isopogon robustus shrubs was not appropriate for Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan. An online search for a plant health scale applicable to caespitose plants failed to provide such a scale. Subsequently a scale to record plant health for Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan was derived based on the premise of gradual evidence of death of plant components in a similar fashion to the Casson et al. (2009) scale.
3.1.2 Weather
The nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather station with comprehensive data collection and historic climate data is located at Southern Cross (No. 012320, Latitude: 31.25⁰S Longitude: 119.34⁰E) approximately 45 km northwest of the development envelope. Southern Cross records the highest maximum mean monthly temperature in January (36.2°C), and the lowest minimum mean in July (3.8°C) (BoM 2019) (Figure 3-1). The average annual rainfall is 306.0 mm with January, March and July recording the highest monthly averages (31.3 mm, 36.1 mm and 35.1 mm respectively).
Daily mean temperatures and rainfall for Southern Cross in the 12 months preceding the survey (November 2018–October 2019) were only slightly variable to annual long-term averages (Figure 3-1). Mean maximum temperatures were approximately average to slightly above average while mean minimum temperatures were mostly equal to average. Rainfall was variable against long term annual averages with total annual rainfall (226.4 mm) lower than the average annual rainfall (306.0 mm). The three months prior to the survey in November 2019 experienced below average rainfall (BoM 2019).
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 17
Figure 3-1 Annual climate and weather data for Southern Cross (no. 012320) (BoM 2017) and mean monthly data for the 12 months preceding the field survey
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Rain
fall
(mm
)
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
Mean rainfall (mm) for years 1996 to 2019
Total monthly rainfall from November 2018 to October 2019
Mean maximum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1996 to 2019
Mean minimum temperature (Degrees C) for years 1996 to 2019
Mean daily max temperature from November 2018 to October 2019
Mean daily min temperature from November 2018 to October 2019
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 18
3.2 SIGNIFICANT FLORA HEALTH MONITORING
3.2.1 Isopogon robustus
Health ratings for individual Isopogon robustus plants varied within and across each quadrat (Appendix 2). The reference quadrat had a mean health score of 1.9, the impact monitoring quadrats had a mean ranging from 1.9 to 3.2. No signs of dust build up were recorded for plants within the impact monitoring and reference quadrats, with all dust ratings recorded as 0.
The abundance of Isopogon robustus within the reference quadrat was 9. The impact monitoring quadrats ranged in abundance from 12 to 53 plants per quadrat. An increase in abundance from 2011 to 2019 was recorded for five impact monitoring quadrats (IQ1, IQ2, IQ3, IQ4 and IQ6). A lower abundance was recorded for the reference quadrat in 2019.
A summary of the results for the spring 2019 Isopogon robustus monitoring is provided in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Summary of data from Isopogon robustus reference and impact monitoring quadrats surveyed in spring 2019
Mean plant health Mean dust rating
Abundance
Botanica Consulting (2011a)
Current survey 2019
RQ1
1.9 0 10 9
IQ1
3.2 0 9 12
IQ2
2.7 0 4 15
IQ3
2.6 0 38 53
IQ4
1.9 0 24 36
IQ5
2.5 0 23 23
IQ6
2.8 0 27 35
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 19
3.2.2 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan
Health ratings for individual Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan plants varied within and across each quadrat (Appendix 3). Analogue quadrats had a mean health score of 3.9 and impact monitoring quadrats had a mean health score ranging from 2.2 to 3.7. No signs of dust build up were recorded for plants within the impact monitoring and reference quadrats, with all dust ratings recorded as 0.
Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan abundance in quadrats RQ1, RQ2 and IQ1 has increased since the previous survey in 2011. Abundance for quadrats IQ2 and IQ3 remained the same as previously recorded in 2011.
A summary of the results is provided in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2 Summary of data from Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan reference and impact monitoring quadrats surveyed in spring 2019
Mean plant health Mean dust rating
Abundance
Botanica Consulting (2011a)
2019
RQ1
3.9 0 117 150
RQ2
3.9 0 107 111
IQ1
2.2 0 77 136
IQ2
3.7 0 77 77
IQ3
3.1 0 89 89
A new population of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan was discovered during the field survey. Confirmation of the population was only determined post-field when specimens taken could be verified as the species at the state herbarium.
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 20
3.3 CHAMELAUCIUM SP. PARKER RANGE TARGETED SEARCHES
Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range plants were relocated at all six populations recorded previously and a seventh population was discovered during the field survey (Figure 1-4).
Population estimates from the current survey ranged from 779 (population 2) to 34,140 (population 4) (Table 3-3). With the exception of population 2, population sizes from the current survey were all higher than for the previous survey and frequently orders of magnitude higher.
Area size for each population ranged from 1.1 ha (population 2) to 14.2 ha (population 4).
Table 3-3 Summary of data from Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range population searches
Population Coordinates Area (ha) Ave count per 25m2
quadrats
Counted1 or estimated no. of plants
Botanica Consulting
(2012) 2019
1 -31.60024, 119.51851 2.65 18 416 19,080
2 -31.59991, 119.52657 1.17 N/A 1,071 779
3 -31.61297, 119.51647 12.54 11 2,000 18,392*
4 -31.63305, 119.52061 14.21 18 7,000 34,140*
5 -31.68461, 119.46742 11.06 4 4,000 5,898*
6 -31.61690, 119.55382 12.77 N/A 3,039 3,052
7 -31.62468, 119.53991 1.642 N/A N/A NA
Total 56.04 17,526 81,341
1 – Totals for populations 2 and 6 represent actual counts of plants, all other populations are estimated from extrapolation of counts in quadrats. 2 – Survey of this population is incomplete; the area of occupancy is assumed to be larger than so far recorded. *– Values were divided by 3 to account for large bare areas with no Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range.
Vegetation descriptions for Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range from the current survey comprised:
• Population 4 – Low Eucalyptus capillosa woodland over low Allocasuarina corniculata, Hakea francisiana and Melaleuca cordata shrubland
• Population 5 – Low Eucalyptus capillosa woodland, over mid open Allocasuarina spinosissima, Callitris pressii and Hakea francisiana shrubland over low Melaleuca cordata, Beaufortia orbifolia and Verticordia eriocephala shrubland
• Population 7 – Mid Eucalyptus burracoppinensis woodland over tall open Allocasuarina acutivalvis, A. corniculata and Banksia laevigata shrubland over mid Beaufortia interstans, Isopogon scabriusculus subsp. stenophyllus and Melaleuca cordata shrubland.
Habitat types included slopes of low hills and undulating plain in yellow to whitish yellow sand to sandy loam soils with laterite gravel.
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 21
4. DISCUSSION
4.1.1 Significant flora health monitoring
This significant flora plant health monitoring survey provides baseline measurable parameters that will be used to inform the significant flora monitoring and management plan (SFMMP). The SFMMP will provide further detail on management actions should monitoring determine impacts of 10%, or greater, that would trigger investigation into potential causes of impact and mitigation actions should impacts be determined to be attributable to mining operations.
Monitoring of Isopogon robustus and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan within the established quadrats will be conducted to identify potential impacts from mining operations. Amendments to the monitoring methods and parameters from the previous baseline assessment (Botanica Consulting 2011c) have been undertaken to address advice from EPA services (Jessica Allen pers. com. via email to Les Purves of MRL 12 November 2019) on the outcomes and methodology of the previous survey capacity to meet the conditions of Ministerial Statement 892 and included:
• use of the (Casson et al. 2009) plant health scale to monitor Isopogon robustus which does not include flowering as a measure of plant health
• derivation of a plant health scale to monitor Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan that does not include flowering as a measure of health
• monitoring of the health of all Isopogon robustus plants in the quadrat to generate a mean value of plant health that may be compared between monitoring seasons, as well as impact monitoring and reference quadrats. This replaces the single measure of plant health for the entire quadrat provided in the prior survey (Botanica Consulting 2011a)
• monitoring of the health of 20 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan plants in the quadrat to generate a mean value of plant health that may be compared between monitoring seasons and impact monitoring and reference quadrats. This replaces the single measure of plant health for the entire quadrat provided in the prior survey
• a scale of dust deposition on plant foliage has been included for both significant species to provide an indication of whether mine construction and/or operations may be impacting the health of these plants (Botanica Consulting 2011b).
Height and width measures were taken for each Isopogon robustus individual in each quadrat and for the 20 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan individuals tagged to be monitored for plant health. These measures were taken primarily to assist in relocating individuals if necessary, i.e. should plant tags become displaced, but may also be used to assess plant growth which may be compared between quadrats. Any apparent restriction in plant growth associated with an observed build-up of dust on the plant foliage may provide an early indication of potential impacts from dust deposition.
The high number of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan plants in each quadrat would require a loss of a number of plants to result in a 10% decline in numbers and trigger investigation into the cause of the decline. It should be noted however, that both reference quadrats had the highest number of plants and subsequently would require a greater number of plant deaths with respect to the impact monitoring quadrats to result in a 10% change. Conversely, the reference quadrat for Isopogon robustus had the lowest number of individuals (9) and a solitary death in this quadrat would result in a greater than 10% change in abundance. A greater number of plant deaths may occur in the impact monitoring quadrats, for example five plant deaths at quadrat IMQ3 would not result in a 10% decrease in plant abundance and therefore not trigger investigation into the cause of the decline.
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 22
Subsequently, there are limitations in using changes in total plant abundance as an indicator of impacts on the health of the population and any noted change in plant numbers should be considered with changes to mean plant health of remaining individuals, build-up of dust on plant foliage and other environmental factors/conditions e.g. fire, prolonged drought in determining whether a decline is attributable to mining construction/operations.
4.1.1.1 Isopogon robustus plant health
Mean plant health in the reference community was equivalent to one impact monitoring quadrat (IQ4). Mean health of plants in all other impact monitoring quadrats indicated there were a greater number of plants exhibiting dead foliage and or branches and subsequently poorer health ratings. Future monitoring should consider that the baseline survey has identified that plant health in the reference community exceeds that of the majority of impact monitoring quadrats. Therefore, to monitor for changes to vegetation health over time, the proportional change in metrics within each quadrat will need to be determined and then compared between quadrats.
For example, any increase or decrease in mean plant health within a quadrat will be determined by dividing the mean health recorded in the current monitoring period to that of the previous monitoring period and to the baseline data obtained from the current survey to provide a proportion (percentage) of change. This value would then be compared between monitoring quadrats and the reference quadrat to determine whether there is a similar trend across quadrats or whether it is restricted to one or a few quadrats. Should any change be recorded, this may be correlated to changes in the dust deposition scale to indicate whether the change may be related to mine site operations. Site photos and field notes would also be reviewed to detect other possible causes for the change.
The current survey identified an increase in abundance of Isopogon robustus plants within each impact monitoring quadrat and a decrease (one plant) in the reference quadrat since the previous survey in 2011. Differences in abundance for quadrats 1, 3, 5 and 6 appeared to be the result of new recruitment with seedlings and juvenile plants (height less than 1 m) recorded. However, for the reference quadrat and quadrat 2, only two of the corners of the quadrat were marked with a steel dropper and no corners were marked with droppers at quadrat 4. Subsequently, differences in plant numbers may arise from the installation of the quadrat in a different location to the previous quadrat.
4.1.1.2 Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan plant health
No published plant health scale for caespitose plant species was identified during the literature review and subsequently a plant health scale was derived for Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan.
Future monitoring of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan plant health should consider that the baseline assessment has identified that mean health in the reference quadrats was poorer than that of all impact monitoring quadrats. Monitoring of proportional change in health between quadrats as described above for Isopogon robustus and correlation with dust deposition values will be used to monitor for any decline in plant health and assist in determining the cause of the decline.
By utilizing the mean value for plants in the quadrat rather than assigning a solitary value for the entire quadrat, as was done previously (Botanica Consulting 2011b), a change in the health rating of several (minimum of eight plants) plants would be required to result in a 10% decrease for the quadrat.
All plants across all quadrats showed signs of stress, with no plants allocated a health rating of 0 (no dead leaves). This could be a result of the below average rainfall in the three months preceding the survey.
Plant abundance for the current survey showed an increase since the previous survey (2011) within three quadrats. Significant increases were observed within the reference quadrats, with 33 more
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 23
individuals in AQ1 and 59 more individuals in AQ2. The increase in AQ2 has likely arisen from new recruitment within the population since the time of the previous survey. Not all corners of the quadrat were marked at the other two quadrats that showed an increase in abundance and subsequently the differences in plant abundance may be partially the result of surveying a different area.
4.1.2 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range targeted searches
This survey identified very large population numbers for the Priority 1 species Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range within the Parker Range area. The total estimates from this survey are 81,341 individual plants covering an area of ca.56 ha. In addition, during targeted searches of the previously recorded six populations of the Priority 1 species Chamelaucium sp. (Botanica Consulting 2012), a new population (population 7) was found within the 250 m buffer of the development envelope. Population 7 was discovered late in the field survey and as a result there was inadequate time to completely traverse the area to define the population boundary and establish an estimate of population size. The total number of plants and total area of occupancy are therefore assumed to be higher than the values calculated.
Population estimates from this survey were substantially higher than previous estimates (Botanica Consulting 2012). As the former survey provided no data on population area for the majority of populations, it is possible that plants at each location were detected over a different range, i.e. plants recorded over a greater extent in the current survey. Subsequently, population estimates were greater for this survey as they considered a larger population area. However, population 1 was recorded in the current survey in a small restricted area and yet the population estimate was orders of magnitude higher than the earlier count of the species at this location.
There was strong evidence of recent disturbance at population 1 including impacts from partial clearing, presumably from roadworks, as well as recent fire. Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range is an apparent disturbance opportunist, with plants most abundant in recently disturbed sites across the majority of populations. Population 1 during the current survey comprised a large number of small juvenile plants and seedlings and it appears as though population numbers have increased since the time of the previous survey in response to these disturbances. Similarly, plant numbers at population 4 were highest in recent fire scars where small juvenile plants and seedlings were plentiful and numbers lower and plants more mature in older fire scars. The abundance of seedlings recorded in the recent fire scars may account for the considerable difference in population estimates for this population between the two surveys.
The lack of data pertaining to population area from the initial survey (Botanica Consulting 2012) precludes a more accurate assessment in changes in population numbers between that survey and the current survey. However, anecdotal evidence from population 1 combined with the species preference for disturbed habitats indicates the potential for numbers of extant plants of Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range to fluctuate substantially at any given population in response to disturbance.
Only one population (population 6) occurs within the approved development envelope (Figure 1-4). The area covered by this population was recorded to be ca.12.77 ha representing 23% of the estimated total ca.56 ha currently recorded for Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range. Population 6 contains a total of 3,052 plants which represent 3.7% of the total 81,341 plants estimated to occur in the six populations fully surveyed.
In the current survey Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range was recorded in low Eucalyptus mallee woodlands over mid to tall shrublands of Allocasuarina, Melaleuca, Hakea and Banksia shrublands and in disturbed sites surrounded by similar vegetation. Population 6 occurred in areas mapped by Botanica Consulting (2010a) as Allocasuarina shrubland and laterite ridge vegetation and population
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 24
2 in mallee heath vegetation. The habitat recorded in the current survey resemble both the mallee heath and Allocasuarina shrublands.
The Allocasuarina shrubland and mallee heath vegetation were allocated to a broader vegetation type, type 4 recorded for the Parker Range PEC (KLA 2010). A total of 9,750 ha of type 4 has been mapped for the Parker Range PEC. This indicates that almost 10,000 ha of suitable habitat for Chamelaucium sp. Parke Range occurs within the Parker Range PEC and it is likely that further suitable habitat occurs beyond the PEC.
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 25
5. REFERENCES
BoM. 2017. Climate statistics for Australian locations. Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meterology. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
BoM. 2019. Climate statistics for Australian locations. Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meterology. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
Botanica Consulting. 2010a. Flora and vegetation of the Parker Range region, Western Australia. Botanica Consulting, Boulder, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Botanica Consulting. 2010b. Parker Range Mt Caudan Mining Proposal: Flora and vegetation survey. Draft 1. Tenements M77/741, M7/742, M77/764, E77/1396, P77/2739 & P77/3686. Botanica Consulting, Boulder, WA. Draft report. Upublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Botanica Consulting. 2010c. Parker Range Mt Caudan Mining Proposal: Flora and vegetetation impact assessment. Draft 1. Tenements M77/741, M77/742, M77/764, E77/1396, P77/2739 & P77/3686. Botanica Consulting, Boulder. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Botanica Consulting. 2011a. Isopogon robustus Monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project: Mt Caudan Deposit. Botanica Consulting, Boulder, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Botanica Consulting. 2011b. Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (N. Gibson & M. Lyons 2081) P1 Monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project: Mt Caudan Deposit. Botanica Consulting, Boulder. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Botanica Consulting. 2011c. Vegetation and Weed Monitoring Program of the Parker Range Iron Ore Project: Mt Caudan Deposit. Tenements M77/741, M77/742, M77/764, P77/3685, P77/3770, L77/220, L77/228 and L77/229. Botanica Consulting, Boulder, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Botanica Consulting. 2012. Targeted search of the Priority 1 Flora species Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (B.H. Smith 1255). Botanica Consulting, Boulder, WA. Letter report to the Environmental Protection Authority for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Casson, N., Downes, S. & Harris, A. 2009. Native vegetation condition assessment and monitoring manual for Western Australia. Australian Government and Department of Environment and Conservation. Unpublished report prepared for the Native Vegetation Integrity Project.
DBCA. 2019. Florabase. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Available at: https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/
DSEWPaC. 2011. Parker Range Iron Ore Project - Mount Caudan Deposit - EPBC No. 2010/5435. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, ACT.
KLA. 2010. Parker Range Iron Ore project Mt Caudan deposit: Public environmental review. Keith Lindbeck & Associates Environmental Management Consultants, Winthrop, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Minister for Environment; Water. 2012. Ministerial Statement No. 892: Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project. Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA.
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 1 Site locations
Site Location Coordinates
Isopogon robustus
RQ1 -31.640554, 119.560051
IQ1 -31.640291, 119.539487
IQ2 -31.640081, 119.554474
IQ3 -31.639117, 119.544532
IQ4 -31.63381, 119.560684
IQ5 -31.644489, 119.554825
IQ6 -31.639333, 119.558728
Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan
RQ1 -31.312370, 119.322479
RQ2 -31.352478, 119.314331
IQ1 -31.640291, 119.539487
IQ2 -31.640081, 119.554474
IQ3 -31.639117, 119.544532
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 2 Raw data from Isopogon robustus monitoring quadrats
Plant no. Health rating Height (m) Width (m) Flower condition Dust rating
R1
1 1 1.8 0.8 Dry 0.0
2 1 1.9 1.0 Dry 0.0
3 1 1.8 1.0 Dry 0.0
4 1 1.8 0.8 Dry 0.0
5 1 1.5 0.6 Dry 0.0
6 1 1.7 0.6 Dry 0.0
7 1 1.2 0.5 Dry 0.0
8 4 0.8 0.8 None 0.0
9 6 - - - -
IQ1
1 4 0.7 0.5 Dry 0.0
2 4 1.0 0.4 Dry 0.0
3 3 1.0 0.6 Dry 0.0
4 4 1.3 0.5 Dry 0.0
5 3 1.5 1.2 Dry 0.0
6 3 1.2 0.8 Dry 0.0
7 3 1.5 1.3 Dry 0.0
8 3 2.0 1.5 Dry 0.0
9 3 2.3 3.0 Dry 0.0
10 4 2.5 2.3 Dry 0.0
11 3 1.5 1.3 Dry 0.0
12 1 1.2 1.0 Dry 0.0
IQ2
1 1 2.0 1.8 Dry 0.0
2 1 0.5 0.4 None 0.0
3 4 1.8 0.5 Dry 0.0
4 4 1.9 1.2 Dry 0.0
5 4 1.9 1.4 Dry 0.0
6 1 1.0 0.4 dry 0.0
7 1 0.5 0.4 None 0.0
8 4 0.5 0.6 None 0.0
9 4 0.5 0.4 None 0.0
10 1 1.4 2.1 Dry 0.0
11 1 2.5 1.6 Dry 0.0
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
12 1 1.4 1.2 dry 0.0
Plant No. Health rating Height (m) Width (m) Flower condition Dust rating
IQ3 cont.
13 5 1.2 1.1 Dry 0.0
14 4 0.4 1.0 dry 0.0
15 4 0.4 0.3 None 0.0
IQ3
1 1 0.3 0.2 None 0.0
2 3 1.3 1.1 Dry 0.0
3 3 0.8 0.4 Dry 0.0
4 3 1.0 0.7 Dry 0.0
5 3 1.5 2.0 Dry 0.0
6 3 2.1 1.5 Dry 0.0
7 3 1.2 1.0 Dry 0.0
8 3 1.2 0.6 Dry 0.0
9 4 1.1 0.5 Dry 0.0
10 4 0.6 0.5 Dry 0.0
11 3 0.7 0.4 Dry 0.0
12 4 1.3 0.4 Dry 0.0
13 3 1.3 1.3 Dry 0.0
14 3 1.3 0.5 Dry 0.0
15 4 1.9 1.3 Dry 0.0
16 4 1.8 1.3 Dry 0.0
17 1 0.5 0.2 None 0.0
18 0 0.8 0.2 Dry 0.0
19 3 2.2 1.3 Dry 0.0
20 4 1.7 1.5 Dry 0.0
21 4 2.2 2.0 Dry 0.0
22 4 2.5 1.5 Dry 0.0
23 4 2.5 1.3 Dry 0.0
24 3 2.0 0.8 Dry 0.0
25 3 1.8 0.8 Dry 0.0
26 1 1.8 0.5 None 0.0
27 1 1.5 0.4 None 0.0
28 4 1.4 0.8 None 0.0
29 3 2.1 0.7 Dry 0.0
30 3 1.5 1.1 Dry 0.0
31 4 1.9 1.1 Dry 0.0
32 1 1.0 0.5 Dry 0.0
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
33 1 0.4 0.2 Dry 0.0
Plant no. Health rating Height (m) Width (m) Flower condition Dust rating
IQ3 cont.
34 1 1.8 1.2 Dry 0.0
35 3 2.0 1.5 Dry 0.0
36 1 2.5 1.5 Dry 0.0
37 3 1.7 1.0 Dry 0.0
38 4 1.1 0.4 Dry 0.0
39 1 1.4 0.6 Dry 0.0
40 1 1.5 0.5 None 0.0
41 3 1.5 0.7 Dry 0.0
42 1 1.5 0.4 None 0.0
43 1 1.0 0.2 Dry 0.0
44 1 2.2 0.7 Dry 0.0
45 1 2.0 0.3 None 0.0
46 3 1.4 0.4 Dry 0.0
47 3 2.2 1.0 Dry 0.0
48 3 2.2 1.5 Dry 0.0
49 1 1.3 0.5 Dry 0.0
50 3 1.1 0.5 Dry 0.0
51 5 1.7 0.4 None 0.0
52 1 2.1 0.5 Dry 0.0
53 1 2.0 1.3 Dry 0.0
IQ4
1 1 0.4 0.3 Dry 0.0
2 0 0.4 0.3 Dry 0.0
3 1 0.5 0.4 Dry 0.0
4 1 1.1 1.2 Dry 0.0
5 3 0.5 0.2 Dry 0.0
6 1 0.4 0.5 Dry 0.0
7 3 0.8 0.5 Dry 0.0
8 3 1.3 1.2 Dry 0.0
9 3 1.2 1.0 Dry 0.0
10 1 0.4 0.3 Dry 0.0
11 1 0.4 0.2 Dry 0.0
12 3 1.0 1.0 Dry 0.0
13 1 0.2 0 15 Dry 0.0
14 3 0.3 0.2 Dry 0.0
15 1 0.2 0.2 Dry 0.0
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
16 1 0.3 0.2 Dry 0.0
Plant no. Health rating Height (m) Width (m) Flower condition Dust rating
IQ4 cont.
17 3 0.4 0.2 Dry 0.0
18 1 0.2 0.2 Dry 0.0
19 1 1.1 1.2 Dry 0.0
20 1 0.5 0.4 None 0.0
21 3 0.4 0.5 Dry 0.0
22 4 0.5 1.0 Dry 0.0
23 1 0.4 0.1 Dry 0.0
24 0 0.2 0.1 Dry 0.0
25 3 1.3 1.2 Dry 0.0
26 1 0.2 0.1 None 0.0
27 3 0.4 0.3 Dry 0.0
28 3 0.5 0.4 Dry 0.0
29 3 1.1 1.5 Dry 0.0
30 1 0.3 0.2 Dry 0.0
31 3 0.5 0.4 Dry 0.0
32 1 1.0 0.7 Dry 0.0
33 3 1.5 2.0 Dry 0.0
34 1 0.2 0.1 Dry 0.0
35 1 0.3 0.2 Dry 9.0
36 3 0.8 0.9 Dry 0.0
IQ5
1 4 1.4 1.4 Dry 0.0
2 1 0.9 0.5 Dry 0.0
3 1 0.7 0.3 Dry 0.0
4 4 0.5 0.7 Dry 0.0
5 3 1.1 1.8 Dry 0.0
6 1 0.9 0.7 Dry 0.0
7 5 0.6 0.7 Dry 0.0
8 4 2.0 1.5 Dry 0.0
9 5 0.6 0.5 Dry 0.0
10 3 1.0 1.4 Dry 0.0
11 3 1.0 0.5 Dry 0.0
12 3 0.5 0.6 Dry 0.0
13 1 0.3 0.2 None 0.0
14 1 1.0 0.2 Dry 0.0
15 3 1.1 1.0 Dry 0.0
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
16 1 0.3 0.1 None 0.0
Plant no. Health rating Height (m) Width (m) Flower condition Dust rating
IQ5 cont.
17 1 0.4 0.2 None 0.0
18 0 0.4 0.2 Dry 0.0
19 0 0.2 0.1 None 0.0
20 4 0.5 0.7 Dry 0.0
21 3 1.1 2.0 Dry 0.0
22 1 0.2 0.1 None 0.0
23 Dead
IQ6
1 4 1.4 0.8 Dry 0.0
2 1 0.4 0.3 Dry 0.0
3 4 0.7 0.5 None 0.0
4 1 0.6 0.2 None 0.0
5 1 0.2 0.2 none 0.0
6 1 0.2 0.1 None 0.0
7 4 1.1 0.5 None 0.0
8 1 1.5 1.5 None 0.0
9 4 1.2 1.0 None 0.0
10 4 2.1 3.0 Dry 0.0
11 4 1.1 1.0 None 0.0
12 1 0.1 0.1 none 0.0
13 4 0.7 0.8 none 0.0
14 1 0.2 0.1 None 0.0
15 1 0.1 0.0 None 0.0
16 4 0.4 0.2 None 0.0
17 1 0.2 0.1 None 0.0
18 4 0.2 0.2 None 0.0
19 4 0.2 0.3 None 0.0
20 4 0.4 0.0 None 0.0
21 5 1.0 0.6 None 0.0
22 4 1.5 2.0 None 0.0
23 4 1.0 0.8 None 0.0
24 4 1.1 0.8 None 0.0
25 1 0.7 0.4 None 0.0
26 1 0.3 0.1 None 0.0
27 1 0.6 0.4 None 0.0
28 1 0.4 0.3 None 0.0
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
29 5 0.8 0.6 None 0.0
Plant No. Health rating Height (m) Width (m) Flower condition Dust rating
IQ6 cont.
26 1 0.3 0.1 None 0.0
27 1 0.6 0.4 None 0.0
28 1 0.4 0.3 None 0.0
29 5 0.8 0.6 None 0.0
30 5 1.1 1.0 None 0.0
31 4 0.8 0.3 None 0.0
32 1 2.3 2.0 Dry 0.0
33 4 1.1 1.0 Dry 0.0
34 4 0.2 0.2 None 0.0
35 1 0.1 0.1 None 0.0
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 3 Raw data from Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan monitoring quadrats
Plant no. Health Height (m) Width (m) Flowers Dust
R1
1 3 0.40 0.30 Dry 0
2 4 0.30 0.25 Dry 0
3 3 0.30 0.50 Dry 0
4 3 0.30 0.40 none 0
5 4 0.30 0.20 None 0
6 4 0.40 0.40 Dry 0
7 4 0.25 0.20 Dry 0
8 4 0.30 0.15 None 0
9 4 0.40 0.40 Dry 0
10 4 0.40 0.30 Dry 0
11 4 0.40 0.30 Dry 0
12 4 0.30 0.20 Dry 0
13 4 0.40 0.20 Dry 0
14 4 0.40 0.30 None 0
15 4 0.50 0.40 Dry 0
16 4 0.20 0.20 Dry 0
17 4 0.30 0.20 Dry 0
18 4 0.30 0.20 Dry 0
19 4 0.40 0.40 Dry 0
20 4 0.20 0.20 Dry 0
Total = 150
R2
1 4 0.40 0.60 Dry 0
2 4 0.30 0.50 Dry 0
3 4 0.30 0.50 Dry 0
4 3 0.15 0.10 None 0
5 4 0.40 0.30 Dry 0
6 4 0.30 0.20 Dry 0
7 5 0.20 0.15 Dry 0
8 3 0.30 0.40 Dry 0
9 4 0.20 0.15 Dry 0
10 3 0.20 0.15 Dry 0
11 4 0.15 0.20 Dry 0
12 5 0.15 0.15 Dry 0
13 3 0.30 0.15 Dry 0
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Plant No. Health Height (m) Width (m) Flowers Dust
R2 cont.
14 4 0.20 0.20 Dry 0
15 4 0.20 0.20 Dry 0
16 5 0.30 0.30 Dry 0
17 4 0.15 0.10 None 0
18 4 0.15 0.10 Dry 0
19 4 0.40 0.30 Dry 0
20 4 0.30 0.10 Dry 0
Total = 111
IQ1
1 1 0.20 0.40 None 0
2 2 0.20 0.50 Dry 0
3 2 0.15 0.20 Dry 0
4 2 0.15 0.10 Dry 0
5 1 0.20 0.40 Dry 0
6 2 0.20 0.40 None 0
7 3 0.30 0.20 Dry 0
8 2 0.50 0.40 Dry 0
9 2 0.40 0.30 Dry 0
10 3 0.30 0.30 Dry 0
11 3 0.30 0.20 None 0
12 3 0.20 0.50 Dry 0
13 2 0.20 0.30 Dry 0
14 2 0.30 0.50 Dry 0
15 3 0.30 0.50 Dry 0
16 3 0.30 0.40 Dry 0
17 2 0.15 0.20 Dry 0
18 2 0.20 0.15 Dry 0
19 2 0.15 0.15 None 0
20 2 0.20 0.20 Dry 0
Total = 136
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Plant No. Health Height (m) Width (m) Flowers Dust
IQ2 cont.
1 4 0.15 0.30 Dry 0
2 4 0.15 0.15 Dry 0
3 3 0.15 0.10 None 0
4 4 0.18 0.20 Dry 0
5 3 0.20 0.20 Dry 0
6 4 0.18 0.20 Dry 0
7 4 0.10 0.15 None 0
8 4 0.12 0 20 None 0
9 4 0.20 0.15 Dry 0
10 4 0.20 0.30 Dry 0
11 4 0.18 0.20 Dry 0
12 3 0.10 0.10 Dry 0
13 4 0.20 0.50 Dry 0
14 3 0.30 0.20 Dry 0
15 4 0.20 0.30 Dry 0
16 3 0.20 0.15 Dry 0
17 3 0.30 0.40 Dry 0
18 4 0.30 0.15 Dry 0
19 3 0.08 0.10 None 0
20 5 0.07 0.05 None 0
Total = 77
IQ3
1 3 0.20 0.40 Dry 0
2 3 0.15 0.20 Dry 0
3 3 0.20 0.20 Dry 0
4 3 0.30 0.60 Dry 0
5 2 0.40 0.60 Dry 0
6 2 0.30 0.20 Dry 0
7 3 0.30 0.20 None 0
8 2 0.20 0.20 None 0
9 4 0.30 0.40 Dry 0
10 3 0.20 0.30 Dry 0
11 4 0.20 0.30 dry 0
12 4 0.20 0.30 None 0
13 3 0.15 0.15 Dry 0
14 3 0.20 0.30 Dry 0
15 3 0.20 0.30 Dry 0
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Plant No. Health Height (m) Width (m) Flowers Dust
IQ3 cont.
16 4 0.20 0.20 Dry 0
17 4 0.20 0.30 None 0
18 2 0.30 0.30 Dry 0
19 3 0.15 0.10 None 0
20 4 0.15 0.20 Dry 0
Total = 89
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 4 Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range quadrat counts for spring 2019
Quadrat no. Count/ 25 m2
Population 1
1 13
2 23
3 20
4 17
Average 18
Population 3
1 25
2 0
3 5
4 15
Average 11
Population 4
1 12
2 0
3 40
4 20
Average 18
Population 5
1 0
2 1
3 16
4 0
Average 4
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Baseline monitoring and management plans - flora, Parker Range
Site: Cspr1a Type: Relevé (unbound)
Date(s): 14 November 2019
Topography: undulating plain
Soil: sand, laterite,
Soil colour: yellow,
Rock type: ferrous – ironstone;
Total vegetation cover (%):
Tree/shrub cover >2 m (%):
Shrub cover <2 m (%):
Grass cover (%):
Herb cover (%):
Disturbance exploration (drill pads and access tracks),
Fire age: not evident
Vegetation description and type:
Low Eucalyptus capillosa woodland, over mid open Allocasuarina spinosissima, Callitris pressii and Hakea francissiana shrubland over low Melaleuca chordata, beaufortia orbifolia and Verticordia eriocephala shrubland
Vegetation condition: Very Good, EPA (2016)
Land system:
Vegetation Physical features
Observer(s): Grant Wells
Site details
Species Cover (%)
Height (m)
Weed Conservation status
Position: -31.685127, 119.468105 (North-west)
Permanent: No
Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (B.H. Smith 1255) 00.50 P1 (DBCA list)
Allocasuarina spinosissima
Beaufortia orbifolia
Callitris preissii
Grevillea huegelii
Hakea francisiana
Verticordia eriocephala
Verticordia pritzelii
Eucalyptus capillosa
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 5 Raw data from Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range relevé surveys
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Baseline monitoring and management plans - flora, Parker Range
Site: CsPRnewpop Type: Relevé (unbounded)
Date(s): 21 November 2019
Topography: hill slope
Soil: sand, sandy loam,
Soil colour: yellow, whitish,
Rock type: ferrous – ironstone;
Total vegetation cover (%):
Tree/shrub cover >2 m (%):
Shrub cover <2 m (%):
Grass cover (%):
Herb cover (%):
Disturbance historic clearing, vehicle tracks,
Fire age: >5 years
Vegetation description and type:
Mid Eucalyptus burracoppinensis woodland over tall open Allocasuarina acutivalvis, A. corniculata and Banksia laevigata shrubland over mid Beufortia interstans, Isopogon scabriusculus subsp. stenophyllus and Melaleuca cordatashrubland.
Vegetation condition: Very Good, EPA (2016)
Land system:
Vegetation Physical features
Observer(s): Grant Wells
Site details
Species Cover (%)
Height (m)
Weed Conservation status
Position: -31.624138, 119.539616 (North-west)
Permanent: No
Allocasuarina acutivalvis
Allocasuarina corniculata
Banksia laevigata
Banksia shanklandiorum P4 (DBCA list)
Beaufortia interstans
Callitris preissii
Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (B.H. Smith 1255) P1 (DBCA list)
Drummondita hassellii
Eucalyptus burracoppinensis
Isopogon scabriusculus subsp. stenophyllus
Melaleuca calyptroides
Melaleuca cordata
Petrophile merrallii
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Baseline monitoring and management plans - flora, Parker Range
Site: Csprpop4 Type: Relevé (unbounded)
Date(s): 20 November 2019
Topography: hill slope
Soil: sandy loam,
Soil colour: yellow, whitish,
Rock type: ferrous – ironstone;
Total vegetation cover (%): 65
Tree/shrub cover >2 m (%): 1
Shrub cover <2 m (%): 65
Grass cover (%): 0
Herb cover (%): 0
Disturbance none
Fire age: 1 – 5 years
Vegetation description and type:
Low Eucalyptus capillosa woodland over low Allocasuarina corniculata, Hakea francisiana and Melaleuca cordata shrubland.
Vegetation condition: Excellent, EPA (2016)
Land system:
Vegetation Physical features
Observer(s): Grant Wells
Site details
Species Cover (%)
Height (m)
Weed Conservation status
Position: -31.6354, 119.520272 (North-west)
Permanent: No
Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (B.H. Smith 1255) P1 (DBCA list)
Verticordia eriocephala
Allocasuarina corniculata
Eucalyptus capillosa
Grevillea obliquistigma
Hakea francisiana
Melaleuca cordata
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 6: Quadrat site photos
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1
Appendix 6 Quadrat Site Photos
Isopogon robustus RQ1
NW NE
SE
SW
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2
Isopogon robustus IQ1
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 3
Isopogon robustus IQ2
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 4
Isopogon robustus IQ3
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 5
Isopogon robustus IQ4
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 6
Isopogon robustus IQ5
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 7
Isopogon robustus IQ6
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 8
Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan RQ1
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 9
Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan RQ2
NW NE
SE
SW
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 10
Lepidosperma sp. Mount Caudan IQ1
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 11
Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan IQ2
NW NE
SW SE
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore
Project
Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 12
Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan IQ3
NW NE
SW SE
MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020
Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 Page 21 of 21
Appendix 4: Phoenix (2020) Baseline Malleefowl monitoring report for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring report for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
March 2020
Final Report
Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd i
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project.
Final Report
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Version history
Authors Reviewer/s Version Version number
Date submitted Submitted to
C. Nagle K. Crews Draft for client comments
0.1 25-Feb-20 N. Smith, L. Purves
K. Crews Final report 1.0 03-Mar-20 N. Smith
©Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2020
The use of this report is solely for the Client for the purpose in which it was prepared. Phoenix Environmental Sciences accepts no responsibility for use beyond this purpose.
All rights are reserved, and no part of this report may be reproduced or copied in any form without the written permission of Phoenix Environmental Sciences or the Client.
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
1/511 Wanneroo Rd BALCATTA WA 6021
P: 08 6323 5410
Project code: 1300-PR-MRL-VER
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd ii
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... IV
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 State approval requirements .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Federal approval requirements .............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Previous surveys ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Requirement for the current baseline assessment................................................................. 6
1.5 Purpose and scope of this report ............................................................................................ 6
2. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Desktop review ....................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 LiDAR survey ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Field survey ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.3.1 Malleefowl mounds ........................................................................................................ 9
2.3.2 Habitat assessments ....................................................................................................... 9
3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 11
3.1 Malleefowl mounds .............................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Habitat assessments ............................................................................................................. 11
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Mound Monitoring Requirements ................................................................................ 14
4.2 Malleefowl habitat ................................................................................................................ 14
5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 15
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Parker Range Iron Ore Project location .......................................................................... 4 Figure 1-2 Parker Range Iron Ore Project approved project area and new development envelope 5 Figure 2-1 Survey sites ..................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3-1 Malleefowl mounds to be monitored ........................................................................... 12 Figure 3-2 Malleefowl breeding habitat ........................................................................................ 13 List of Tables
Table 1-1 MS892 conditions relating to Malleefowl .......................................................................... 1 Table 1-2 EPBC 2010/5435 Conditions relating to the MMP ............................................................. 3 Table 2-1 Mound status classification................................................................................................ 9 Table 2-2 Habitat features recorded during habitat assessments ................................................... 10 Table 2-3 Malleefowl habitat suitability criteria according to Benshemesh and Malleefowl
Preservation Group (2001)............................................................................................ 10 Appendices
Appendix 1 Mallefowl Mound Register Appendix 2 Malleefowl mound photos Appendix 3 Null ‘mound’ locations and descriptions Appendix 4 Habitat assessments
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd iii
Appendix 5 Malleefowl breeding habitat assessments
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) are proceeding to implement the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (the Project), located approximately 55 km south-east of Southern Cross. The Project was approved under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2010/5435) on 3 November 2011 via a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and WA. The Project was approved under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) on 12 April 2012, subject to conditions and procedures outlined in the ministerial statement (MS) 892. A condition of the state approval, Condition 8 – Fauna, must be met prior to ground disturbing activities. Condition 8-6-1 requires submission of baseline monitoring of Malleefowl habitat and, active and inactive Malleefowl mounds, within 1 km of the proposed area. To satisfy the requirements of Condition 8-6-1, Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd (Phoenix) was commissioned by MRL to undertake a baseline Malleefowl mound monitoring survey.
A desktop review preceded the field survey to identify previously recorded Malleefowl mounds within the development envelope. In addition, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) surveys were conducted to detect potential Malleefowl mounds in the development envelope and 2 km buffer. The desktop review identified 53 mounds recorded by the Malleefowl Preservation Group (2011a, 2011b), KLA (2010) or Phoenix. Of these, 32 were excluded from the Malleefowl Mound Register as they were old, insignificant or recorded in error. The LiDAR survey detected a total of 52 potential mounds.
Field work to complete baseline monitoring of Malleefowl mounds involved visiting previously recorded mounds and potential mounds identified by the LiDAR survey to varify their presence and activity status. Mounds were classified as active, inactive or long unused as per the National Malleefowl Monitoring Manual. The inactive classification was broken down into two sub-classes (sub-class 1 and sub-class 2) to provide a more precise description of the level of Malleefowl activity and to allow for a monitorable dataset. Mound classification was based on the following definitions:
• Active - currently being used by Malleefowl as an incubator for their eggs, and are likely to contain eggs.
• Inactive (sub-class 1) – mound shows signs of recent Malleefowl activity, such as scats, tracks or fresh scrapings.
• Inactive (sub-class 2) - no evidence of recent activity but mound remains well formed and in good condition for future use.
• Long unused - evidence of an extended period of inactivity such as dense shrubs or trees growing from hollow or mound very degraded/poorly formed. Highly unlikely to become active in the future.
Habitat assessments were carried out throughout the development envelope and 2 km buffer to determine the habitat type and suitability for Malleefowl breeding.
A total of 61 sites were visited during the field survey. Of these, 39 were positively identified as mounds and included in the Malleefowl Mound Register with 1 classified as active, six as inactive (sub-class 1), 10 as inactive (sub-class 2) and 22 as long unused. The remaining 23 were classified as null (not a mound) and were excluded from the Malleefowl Mound Register. Three inactive (sub-class 2) and eight long unused mounds mounds are located within the development envelope. No active or inactive (sub-class one) mounds are located within the development envelope. As Malleefowl may build new mounds or reuse old mounds, all active and inactive mounds should be monitored annually. Long unused mounds should be monitored every 5 years as a minimum.
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd v
The habitat assessments indicated that suitable Malleefowl breeding habitat is widespread but patchy throughout the development envelope and 2 km buffer. The entirety of the development envelope and 2 km buffer is likely used for foraging by Malleefowl.
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Mineral Resources Limited (MRL) are proceeding to commence the Parker Range Iron Ore Project (the Project). The Project was approved under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 2010/5435; DSEWPaC 2011) on 3 November 2011 via a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and WA. The Project was approved under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) on 12 April 2012, subject to conditions and procedures outlined in ministerial statement (MS) 892 (Minister for Environment; Water 2012).
The Project is located 55 km southeast of Southern Cross, in the Goldfields region of Western Australia (Figure 1-1). The approved project area under MS 892 and EPBC 2010/5435 is 414ha (Figure 1-2) excluding the upper haul road (4.1 ha). MRL are seeking a minor amendment to the approved project rea (referred to in this report as the development envelope), which is 418.8 ha (Figure 1-2) excluding the upper haul road (4.1 ha). This report adopts the revised development envelope in place of the approved project area.
Condition 8 of MS 892 and condition 4 of EPBC 2010/5435 relate to the management of conservation significant fauna, including Malleefowl, as outlined below.
1.1 STATE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Condition 8-6-1 of MS 892 requires submission of baseline monitoring of Malleefowl habitat and, active and inactive Malleefowl mounds, within 1 km of the project area. The relevant conditions are outlined in Table 1-1. Reference to the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 in MS 892 has been replaced in Table 3 with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), which has superseded the functions of the former in relation to Threatened species.
Note, in this report, CEO refers to the CEO of the Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER).
Table 1-1 MS892 conditions relating to Malleefowl
Condition number
Condition
8-1 The proponent shall avoid, or where this is unavoidable minimise the loss of conservation significant fauna such as Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata), Western Rosella (Platycercus icterotis xanthogenys) and the White-browed Babbler (Pomatstomus superciliosus).
8-2 To meet the requirements of condition 8-1 the proponent shall ensure that a maximum 40 km per hour speed limit is enforced on all roads within the mine area as indicated in Figure 2 of schedule 1 (MS 892)1 (with the exception of the Parker Range Bypass Road public road) and a maximum of 60 km per hour along the upper haul road as indicated in Figure 3 of schedule 1 during implementation of the proposal.
8-3 The proponent shall record and report the death or injury of any fauna protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or Scheduled species under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 20162 as a result of the implementation of this proposal to the CEO on the advice of the DBCA (formerly DEC), within seven days of that death or injury being known.
8-4 The proponent may clear one inactive Malleefowl mound within the mine footprint at the following coordinates 741160E and 6498677N as identified in schedule 1 Figure 6 (MS 892).
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2
Condition number
Condition
8-5 The proponent shall ensure that the proposal does not adversely affect the population size of Malleefowl populations within 1 km of the project area as identified in schedule 1 Figure 7 (MS 892)3.
8-6 To verify that the requirements of Condition 8-5 are met the proponent shall prepare a Malleefowl management plan prior to ground disturbing activities to the satisfaction of the CEO on advice of the DBCA which requires the:
(1) submission of baseline monitoring of Malleefowl habitat and, active and inactive Malleefowl mounds, within one kilometre of the proposal area (schedule 1 Figure 7 of MS 892), prior to ground disturbing activities;
(2) the determination of a level of impact including the reduction in a number of active Malleefowl mounds and a number of Malleefowl deaths based on the results of condition 8-6-1 which would indicate an adverse impact to local Malleefowl populations; and
(3) monitoring of the numbers of active mounds and numbers and numbers of inactive mounds as identified in condition 8-6-1. This monitoring is to be carried out to the requirements of the CEO on advice of the DBCA.
8-7 In the event that fauna mortalities reported under condition 8-3 and monitoring required by condition 8-6 indicate an adverse impact as defined under condition 8-6-2 on the abundance of the Malleefowl population within one kilometre of the proposal area:
(1) the proponent shall report such findings to the CEO and the DBCA within 21 days of the decline being identified;
(2) provide the CEO the results of an investigation into the findings and the potential cause of decline;
(3) if the adverse impact is determined by the CEO to be significant and a result of activities undertaken in implementing the proposal, the proponent shall submit actions to be taken remediate the decline to the CEO within 21 days of the determination being made by the CEO: and
(4) the proponent shall implement actions to remediate the decline in the health or abundance of Malleefowl populations upon approval of the CEO and shall continue until such time the CEO on the advice of the DBCA determines that the remedial actions may cease.
1 – ‘approved project area’ in Figure 1-2 of this report. 2 – Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 in MS 892, which has been superseded by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. 3 – shown in
Figure 3-1Figure 3-1 of this report.
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 3
1.2 FEDERAL APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS
Conditions outlined by EPBC 2010/5435 relating to Malleefowl are detailed in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2 EPBC 2010/5435 Conditions relating to the MMP
Condition number Condition
4 Prior to commencement of operations the person taking the action must obtain the Minister’s approval of a Malleefowl Management Plan. This plan must include:
(a) the desired outcomes/objectives of implementing the plan
(b) details of a monitoring program to be implemented within 1 km of the project area;
(c) details of parties responsible for monitoring;
(d) management actions relating to significant fauna and its habitat value, such as weed control, fire management, feral animal control, traffic management and restrictions on access;
(e) a long-term monitoring program to measure the presence of Malleefowl, and any population changes, within a 1 km radius of the project area; and
(f) management measures that would be implemented if monitoring indicates a decline in the Malleefowl population (within 1 km of the project area).
The Malleefowl Management Plan must be implemented.
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 25-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
!
!
LAKEKOORKOORDINE
LAKE COTTONLAKE POLARIS
MARV
ELLO
CHYE
LLOWD
INERO
AD
SOUTHERNCROSS
MARVEL LOCH ROAD
FORRESTANIA
SOUTHERN CROSS ROAD
PARKER RANGE ROAD
MARVEL LOCHYELLOWDINE ROAD
GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY
SOUTHERN CROSS
720000 770000
6500
000
6550
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1300-PR-MRL-VER\Mapping\1300_1_Project_Location.mxd
0 7 14Kilometres
1:400,000
Mineral Resources LtdParker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
°
(at A4)
25-Feb-20DateProject No 1300
AJKC
Parker Range Iron OreProject location
Figure 1-1Approved project area (MS 892)New development envelope
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
!PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 25-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
!
!
GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY
SOUTHERN CROSS
MARVEL LOCH
710000 730000
6500
000
6520
000
6540
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1300-PR-MRL-VER\Mapping\1300_1-2_ProjectArea.mxd
0 5 10Kilometres
1:250,000
Mineral Resources LtdParker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA94 MGA zone 50
°
(at A4)
25-Feb-20DateProject No 1300
AJGW
Parker Range Iron OreProject approved projectarea and new developmentenvelope
Figure 2Approved project area (MS 892)New development envelope
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
0 1 2Kilometres
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 6
1.3 PREVIOUS SURVEYS
The following surveys to locate and assess the status of Malleefowl mounds in the approved project area and vicinity have previously been conducted:
• KLA (2010) Parker Range Iron Ore Project Malleefowl Surveys. Keith Lindbeck and Associates, Bullcreek, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
• Malleefowl Preservation Group (2011a) Report on the status of 50 Malleefowl sites at Parker Range for Cazaly Resources on November 7 and 8, 2011. Malleefowl Preservation Group, Ongerup, WA. Memo to Cazaly Resources Ltd.
• Malleefowl Preservation Group (2011b) A search for Malleefowl at Parker Range, 5th - 9th September, 2011. Malleefowl Preservation Group. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
1.4 REQUIREMENT FOR THE CURRENT BASELINE ASSESSMENT
The original baseline Malleefowl mound dataset was collected in 2011 (Malleefowl Preservation Group 2011a, b). Due to the age of this baseline dataset, a resurvey of the development envelope and surrounds was required. Additionally, the previous surveys were conducted on foot which may have resulted in missing mounds that were obscured by vegetation (Malleefowl Preservation Group 2011b). LiDAR based identification of Malleefowl mounds, followed by ground truthing, has been demonstrated to be an effective method to monitor mounds over large areas (National Malleefowl Recovery Team 2019). The current survey extended the buffer zone from 1 km to 2 km to account for potential localised displacement of Malleefowl immediately adjacent to the development envelope.
1.5 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide baseline monitoring data in accordance with condition 8-6(1) of MS 892 to inform a Malleefowl Monitoring Plan for the Project that will be prepared to meet condition 8-6(3) of MS 892 and condition 4(b and e) of EPBC 2010/5435.
The scope of work in relation to conditions of MS 892 and EPBC 2010/5435 was as follows:
• Undertake ground truthing of potential Malleefowl mounds detected by LiDAR surveys within the development envelope and 2 km buffer.
• Assess the status of known and potential new mounds within the development envelope and 2 km buffer to establish a current Malleefowl Mound Register for the Project.
• Complete Malleefowl habitat assessments at all mound sites to determine habitat type and quality.
Malleefowl is a species of conservation significance, listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act and Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act). Under both acts, Vulnerable species are Threatened species considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as determined in accordance with criteria set out in prescribed criteria or ministerial guidelines.
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 7
2. METHODS
2.1 DESKTOP REVIEW
Prior to conducting the field survey, a desktop review was undertaken to identify any mounds previously recorded in the development envelope and 2 km buffer (Phoenix 2020). The original baseline mound assessment by the Malleefowl Preservation Group (2011b) identified fifty Malleefowl mounds within the approved project area and a 1 km buffer. Of these, thirty were classified as ‘old, insignificant or recorded in error’ (Malleefowl Preservation Group 2011a). As such, they were removed from the Malleefowl Mound Register. Secondary evidence of Malleefowl tracks was also recorded by the Malleefowl Preservation Group in 2011 within this area.
An additional two mounds found by KLA (2010) and two mounds found by Phoenix (in prep) during baseline surveys for the proposed Project haul road were also included in the baseline dataset, bringing the total number of known mounds to fifty-three (Figure 2-1
Figure 2-1). No additional records of Malleefowl mounds were identified in the current database searches within the development envelope or 2 km buffer (Phoenix 2020).
2.2 LIDAR SURVEY
LiDAR surveys were conducted via aircraft in November 2019 by AAM Pty Ltd to detect any mounds within the development envelope and 2 km buffer. The LiDAR survey identified a total of fifty-two potential Malleefowl mounds within this area (Figure 2-1
Figure 2-1). Of these, twelve were mounds identified in the desktop review. The LiDAR analysis classified each potential mound site as possible or well defined.
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 25-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
738000 742000 746000
6496
000
6500
000
6504
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1300-PR-MRL-VER\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\BaselineReport\1300_2-1_MalleefowlMounds-Lidar.mxd
0 1 2Kilometres
1:50,000
Mineral Resources LtdParker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
°
(at A4)
25-Feb-20DateProject No 1300
AJKC
Survey sitesFigure 2-1Approved project area (MS 892)
New development envelopeMS 892 buffer (1 km)Malleefowl monitoring area (2 km buffer)'
! tƻǘŜƴǘƛŀƭ Ƴound sites
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 9
2.3 FIELD SURVEY
The field surveys were conducted by Simon Pynt and Caitlin Nagle from 15-26 January 2020.
2.3.1 Malleefowl mounds
A total of sixty-one previously known mounds and potential mounds identified by the LiDAR survey were visited on foot to determine mound status. A GPS location was taken at all sites visited.
Mound were classified as either active, inactive or long unused based on evidence of Malleefowl activity (Table 2-1), as per the National Malleefowl Monitoring Manual (National Malleefowl Recovery Team 2019). The inactive classification was broken down into two sub-classes (sub-class 1 and sub-class 2) to provide a more precise description of the level of Malleefowl activity and to allow for a monitorable dataset. Landscape features that were incorrectly identified as Mallefowl mounds by the LiDAR survey were classified as null and removed from the Malleefowl Mound Register.
Seven of the mounds classified as potentially activie in 2011 and identified in the desktop review but not by the LiDAR survey were visited to confirm the efficacy of the LiDAR survey. These seven mounds were all old, inactive and degraded. As such, any remaining mounds identified in the desktop review that were not detected by the LiDAR survey were classified as null and excluded from the Malleefowl Mound Register on this basis. The seven mounds that were checked are included in the Malleefowl Mound Register.
All mounds classified as active, inactive or long unused were included in a Malleefowl Mound Register (Appendix 1) and required monitoring frequency established according to status.
Mounds identified by the Malleefowl Preservation Group (2011b) were marked with a numbered stake at the time of their initial detection. When assessing these mounds, this number was recorded and cross checked with online records. Photographs wre taken of each mound (Appendix 2).
Table 2-1 Mound status classification
Mound Status
Definition
Active Currently being used by Malleefowl as an incubator for their eggs, and are likely to contain eggs.
Inactive (sub-class 1)*
Mound shows signs of recent Malleefowl activity, such as scats, tracks or fresh scrapings.
Inactive (sub-class 2)*
No evidence of recent activity but mound remains well formed and in good condition for future use.
Long unused Evidence of an extended period of inactivity such as dense shrubs or trees growing from hollow or mound very degraded/poorly formed. Highly unlikely to become active in the future.
* Sub-class 1 & 2 have been defined by Phoenix to allow for a monitorable dataset.
2.3.2 Habitat assessments
At mounds throughout the development envelope and 2 km buffer, various elements of the surrounding habitat were assessed to determine the habitat type (Table 2-2) and suitability for Malleefowl. The suitability was determined using a set of eight criteria associated with Malleefowl presence, based on research by Benshemesh (Benshemesh 2007) (Table 2-3). For each criterion, an answer of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was given. For each ‘yes’ answer, the site scored one point up to a total possible
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 10
of eight. A score of four or above indicated that the habitat was considered suitable for Malleefowl, with suitability increasing as the score increased.
Table 2-2 Habitat features recorded during habitat assessments
Habitat feature Description
Habitat type Dominant vegetation type of surround area e.g. mallee woodland, shrubland
Habitat description Dominant flora species present in landscape
Topography of landscape
Landscape type e.g hill slope, hill top, plain, undulating plain
Soil type Primarily soil type surrounding mound e.g. sandy loam, clay, gravel or a combination
Soil colour Colour of soil surrounding mound e.g. red, yellow, grey or a combination
Rock type (if present) Type of rock found around mound e.g. ferrous, sandstone
Total vegetation cover Percent of landscape covered by vegetation
Tree Cover >2m Percent of landscape covered by trees over 2 m in height
Tree cover <2m Percent of landscape covered by trees under 2 m in height
Shrub cover Percent of ground covered by shrubs
Herb cover Percent of ground covered by herbs
Evidence of disturbance Evidence of feral animals, clearing, vehicle tracks, exporation, litter or live stock
Fire history Estimate of time since last fire (pre or post 5 years previous)
Table 2-3 Malleefowl habitat suitability criteria according to Benshemesh and Malleefowl Preservation Group (2001)
Criterion Description
Sand The surrounding soil is classified as sand
Canopy Cover
Canopy cover (including shrubs) is continuous
Leaf Litter Leaf litter is continuous
Level Ground
The ground is level
Mallee There are mallee trees present
Melaleuca There are Melaleuca trees present
Mulga There are mulga trees present
Triodia There is Triodia present
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 11
3. RESULTS
3.1 MALLEEFOWL MOUNDS
Of the sixty-one sites visited in the survey, thirty-nine were positively identified as Malleefowl mounds and included in the Malleefowl Mound Register (Appendix 1, with one classified as active, six as inactive (sub-class 1), ten as inactive (sub-class 2) and twenty-two as long unused (Figure 3-1). The remaining twenty-three were classified as null (not a mound) and have been excluded from the Malleefowl Mound Register (Appendix 1). Those classified as null were most commonly spoils from road works or mallee rises that resembled Malleefowl mounds in shape and size (Appendix 3).
Three inactive (sub-class 2) and eight long unused mounds are located within the development envelope (Figure 3-1
Figure 3-1). No active mounds are located within the development envelope (Figure 3-1).
Eleven mounds identified in the desktop review had their status revised from active to inactive. No other mounds identified in the desktop review required a change in status.
Of the fifty-two potential mound sites identified by LiDAR, thirty were positively identified as mounds, with eighteen of these being new records.
3.2 HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
During the field survey, fourty-eight habitat descriptions (Appendix 4) and sixty-one Malleefowl breeding habitat suitability assessments (Appendix 5) were conducted within the development envelope and 2 km buffer, providing a broad overview of the habitat types present. The surveyed areas primarily consisted of mallee woodland, open woodland and shrubland. Of the sites assessed for breeding suitability, fifty-four were found to be suitable habitat for Malleefowl breeding (Figure 3-2; Appendix 5).
Of the thirty-eight mounds located in the development envelope and 2 km buffer, thirty-seven were found in habitat that scored four or more out of eight when assessed using criteria for Malleefowl habitat suitability (Table 2-3; Appendix 5). Mounds were most commonly found in mallee woodlands over allocasurina shrubs with near-continuous canopy cover on sandy substrate. All mounds were located in areas that have remained unburnt for at least five years. The only mound found in unsuitable habitat was very old, inactive and barely detactable. Seventeen of the remaining twenty-two habitat assesments found that the habitat in the area was suitable for Malleefowl breeding despite there not being a mound present.
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 25-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
!(
#*
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
MFL033
MFL041
MFL046
MFL049
MFL102
MFL006
MFP001
MFL113 MFL114MFL116
MFL010
MFL031
MFL043
MFL044
MFL117
MFL120
MFP002
MFL056 MFL057
MFL109
MFL110MFL111
MFL112
MFL115
MFL122
MFL128
MFL129
MFL007
MFL008MFL009
MFL034
MFL124
MFMM003MFMM012
MFMM022
MFMM023
MFMM045
MFMM047
10
738000 742000
6496
000
6500
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1300-PR-MRL-VER\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\BaselineReport\1300_3-1_MalleefowlMoundLocations.mxd
0 0.5 1Kilometres
1:40,000
Mineral Resources LtdParker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
°
(at A4)
25-Feb-20DateProject No 1300
AJKC
Malleefowl mounds to bemonitored
Figure 3-1Approved project area(MS 892)New developmentenvelopeMS 892 buffer (1 km)Malleefowl monitoringarea (2 km buffer)
Malleefowl moundstatus#* Active!( Inactive (sub-class 1)!( Inactive (sub-class 2)") Long unused
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
PERTHKALGOORLIE-BOULDER
All information within this map is current as of 25-Feb-20. This product is subject to COPYRIGHT and is property of PhoenixEnvironmental Sciences (Phoenix). While Phoenix has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, Phoenix make norepresentations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose.
G
G
G
GGG
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
742000
6496
000
6500
000
P:\GIS\Projects\ParkerRange_MRL\1300-PR-MRL-VER\Mapping\MapDocuments\Figures\BaselineReport\1300_3-2_MalleefowlHabitat.mxd
0 0.65 1.3Kilometres
1:40,000
Mineral Resources LtdParker Range Iron Ore Project
Map authorDrawn by
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50
°
(at A4)
25-Feb-20DateProject No 1300
AJKC
Malleefowl breedinghabitat
Figure 3-2Approved project area (MS 892)New development envelopeMS 892 buffer (1 km)Malleefowl monitoring area (2 km buffer)
Habitat suitability!( SuitableG Unsuitable
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Western Australia
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 14
4. DISCUSSION
This survey has established the Malleefowl Mound Register for the development envelope and 2 km buffer, as required to meet the conditions of MS 892. These mounds will be monitored in accordance with the Significant Fauna Management Plan.
4.1.1 Mound Monitoring Requirements
Malleefowl often breed in the same general area each year and may reuse old mounds or construct new mounds (Benshemesh & Malleefowl Preservation Group 2001). As such, active and inactive mounds should be monitored annually except where exceptional circumstances apply, as recommended by the National Malleefowl Recovery Team (2019). Annually checking the known mounds each spring/summer provides a good estimate of the trends in breeding numbers at each site (National Malleefowl Recovery Team 2019). Based on the current survey, there are seventeen active and inactive mounds in the development envelope and 2 km buffer that should be monitored annually (Figure 3-1; Appendix 1 ).
Long unused mounds are often highly degraded and are unlikely to be used by Malleefowl for breeding in future seasons. These mounds should still be monitored every five years to check for any signs of activity (National Malleefowl Recovery Team 2019). Long unused mounds can be monitored annually if desired. Based on the currenct survey, there are twenty-two long unused mounds that should be monitored every five years (Figure 3-1; Appendix 1).
The two inactive mounds identified by Phoenix in previous field surveys were both located directly adjacent to spoon drains. The ground surrounding these mounds was uneven due to the road works, which may have confounded the ability of the LiDAR to detect the mound. It is recommended that areas of disturbed ground be checked manually for Malleefowl mounds.
4.2 MALLEEFOWL HABITAT
The current survey has substantially contributed to the understanding of suitable Malleefowl habitat distribution throughout the development envelope and 2 km buffer. Based on the habitat assessments, suitable breeding habitat for Malleefowl appears to be widespread but patchy throughout the study area. As adult Malleefowl home ranges can cover one to many square kilometers, it is likely that the entirety of the development envelope and 2 km buffer are utilized by Malleefowl for foraging (Benshemesh & Malleefowl Preservation Group 2001).
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 15
5. REFERENCES
Benshemesh, J. 2007. National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata. South Australian Department of Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Benshemesh, J. & Malleefowl Preservation Group 2001. Community searches for Malleefowl at Yeelirrie, August 2000.
DSEWPaC. 2011. Parker Range Iron Ore Project - Mount Caudan Deposit - EPBC No. 2010/5435. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, ACT.
KLA. 2010. Parker Range Iron Ore Project Malleefowl Surveys. Keith Lindbeck and Associates, Bullcreek, WA. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Malleefowl Preservation Group. 2011a. Report on the status of 50 Malleefowl sites at Parker Range for Cazaly Resources on November 7 and 8, 2011. Malleefowl Preservation Group, Ongerup, WA. Memo to Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Malleefowl Preservation Group. 2011b. A search for Malleefowl at Parker Range, 5th - 9th September, 2011. Malleefowl Preservation Group. Unpublished report prepared for Cazaly Resources Ltd.
Minister for Environment; Water. 2012. Ministerial Statement No. 892: Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project. Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA.
National Malleefowl Recovery Team. 2019. National Malleefowl Monitoring Manual - standards, protocols and monitoring procedures. Available at: http://www.nationalmalleefowl.com.au/uploads/file/Monitoring%20Manual%202019.pdf
Phoenix. 2020. Desktop Review – Biological values update work for Parker Range Iron Ore Project. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd, Balcatta, WA. Memo report to Mineral Resources Ltd.
Phoenix. in prep. Terrestrial fauna survey for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project haul road. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd, Balcatta. Unpublished report prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd.
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 1 Mallefowl Mound Register
Site Latitude Longitude Source Status Monitoring frequency
MFL041 -31.625634 119.532590 Lidar Active Yearly
MFL006 -31.616721 119.564017 Lidar, NMMD Inactive (sub-class 1) Yearly
MFL033 -31.616248 119.542321 Lidar Inactive (sub-class 1) Yearly
MFL046 -31.619854 119.533735 Lidar Inactive (sub-class 1) Yearly
MFL049 -31.615409 119.532907 Lidar Inactive (sub-class 1) Yearly
MFL102 -31.593515 119.530815 Lidar Inactive (sub-class 1) Yearly
MFP001 -31.619440 119.548327 Phoenix 2019 Inactive (sub-class 1) Yearly
MFL010 -31.628404 119.550333 Lidar, NMMD Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL031 -31.614803 119.538604 Lidar, NMMD Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL043 -31.624348 119.542204 Lidar, NMMD Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL044 -31.625736 119.538412 Lidar, NMMD Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL113 -31.599938 119.541300 Lidar Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL114 -31.598984 119.544720 Lidar Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL116 -31.600708 119.544866 Lidar Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL117 -31.610960 119.562213 Lidar, NMMD Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL120 -31.635740 119.547512 Lidar, NMMD Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFP002 -31.617690 119.545493 Phoenix 2019 Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly
MFL007 -31.619241 119.564362 Lidar, NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFL008 -31.621466 119.561565 Lidar, NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFL009 -31.622579 119.559385 Lidar, NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFL034 -31.620382 119.540751 Lidar, NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFL056 -31.656214 119.553142 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL057 -31.655343 119.555467 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL109 -31.618557 119.518037 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL110 -31.626751 119.524054 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL111 -31.626073 119.529253 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL112 -31.632756 119.526962 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL115 -31.598164 119.546156 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL122 -31.638101 119.542823 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL124 -31.643342 119.549583 Lidar, NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFL128 -31.654314 119.539958 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
MFL129 -31.652348 119.540936 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Source Status Monitoring frequency
MFMM003 -31.625451 119.540870 NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFMM012 -31.623248 119.559212 NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFMM022 -31.631230 119.550718 NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFMM023 -31.621851 119.542468 NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFMM045 -31.626860 119.551023 NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFMM047 -31.608325 119.558799 NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
MFMM010 -31.633846 119.563813 NMMD Long unused 5 yearly
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 2 Malleefowl mound photos
Site Photo Site Photo
MFL041
MFL034
MFL006
MFL056 No photo taken
MFL033
MFL057
MFL046
MFL109
MFL049
MFL110
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Photo Site Photo
MFL102
MFL111
MFP001
MFL112
MFL010
MFL115
MFL031
MFL122
MFL043
MFL124 No photo taken
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Photo Site Photo
MFL044
MFL128
MFL113
MFL129
MFL114
MFMM003 No photo taken
MFL116
MFMM012
MFL117 No photo taken MFMM022
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Photo Site Photo
MFL120
MFMM023
MFP002
MFMM045
MFL007
MFMM047
MFL008
MFMM010
MFL009
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 3 Null ‘mound’ locations and descriptions
Site Latitude Longitude Description
MFH01 -31.625805 119.549154 No mound – recorded in error in NMMD
MFL005 -31.608182 119.566225 Dirt build-up around tree base
MFL011 -31.629647 119.552475 Large rocks
MFL030 -31.614987 119.538651 Spoil
MFL032 -31.615310 119.533873 Spoil
MFL035 -31.621702 119.542290 Spoil
MFL036 -31.623237 119.530724 Spoil
MFL037 -31.622834 119.532146 Spoil
MFL038 -31.622798 119.532605 Spoil
MFL039 -31.622647 119.533623 Spoil
MFL040 -31.624737 119.531674 Spoil
MFL042 -31.626434 119.532401 Spoil
MFL045 -31.629080 119.537509 Mallee rise
MFL047 -31.620132 119.531790 Spoil
MFL048 -31.620339 119.528875 Spoil
MFL050 -31.615744 119.531236 Spoil
MFL055 -31.654803 119.551178 Mallee rise
MFL118 -31.626683 119.570390 Shrub
MFL119 -31.626643 119.570390 Shrub
MFL121 -31.635606 119.546134 Spoil
MFL123 -31.638424 119.537524 Spoil
MFL130 -31.648285 119.560120 Rocks
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 4 Habitat assessments
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
MFL006 -31.616721 119.564017 Yes woodland Mulga woodland over melaleuca over mixed myrtacea
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
undulating plain
negligible gravel; alluvial; sandy loam; laterite; gravel
MFL033 -31.616248 119.542321 Yes mallee woodland
Mallee woodland over allocasurina, mulga, melaleuca and other mixed low shrubs on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
undulating plain
negligible sand; sandy loam
MFL041 -31.625634 119.532590 Yes woodland Mallee, allocasurina woodland over tall allocasurina and melaleuca shrubs over mixed myrtacea and mallee and other low shrubs on yellow sandy loam with sparse (due to scraped by bird to mound ) leaf litter.
plain negligible sandy loam; laterite
MFL046 -31.619854 119.533735 Yes mallee woodland
Mallee/allocasurina tall shrub/low woodland over mixed low melaleuca and other shrubs on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
undulating plain
negligible sandy loam
MFL049 -31.615409 119.532907 Yes woodland Mallee woodland over tall calytrix, allocasurina, melaleuca, mallee shrubs over mixed low shrubs of myrtacea and other low shrubs on yellow, orange sandy loam.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
plain negligible sandy loam
MFL102 -31.593515 119.530815 Yes open woodland
Mallee, mulga, melaleuca over allocasurina and other mixed shrubs Inc. myrtacea on red-orange
evidence of feral animals
hill slope gentle sandy loam; laterite
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
sandy loam with continuous leaf litter
MFP001 -31.619440 119.548327 Yes mallee woodland
Open Mallee woodland over tall shrubs of allocasurina, calytrix and mallee over myrtacea and other mixed low shrubs on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter
evidence of feral animals; exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
undulating plain
negligible sandy loam
MFL010 -31.628404 119.550333 Yes mallee woodland
Open mallee woodland over tall mulga and allocas shrubs over mixed myrtacea and other shrubs.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
hill slope gentle sand; sandy loam
MFL031 -31.614803 119.538604 Yes woodland Mallee woodland over tall allocasurina,melaleuca, mallee shrubs over mixed low shrubs of myrtacea and other low shrubs on yellow sandy loam.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
plain negligible sandy loam
MFL043 -31.624348 119.542204 Yes open woodland
Open mallee over allocasurina over myrtacea on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.
plain negligible sand; sandy loam
MFL044 -31.625736 119.538412 Yes mallee woodland
Mallee/allocasurina woodland over hakea, allocasurina, melaleuca and other on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
plain negligible sandy loam
MFL113 -31.599938 119.541300 Yes open woodland
open mallee woodland over allocasurina, melaleuca, mulga tall shrubs over mixed myrtacea on lateritic sandy clay loam with mostly continuous leaf litter
vehicle tracks hill slope gentle sandy clay; loam; laterite
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
MFL114 -31.598984 119.544720 Yes open woodland
Sparse mallee, mulga woodland with tall allocasurina and melaleuca shrubs over melaleuca and other low myrtacea shrubs on red-orange lateritic sandy clay loam with mostly continuous leaf litter
evidence of feral animals; vehicle tracks
hill slope gentle sandy clay; loam; laterite
MFL116 -31.600708 119.544866 Yes woodland Sparse mallee, mulga woodland with tall allocasurina and melaleuca shrubs over melaleuca and other low myrtacea shrubs on red-orange lateritic sandy clay loam with mostly continuous leaf litter
undulating plain
negligible sandy clay; loam; laterite
MFL117 -31.610960 119.562213 Yes woodland Open mallee woodland over tall hakea, allocasurina mulga and melaleuca over mix of the same low shrubs on red-orange lateritic sandy clay loam with patchy almost continuous leaf litter.
vehicle tracks hill slope gentle sandy loam; laterite
MFL120 -31.635740 119.547512 Yes open woodland
Open mallee woodland over allocasurina, hakea, Santalum and melaleuca shrubs on red-orange lateritic sandy loam with continuous leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
undulating plain
negligible sandy loam
MFP002 -31.617690 119.545493 Yes mallee woodland
Open mallee woodland over allocasurina and hakea trees over allocasurina and melaleuca over mixed myrtacea and other low shrubs over very sparse sedge grass on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter
evidence of feral animals; exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
undulating plain
negligible gravel; alluvial; sandy loam
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
MFL007 -31.619241 119.564362 Yes open woodland
Mulga woodland exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
undulating plain
negligible gravel; alluvial; sandy loam
MFL008 -31.621466 119.561565 Yes woodland Mulga woodland vehicle tracks hill slope gentle gravel; alluvial; sandy loam
MFL009 -31.622579 119.559385 Yes mallee woodland
Open mallee and tall allocasurina over allocasurina, myrtacea and other shrubs
vehicle tracks plain negligible sandy loam
MFL034 -31.620382 119.540751 Yes open woodland
Mallee allocasurina calytrix over Melaleuca and other mixed low shrubs on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
hill slope gentle sandy loam; laterite
MFL056 -31.656214 119.553142 Yes shrubland Sparse small mallee with burnt allocasurina over very dense allocasurina shrubs with mixed myrtacea, Santalum, hakea and other shrubs on lateritic sandy loam with continuous leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
hill slope gentle sandy loam; laterite
MFL057 -31.655343 119.555467 Yes shrubland Dense tall allocasurina and mulga shrubland over sparse low myrtacea and mulga shrubs on laterite hillslope with orange sandy loam with continuous leaf litter.
hill slope gentle sandy loam; laterite
MFL109 -31.618557 119.518037 Yes open woodland
Open Mallee woodland with tall allocasurina over low allocasurina, myrtacea and other shrubs over very sparse grass on lateritic yellow sandy loam with continuous leaf litter
vehicle tracks undulating plain
negligible sandy loam; laterite
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
MFL110 -31.626751 119.524054 Yes open woodland
Open mallee and allocasurina woodland over melaleuca and other mixed shrubs on red-orange lateritic sandy loam with patchy leaf litter
vehicle tracks undulating plain
negligible sandy loam; laterite
MFL111 -31.626073 119.529253 Yes woodland Allocasurina woodland with some tall mulga shrubs over mixed shrubs of myrtacea, bankssia and other on yellow sandy loam with continuous leaf litter
hill slope gentle sandy loam; laterite
MFL112 -31.632756 119.526962 Yes open woodland
Open mallee woodland over allocasurina and myrtacea on red-orange lateritic sandy loam with patchy leaf litter
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
hill slope gentle sandy clay; loam
MFL115 -31.598164 119.546156 Yes open woodland
Open mallee woodland over allocasurina, melaleuca, hakea and mulga over low melaleuca and other mixed shrubs on lateritic red-orange sandy clay loam with mostly continuous leaf litter.
evidence of feral animals
hill top negligible sandy loam; laterite
MFL122 -31.638101 119.542823 Yes shrubland Mulga and allocasurina shrubland on red-orange lateritic sandy loam with continuous leaf litter
vehicle tracks
MFL128 -31.654314 119.539958 Yes open woodland
Open mallee woodland over tall mallee shrubs over allocasurina, acacia sp. and myrtacea shrubs over low other myrtacea and mixed shrubs on lateritic red-orange-yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.
vehicle tracks hill slope gentle sandy loam; laterite
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
MFL129 -31.652348 119.540936 Yes shrubland Mallee shrubland with tall allocasurina and myrtacea shrubs over other mixed low shrubs Inc. allocasurina, myrtacea and acacia sp. on red-orange lateritic sandy loam with continuous leaf litter.
hill slope gentle sandy loam; laterite
MFMM003 -31.625451 119.540870 Yes mallee woodland
Mallee/allocasurina over hakea allocasurina and mallee tall shrubs over mixed low shrubs of myrtacea and other on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
plain negligible sandy loam
MFMM012 -31.623248 119.559212 Yes mallee woodland
Open mallee and tall allocasurina over mixed myrtacea and other shrubs
vehicle tracks hill slope gentle gravel; alluvial; sandy loam
MFMM023 -31.621851 119.542468 Yes mallee woodland
Open mallee woodland over tall allocasurina shrubs over mixed low shrubs of myrtacea and other on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
plain negligible sandy loam
MFMM045 -31.626860 119.551023 Yes open woodland
evidence of feral animals; exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
hill slope gentle sandy clay; sandy loam
MFMM047 -31.608325 119.558799 Yes open woodland
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
plain negligible sandy loam; clay loam
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
MFMM010 -31.633846 119.563813 Yes woodland undulating plain
gentle clay loam
MFH01 -31.625805 119.549154 No open woodland
Eucalypt woodland over melaleuca tall shrubs over myrtacea and other shrubs.
evidence of feral animals; exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
hill slope negligible sandy loam; clay loam
MFL005 -31.608182 119.566225 No open woodland
open eucalypt woodland over tall melaleuca shrubs.
evidence of feral animals; exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
plain negligible sandy loam
MFL011 -31.629647 119.552475 No open woodland
Rocky ridge in open woodland hill slope moderate rocks
MFL030 -31.614987 119.538651 No mallee woodland
Open mallee, allocasurina woodland over mixed shrubs with sparse spinifex on yello sandy loam.
undulating plain
negligible sandy loam
MFL032 -31.615310 119.533873 No woodland Mallee open woodland over tall melaleuca shrubs and allocasurina over myrtacea low shrubs with sparse sedge and spinifex grasses on red orange sandy loam.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
undulating plain
negligible sandy loam
MFL035 -31.621702 119.542290 No
Open mallee woodland over tall allocasurina shrubs over mixed low shrubs of myrtacea and other on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
MFL045 -31.629080 119.537509 No woodland Open eucalyptus woodland over melaleuca and Mallee shrubs on orange sandy clay loam with lateritic gravel
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
hill slope gentle sandy clay; loam; laterite
MFL055 -31.654803 119.551178 No mallee woodland
Open mallee woodland over sparse myrtacea shrubs over sparse tussock grass.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
breakaway gentle sandy clay; loam; rocks; laterite
MFL118 -31.626683 119.570390 No open woodland
Open eucalyptus woodland over Santalum, melaleuca tall shrubs over sparse low shrub lidar picks up as mound on rocky lateritic sandy clay loam with sparse leaf litter
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); historic clearing; historic operations; litter; vehicle tracks
hill slope gentle sandy clay; loam; laterite
MFL119 -31.626643 119.570390 No Open eucalyptus woodland over Santalum, melaleuca tall shrubs over sparse low shrub lidar picks up as mound on rocky lateritic sandy clay loam with sparse leaf litter
hill slope gentle sandy clay; clay; rocks; laterite
MFL121 -31.635606 119.546134 No Open mallee woodland over allocasurina, hakea, Santalum and melaleuca shrubs on red-orange lateritic sandy loam with continuous
undulating plain
negligible clay loam; rocks; laterite
MFL123 -31.638424 119.537524 No mallee woodland
Mallee woodland over melaleuca allocasurina calytrix over myrtacea mulga and other shrubs on red-orange salmom lateritic and rocky sandy clay
vehicle tracks plain negligible sandy loam
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Habitat Type Habitat description Disturbance Topography Slope Soil
MFL130 -31.648285 119.560120 No woodland mallee/eu eucalyptus woodland over allocasurina, mulga and medium density melaleuca trees over melaleuca and other myrtacea shrubs over sedge grass on red-orange rocky lateritic clay loam with patchy leaf litter.
exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
MFMMnf -31.620807 119.539585 No shrubland tall allocasurina shrubland exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Appendix 5 Malleefowl breeding habitat assessments
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Sand Canopy Leaf litter Ground level
Mallee Melealuca Mulga Triodia Score Malleefowl Habitat
MFL006 -31.616721 119.564017 Yes 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 6 Yes
MFL033 -31.616248 119.542321 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL041 -31.625634 119.532590 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 Yes
MFL046 -31.619854 119.533735 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL049 -31.615409 119.532907 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL102 -31.593515 119.530815 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
MFP001 -31.619440 119.548327 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL010 -31.628404 119.550333 Yes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 Yes
MFL031 -31.614803 119.538604 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 Yes
MFL043 -31.624348 119.542204 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL044 -31.625736 119.538412 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL113 -31.599938 119.541300 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
MFL114 -31.598984 119.544720 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
MFL116 -31.600708 119.544866 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
MFL117 -31.610960 119.562213 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
MFL120 -31.635740 119.547512 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 Yes
MFP002 -31.617690 119.545493 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL007 -31.619241 119.564362 Yes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 Yes
MFL008 -31.621466 119.561565 Yes 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 5 Yes
MFL009 -31.622579 119.559385 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 Yes
MFL034 -31.620382 119.540751 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL056 -31.656214 119.553142 Yes 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Sand Canopy Leaf litter Ground level
Mallee Melealuca Mulga Triodia Score Malleefowl Habitat
MFL057 -31.655343 119.555467 Yes 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 Yes
MFL109 -31.618557 119.518037 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 Yes
MFL110 -31.626751 119.524054 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL111 -31.626073 119.529253 Yes 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL112 -31.632756 119.526962 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL115 -31.598164 119.546156 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
MFL122 -31.638101 119.542823 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 6 Yes
MFL124 -31.643342 119.549583 Yes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 No
MFL128 -31.654314 119.539958 Yes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 Yes
MFL129 -31.652348 119.540936 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 Yes
MFMM003 -31.625451 119.540870 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFMM012 -31.623248 119.559212 Yes 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 Yes
MFMM022 -31.631230 119.550718 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFMM023 -31.621851 119.542468 Yes 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFMM045 -31.626860 119.551023 Yes 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 Yes
MFMM047 -31.608325 119.558799 Yes 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 Yes
MFMM010 -31.633846 119.563813 Yes 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFH01 -31.625805 119.549154 No 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL005 -31.608182 119.566225 No 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 Yes
MFL011 -31.629647 119.552475 No 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 No
MFL030 -31.614987 119.538651 No 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 5 Yes
MFL032 -31.615310 119.533873 No 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
MFL035 -31.621702 119.542290 No 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project
Prepared for Mineral Resources Ltd
Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd
Site Latitude Longitude Mound present
Sand Canopy Leaf litter Ground level
Mallee Melealuca Mulga Triodia Score Malleefowl Habitat
MFL036 -31.623237 119.530724 No 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL037 -31.622834 119.532146 No 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 Yes
MFL038 -31.622798 119.532605 No 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 Yes
MFL039 -31.622647 119.533623 No 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 Yes
MFL042 -31.626434 119.532401 No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
MFL045 -31.629080 119.537509 No 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 No
MFL047 -31.620132 119.531790 No 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL048 -31.620339 119.528875 No 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
MFL050 -31.615744 119.531236 No 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6 Yes
MFL055 -31.654803 119.551178 No 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 No
MFL118 -31.626683 119.570390 No 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 No
MFL119 -31.626643 119.570390 No 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 No
MFL121 -31.635606 119.546134 No 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
MFL123 -31.638424 119.537524 No 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 Yes
MFL130 -31.648285 119.560120 No 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 5 Yes
MFMMnf -31.620807 119.539585 No 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes