parker range (mt caudan project) 2015- 2016...

CAZALY IRON PTY LTD

PARKER RANGE (MT CAUDAN PROJECT)

2015- 2016 COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

(THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINISTERIAL CONDITIONS OF STATEMENT NO. 892)

Proponent: Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd

Prepared by: Clark Lindbeck & Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 144 BULLCREEK WA 6149 Telephone: 08 9332 0671 Facsimile: 08 9238 4923 Mobile: 0409 109 360 E-Mail: [email protected] ABN: 36 166 369 526

July 2016

Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd 2015-2016 Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Project – Compliance Assessment Report

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 LOCATION ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.4 PROPONENT ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 COMPLIANCE AUDIT TABLE ................................................................................................. 2

3.0 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................. 9

3.1 INTERNAL AUDITS .............................................................................................................. 9 3.2 EXTERNAL AUDITS ............................................................................................................. 9

4.0 NON COMPLIANCES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .......................................................... 10

4.1 NON-COMPLIANCES ......................................................................................................... 10 4.2 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .................................................................................................... 10

5.0 MONITORING RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 11

6.0 COMPANY ENDORSEMENT BY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF CAZALY ............................ 12

7.0 PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT ................................................. 13

8.0 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT ....................................... 14

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................... 15

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Assessment of genetic processes in Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd (Cazaly) received approval by the Minister for Environment; Water (Hon Bill Marmion) 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.

Cazaly propose to mine iron ore from the Parker Range deposit by conventional open pit hard rock mining methods at a rate of approximately 4 Mtpa. The estimated life of the mine is 8.5 years based on current economically mineable JORC resources.

Approximately 31 Mt of waste rock is expected to be generated from the mining operation.

This Compliance Assessment Report (CAR) covers the Project’s status of compliance with Ministerial Statement 892 (issued to Cazaly on the 12 April 2012) for the period 11 July 2015 to 11 July 2016.

At this point in time, the proposed Project has not been implemented.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The objective of this document is to provide a CAR to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) in accordance with condition 4-6 of Ministerial Statement No. 892 and the Compliance Assessment Plan approved on 12 July 2013.

1.3 LOCATION

The Project is located approximately 52 km south of Southern Cross and 15 km southeast of Marvel Loch.

1.4 PROPONENT

Relevant information for Cazaly is:

Address: Level 2, 38 Richardson Street WEST PERTH WA 6005

PO Box 396 WEST PERTH WA 6872

Telephone: 08 9322 6283

Facsimile: 08 9322 6398

ABN: 56 110 981 783

Directors: Clive Jones Nathan McMahon Kent Hunter


2

2.0 COMPLIANCE AUDIT TABLE

PROJECT – PARKER RANGE (MOUNT CAUDAN) IRON ORE PROJECT - SHIRE OF YILGARN • Phases that apply in this table = Pre-Construction, Construction, Operation, Decommissioning, Overall (several phases).

• Code prefixes: M = Minister’s condition, P = Proponent’s commitment.

• Acronyms list: CEO = Chief Executive Officer of the OEPA; DEC = Department of Environment and Conservation (now separately DPaW and DER); DIA = Department of Indigenous Affairs (now DAA); DMP = Department of Mines and Petroleum; EPA = Environmental Protection Authority; DoH = Department of Health; DoW = Department of Water, Minister for Env = Minister for the Environment; OEPA = Office of the Environmental Protection Authority.

• 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 are only for OEPA use.

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 Cazaly (the proponent).

Min for Env

Overall Ongoing C Cazaly remains 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 2017

NR Project not commenced.

Cazaly submitted a request to the EPA on 28 June 2016 to extend MS892 approval 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 2017 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 OEPA.

CEO Overall Originally due by 12 January 2013, then 28 June 2013.

C CAP submitted to the OEPA 28 June 2013. Final CAP re-submitted 10 July 2013, approved 12 July 2013.

892:M4.2


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 OEPA.

CEO Pre-construction

Originally due by 12 January 2013, then 28 June 2013.

C CAP submitted to the OEPA 28 June 2013. Final CAP re-submitted 10 July 2013, approved 12 July 2013.

892:M4.3


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.

892:M4.4


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 Cazaly’s 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

892:M4.5


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 OEPA.

CEO Overall Within 7 days of non-compliance being known.

C

892:M4.6


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

In accordance with CAP. Acknowledgement of receipt of CAR by OEPA.

Endorsement of CAR by Director.

CAR uploaded to Cazaly

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

C The first CAR was submitted by Cazaly to the CEO 12 July 2013. Placed on the Cazaly website on 31 July 2013.

OEPA confirmed receipt of 2014-2015 CAR (received 13 July 2015)


3

Audit Code


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.

website. submission of the first CAR.

on 20 July 2015 (Ref: 2015-0001196259).

Submission of this CAR and required content fulfills the annual CAR requirements.

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 Cazaly website, or, via a request form on the Cazaly website with supply of the report within 7 days.

Availability of data. CEO Overall Ongoing C Verification was provided to OEPA on 31 July 2013 of fulfilment of this condition. No requests for access to data received by Cazaly via their website.

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 OEPA.

CEO Overall Ongoing NR

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. Initial baseline surveys conducted in Spring of 2011.

892:M6.2


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 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 Ground disturbing activities not yet commenced. Initial baseline surveys conducted in Spring of 2011.

892:M6.3


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 OEPA within 21 days of the decline being identified.

CEO Overall Within 21 days of the decline being identified.

NR

892:M6.4


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.

Implementation of actions in accordance with 6.2.6.

Correspondence with OEPA.

CEO Overall Ongoing NR

892:M6.5


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 road (schedule 1 Figure 3)

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. Initial baseline survey conducted in 2011, no weeds recorded.


4

Audit Code


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.

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


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, 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.

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. Submission of Genetic Analysis report with CAR. Submission of results of action required by a rehabilitation and research program in the CAR.

CEO DEC Overall Prior to ground disturbance. Ongoing

NR C

NR

Ground disturbing activities not yet occurred. Collection and storage of plant material completed, seeds yet to be collected (not in seed) – ongoing discussions with DPaW. Genetic analysis completed by DPaW to fulfil this requirement (report attached – Appendix 1).

Ground disturbing activities not yet commenced.


5

Audit Code


892:M7.3


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.

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.

NR Survey report submitted to the OEPA on 6 August 2012 (A533664).

OEPA requested that additional information re: regional and local impacts be incorporated into a revised report to be submitted by 9 August 2013.

On 6 August 2013, Cazaly forwarded a letter to the OEPA requesting concurrence for the revised report to be submitted prior to ground disturbing activities (in accordance with the condition). Cazaly will follow up with the OEPA re: a response to this request.

The status of this condition still remains NR (not required).

892:M7.4


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.

Submission of the targeted survey report to the CEO and DEC within 3 months.

Acknowledgement from the OEPA and DEC of receipt of report.

CEO, DEC

Pre-construction

Within 3 months of completion of report.

NR Survey report submitted to the OEPA on 6 August 2012 (A533664). This was within three months of completion.

Revised report (refer to above for details) will be submitted within 3 months of completion.

892:M7.5


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.

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.

892:M7.6


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

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.

892:M7.7


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.

Preparation of monitoring plan in accordance with the DEC.

Written notification of submission and written approval of the plan from the OEPA.

CEO DEC Pre-construction then Overall

Prior to ground disturbance.

NR Proposal not yet implemented (i.e. no ground disturbance), monitoring not required at this stage.

892:M7.8


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 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 OEPA.

Acknowledgement of receipt of report by OEPA within 21 days.

CEO Overall Within 21 days of the decline being identified.

NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.

892:M7.9


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.

Implement the actions identified in the monitoring plan.

Remedial actions to be presented in the CAR and advised to the OEPA.

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.


6

Audit Code


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 Cazaly Environment staff 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 OEAP of any death or injury of fauna protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or Scheduled species under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

Submission of records and acknowledgement from the OEPA on receipt of notification.

CEO Overall Within 7 days of that injury being known.


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.


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.

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 Proposal not yet implemented (i.e. no ground disturbance), not required at this stage.

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 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.

Acknowledgement of receipt of reports from the OEPA. Results to be presented in the CAR.

CEO, DEC

Overall 1. Within 21 days of the decline being identified.

2. Within 21 days of determination of significant adverse impact.

3. Ongoing


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 to DEC and in the 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.



7

Audit Code


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 DEC.

Results of daily inspections in trench and fauna management report (M9.6) and CAR. Written agreement from CEO where 6km is to be exceeded.

CEO DEC 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 OEPA.

CEO, DEC

Construction No later than 21 days after the completion of underground pipe installation.


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 DEC 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 DEC.

Min for Env

DEC Construction Prior to the rainfall event


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 DEC within 48 hours of the fauna mortality being identified.

Acknowledgement of receipt of the report from the CEO and DEC within 48 hours.

CEO, DEC

Construction Within 48 hours of mortality being identified.


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 DEC.

Written approval from the DEC on the Euthanasia Plan.

DEC Pre-construction

Prior to ground disturbing activities.


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


892:M10.2


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

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;

Reporting in CAR. CEO, DEC

Pre-construction or otherwise agreed to be CEO

Extension granted to 12 October 2013 (AS562098). Annual reporting on its activities to DEC and CEO.

NR Extension granted to 12 October 2013 (AS562098). Variation to Condition granted by OEPA on 10 October 2013 to remove time constraints and comply with the Condition “prior to ground disturbing activities”.


8

Audit Code


the CEO. and f. an obligation to report annually on its activities to the DEC and the CEO.

892:M10.3


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.

Acknowledgement from the DMP and DEC of consultation. Details of land acquired to be reported in CAR.

CEO Pre-construction or otherwise agreed to be CEO

Extension granted to 12 April 2014 (AS562098).

NR Extension granted to 12 April 2014 (AS562098). Variation to Condition granted by OEPA on 10 October 2013 to remove time constraints and comply with the Condition “prior to ground disturbing activities”.

892:M10.4


If for any reason Project B is unsuccessful, the proponent will provide equivalent funds to the PRCT.

Correspondence with the OEPA. Reporting in CAR. Min for Env

Overall As required. NR Proposal not yet implemented, not required at this stage.

892:M10.5


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.

Details to be reported in CAR.

Min for Env

Overall Ongoing - As outlined in Schedule 2.


892:M10.6


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

Details to be reported in the CAR

Min for Env

Overall Ongoing - As outlined in Schedule 2.


892:M10.7


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 DEC prepare a program for transfer of funds

Report endorsed by the DEC and included in the CAR

CEO, DEC

Decommissioning

Completion of proposal, including mine closure


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


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 exceedence.

Notify the CEO within 7 days of exceedance.

Acknowledgement of notification from the CEO within 7 days.

CEO Operation Within 7 days of exceedance


892:M11.3

Air Quality The proponent shall within 14 days of the exceedence of the PM10 target defined by condition 11-1 being recorded, provide a report to the CEO outlining the causes for the exceedence and management measures being implemented to address the cause of the exceedence.

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 exceedence.

CEO Operation Within 14 days of exceedence.


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


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 of 50 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.



9

3.0 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The Project is compliant with the conditions of MS 892.

Cazaly will seek an update from the OEPA in relation to Condition 7-3 and their original request, dated 6 August 2013, for the OEPA to provide its concurrence for the revised targeted Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range survey report be submitted prior to ground disturbing activities.

Cazaly does not consider the fact that a revised report was not submitted by 9 August 2013 as a non-compliance, as the condition states the requirements for completion is ‘prior to ground disturbing activities’.

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.


10

4.0 NON COMPLIANCES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

4.1 NON-COMPLIANCES

There were no non-compliances during this reporting period.

4.2 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

None required.


11

5.0 MONITORING RESULTS As the project has not been implemented, no monitoring has been undertaken since the submission of the first CAR (2012-2013). The monitoring results completed at that time were included as attachments to the 2012-2013 CAR.

In accordance with Condition 7-2(2), DPaW has completed their assessment of the genetic processes in Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan to ensure the long term maintenance of genetic diversity in these species (Binks et al. 2013). The report is attached as Appendix 1.

The assessment concluded that “Overall, the less diverse and more differentiated populations of L. sp. Parker Range are of greater conservation concern than the diverse and well-connected populations of L. sp. Mt Caudan. The removal of two populations for the mine operation should have little impact on short term genetic diversity and structure of these species” (Binks et al. 2013).


12

6.0 COMPANY ENDORSEMENT BY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF CAZALY

The Joint Managing Director of Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd has endorsed this Compliance Assessment Report.

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: Clive Jones……………………… Position: Joint Managing Director

Signed: Date: 15 July 2016........................................


13

7.0 PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT This CAR will be made publicly available via the Cazaly website (www.cazalyresources.com.au) and will remain on the website for the life of the Project.

Cazaly will advise the OEPA of the internet link to the Report 14 days from the date of making the Report publicly available.


14

8.0 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT There are no proposed changes to the Compliance Assessment Plan.

Condition M3.1 of MS 892 requires Cazaly to implement the proposal within 5 years of the date of the Ministerial Statement, thus authorisation to implement the proposal in accordance with MS 892 lapses on 12 April 2017. As a result of a number of factors, including the poor economic market, the Project has not been implemented. As such, Cazaly submitted a request to EPA on 28 June 2016, for a five year extension under Condition 3.1 to MS892, to 12 April 2022, to allow future development of the Project.


15

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Binks, R., Millar, M. and M. Byrne (2013). Final report for assessment of genetic processes in Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan. Science Division, Department of Parks and Wildlife, July 2013. Report submitted to Botanica Consulting and Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd.


16

Appendix 1 –

Assessment of genetic processes in Lepidosperma sp Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan

Final report for assessment of genetic processes in Lepidosperma

sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan

Dr Rachel Binks, Dr Melissa Millar and Dr Margaret Byrne

Science Division, Department of Parks and Wildlife

July 2013

Report submitted to Botanica Consulting and Cazaly Iron Ore Pty Ltd

2

Executive Summary This research was requested from Cazaly Iron Ore Pty Ltd to satisfy Condition 7-2(2) required under

Ministerial Statement 892 for the approval of the Parker Range (Mount Caudan) Iron Ore Project.

Condition 7-2(2) specifies that:

“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”

Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan have narrow distributions in the

Parker Range area, with few populations and have a conservation status of Priority 1 (poorly known

taxa), as determined by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. The development of the proposed

mine would require the removal of one population from each species and thus, this research aims to

determine the genetic and reproductive processes in these species prior to mine development, while

assessing the impact of the removal of these populations. In doing so, recommendations can be

made for ensuring the ongoing genetic persistence of L. sp. Parker Range and L. sp. Mt Caudan

during and after the lifetime of the proposed mine.

The project addressed the requirement of the approval condition through research in two major

areas, 1) the determination of genetic diversity and spatial genetic structure among populations, and

2) determination of the frequency and spatial extent of asexual reproduction (i.e. clonality) for each

of L. sp. Parker Range and L. sp. Mt Caudan. To assess genetic diversity and structure, all known

populations were broadly sampled and analysed using chloroplast and nuclear microsatellite

markers. Various diversity parameters and measures of population connectivity were assessed,

including an assessment of the contribution of each population to overall species’ diversity. The

clonality analyses required a narrower sampling design, focussing on two intensively sampled

quadrats within two populations for each species and were assessed for clonality using nuclear

microsatellite markers.

The main findings of this study include:

- Overall genetic diversity is low to moderate in both L. sp. Parker Range and L. sp. Mt Caudan.

- The geographically disjunct populations of L. sp. Parker Range exhibit high levels of

differentiation, with strong geographic structuring particularly between the central

populations and the more isolated, peripheral populations.

- Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan has a more restricted distribution, and populations are well

connected by gene flow and show little geographic structuring.

- Peripheral populations of L. sp. Parker Range and L. sp. Mt Caudan (LPR 7, 8, 9 and LMC 3, 7)

contribute the most to overall species diversity, while the impact populations of both

species are similar to other populations and do not make a significant contribution to overall

species diversity.

3

- Both species exhibited some level of clonality but this was more prevalent in L. sp. Parker

Range than in L. sp. Mt Caudan.

Overall, the less diverse and more differentiated populations of L. sp. Parker Range are of greater

conservation concern than the diverse and well-connected populations of L. sp. Mt Caudan. The

removal of two populations for the mine operation should have little impact on short term genetic

diversity and structure of these species. However, to maintain their genetic integrity in the long

term, we recommend the safeguarding of plant and seed material, from both species, for

rehabilitation purposes following the closure of the mine.

4

Project Outcome

This research program provides information toward ensuring the long term maintenance of genetic

diversity in Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan.

Background This research is in response to a request from Cazaly Iron Ore Pty Ltd for a program that addresses a

specific condition, from the Environmental Protection Authority, in approving development and

operation of an open cut iron ore mine at the Parker Range deposit. This condition requires the long

term maintenance of genetic diversity of two conservation significant flora, Lepidosperma sp. Parker

Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan, and stipulates that this is to be achieved via an assessment

of genetic diversity and genetic processes in each species. This assessment is now complete and this

report provides a summary of all the data collected over the last 18 months, with final

recommendations for the ongoing genetic persistence of L. sp. Parker Range and L. sp. Mt Caudan.

Research plan

The research involved genetic analysis of Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and Lepidosperma sp. Mt

Caudan, including:

i. spatial analysis of population genetic diversity and structure;

ii. determination of the reproductive system; and

iii. determination of dispersal parameters.

Determination of the mating system and pollen dispersal aspects of the reproductive system

requires genetic assessment of seed. Seed set in Lepidosperma can be highly irregular and no seed

was obtained from populations of either species during the course of the project. Therefore, a full

study of the sexual mating system and pollen dispersal was not possible. It was suspected that there

may be clonal reproduction in both species due to the pattern of growth and the absence of seed

set. Hence, an assessment of clonality was carried out to determine this aspect of the reproductive

system and satisfy objectives ii and iii.

Research Methods

Sample Collection

Initial population surveys for each of

Caudan (LMC) were conducted by Jim Williams (

populations of various sizes (Figure 1). Following further morphological and genetic assessment,

three populations thought to be

Flat and omitted from further analysis. Additionally, genetic analysis of

strong inconsistencies with the rest of the species

indicating that it may be a differ

not typical of L. sp. Mt Caudan and does not appear to contribute to gene flow amongst populations,

this population was also omitted

misinterpreting the dataset.

Figure 1: Location of all known populations sampled for each of

Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range (LPR). Also shown are three populations of the more widespread

sp. A2 Inland Flat (INF).

Initial population surveys for each of Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range (LPR) and Lepidosperma

(LMC) were conducted by Jim Williams (Botanica Consulting), finding nine LPR and 12 LMC


thought to be L. sp. Parker Range were re-classified as Lepidosperma

from further analysis. Additionally, genetic analysis of population

strong inconsistencies with the rest of the species in both chloroplast and nuclear markers

indicating that it may be a different species, or perhaps a hybrid. Given that its genetic signature is

sp. Mt Caudan and does not appear to contribute to gene flow amongst populations,

d from further analysis to avoid overestimating genetic diversity and

Location of all known populations sampled for each of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (LMC), and

sp. Parker Range (LPR). Also shown are three populations of the more widespread

5

Lepidosperma sp. Mt

nine LPR and 12 LMC


Lepidosperma sp. A2 Inland

population LMC 5.5 showed

and nuclear markers,

Given that its genetic signature is

sp. Mt Caudan and does not appear to contribute to gene flow amongst populations,

analysis to avoid overestimating genetic diversity and

sp. Mt Caudan (LMC), and

sp. Parker Range (LPR). Also shown are three populations of the more widespread Lepidosperma

6

For analyses of spatial genetic structure and diversity (Objective i), 24 individuals were sampled from

each population (408 total). These samples were collected across the full spatial extent of each

population to estimate the genetic diversity within each population. For the nuclear microsatellite

markers, all 24 samples were analysed for each population, while eight samples per population were

randomly chosen for analysis with the chloroplast markers. Assessment of the occurrence and

spatial extent of asexual reproduction with a study on clonality for each species required a more

concentrated sampling design. From each population 75 samples were collected within two, 15m x

15m quadrats. In total, approximately 600 samples were collected from two populations per species;

the impact populations (LPR 1 and LMC 2), as well as two other populations (LPR 3 and LMC 3)

(Figure 1). For this study, eight nuclear microsatellite markers were used to genotype samples and

assess clonality for each species.

Laboratory Analysis

Leaf material was freeze-dried before DNA was extracted using a modified CTAB method (Doyle &

Doyle 1987), adding 1% PVP (polyvinylpyrrolodine) to the extraction buffer. Nuclear microsatellite

markers were developed through partial genome sequencing on a 454 platform at the Australian

Genome Research Facility using the methods of Gardner et al. (2011). From the resulting

microsatellite libraries, 80 primers were trialled and 24 (12 for each species) were optimised and

used for all three objectives in this project. Chloroplast microsatellite markers previously developed

for other Lepidosperma species (Wallace et al. 2010), were tested and six of these were used with

both species for Objective (i). Polymerase chain reactions (PCR) were performed in a 15 μl volume

containing 50 mM KCl, 20 mM Tris–HCl (pH 8.4), 0.2 mM each dNTP, 2.5 – 3.5 mM MgCl2, 0.032 mM

forward primer, 0.16 mM reverse primer, 0.16 mM fluorescent M13 primer, 0.1 μl Taq DNA

polymerase and 10 ng of template DNA. PCR cycling conditions entailed 4 min at 95 °C, followed by

15 cycles of 94 °C for 30 sec, 30 sec stepping down from 65 to 50 °C (-1 °C per cycle), and 72 °C for 45

seconds, followed by 30 cycles of 94 °C for 15 seconds, 50 °C for 15 seconds, and 72 °C for 45

seconds, with a final extension of 72 °C for 8 minutes. PCR products were visualised on a Biosystems

3730 Sequencer (Applied Biosystems) and genotypes were scored manually using GenemapperTM

v.3.7 (Applied Biosystems) software.

Data Analysis

For the analysis of chloroplast microsatellite data, haplotypes were identified using GenAlEx v.6.5

(Peakall & Smouse 2006) and visualised using pie charts overlaid on a map to show the geographic

distribution of haplotypes across populations. Genetic diversity and differentiation parameters were

calculated using PERMUT v.1.0 (Pons & Petit 1996) and principle co-ordinate analysis (PCoA) was

used to visualise the genetic differentiation within and among species using GenAlEx v.6.5 (Peakall &

Smouse 2006).

The nuclear microsatellite data were assessed for genetic diversity and population differentiation

using GenAlEx v.6.5 (Peakall & Smouse 2006). Exact tests for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and

linkage disequilibrium were performed with Genepop v.4.2 (Raymond & Rousset 1995). GenAlEx

7

v.6.5 (Peakall & Smouse 2006) was also used to visualise population differentiation through PCoA

and to test for isolation by distance using Mantel tests, while STRUCTURE v.2.3.4 (Pritchard et al.

2000) was used to identify any pattern of genetic structuring across the sampled populations for

each species. Finally, analyses were performed in CONTRIB v.1.02 (Petit et al. 1998) to determine the

relative contributions of populations LPR 1 and LMC 2 toward each species’ overall genetic diversity

to allow a quantitative assessment of the impact of their removal.

Clonality was assessed using GenClone v.2.0 (Arnaud-Haond & Belkhir 2006). This analysis includes

the identification of clones, estimation of diversity parameters and spatial analyses of clonal

structure.

8

Research Results

Chloroplast microsatellite diversity and population structure A total of 12 haplotypes were found across the 11 populations of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan and

six haplotypes across the six populations of Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range (Figure 2). All

populations consisted of multiple haplotypes, with an average of 2.67 ± 0.02 and 3.64 ± 0.4

haplotypes per population for LPR and LMC, respectively. For both species, two to three common

haplotypes were distributed widely across each species’ range with the remaining haplotypes

occurring in more localised areas. Average diversity, both within population diversity and total

diversity, was significantly higher in L. sp. Mt Caudan than L. sp. Parker Range, while population

differentiation was significantly higher among LPR populations than those of LMC (Table 1). Three L.

sp. Parker Range populations (LPR 1, 7, 9) and three L. sp. Mt Caudan populations (LMC 4, 9, 11)

each exhibited one private allele. There were no shared haplotypes between the two species.

Figure 2: Geographic distribution of chloroplast haplotypes found in populations of A. Lepidosperma sp. Parker

Range (LPR) and B. Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (LMC). The size of the portions in each pie graph corresponds

to the relative proportion of individuals with that haplotype in the population.

9

Within each species, there is limited evidence of geographical structuring. Overall differentiation

among populations is low in both species because most populations share one or two common

haplotypes across each species’ range. And while there are some haplotypes that occur in specific

geographic regions, such as Haplotype 3 in the central L. sp. Parker Range populations or Haplotype

5 in the southern L. sp. Mt Caudan populations (Figure 2), a comparison of the two differentiation

parameters (Table 1) showed no significant difference between GST and RST for either species,

indicating that haplotypes within a given population are not necessarily more closely related than

haplotypes amongst different populations.

Finally, the principle co-ordinate analysis (Figure 3) shows the clear genetic differentiation amongst

the Lepidosperma species collected. This figure includes the L. sp. A2 Inland Flat populations, as well

as population LMC 5.5 to highlight their distinction from L. sp. Mt Caudan and L. sp. Parker Range.

The populations of each species clustered together in three separate groups while population LMC

5.5 exhibited haplotypes with more affinity to L. sp. Parker Range despite having morphology more

similar to L. sp. Mt Caudan.

Table 1: Genetic diversity (within population diversity, hS/vS and total species diversity, hT/vT) and

differentiation (GST/RST) parameters for the chloroplast haplotypes of Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range (LPR) and

Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (LMC).

N, total number of individuals; Na, total number of haplotypes; diversity and differentiation parameters are averaged

across populations for each species, with standard error in parentheses.

Species N Na hS hT GST vS vT RST

A. LPR 48 6 0.542 (0.07) 0.697 (0.08) 0.223 (0.05) 0.444 (0.09) 0.602 (0.08) 0.262 (0.10)

B. LMC 88 12 0.695 (0.06) 0.820 (0.04) 0.153 (0.05) 0.689 (0.05) 0.781 (0.03) 0.118 (0.04)

Figure 3: Principle co-ordinates analysis of genetic differentiation based on chloroplast microsatellites for all

populations of three Lepidosperma

Caudan (LMC; black) and Lepidosperma

91.42% of the total genetic variation.

Nuclear microsatellite diversity and population structure

Both species of Lepidosperma exhibited

11 populations, allelic richness and expected heterozygosity

respectively for L. sp. Mt Caudan

six L. sp. Parker Range populations.

While measures of diversity were similar between the two species, there are other important

differences to note. Firstly, diversity in

comparison to L. sp. Mt Caudan

considerably low diversity relative to the other

heterozygosity was significantly lower for

while both species experienced significant deviations from Hardy

inbreeding coefficients (FIS) due to heterozygote defic

pronounced in L. sp. Parker Range

reproduction reducing genetic variability within

exhibited private alleles and these alleles

LPR 9 in particular, which is the most geographically isolated

number of private alleles (eight

alleles for L. sp. Parker Range relative to

ordinates analysis of genetic differentiation based on chloroplast microsatellites for all

Lepidosperma species: Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range (LPR; blue),

Lepidosperma sp. A2 Inland Flat (A2 INF; red). The two co-ordinate axes account for

91.42% of the total genetic variation.

microsatellite diversity and population structure

exhibited moderate levels of nuclear genetic diversity (Table

and expected heterozygosity averaged 3.97 + 0.03

sp. Mt Caudan, and similarly, 3.47 + 0.24 and 0.436 + 0.02 respectively, across the

populations.

were similar between the two species, there are other important

Firstly, diversity in L. sp. Parker Range was less consistent across populations in

Mt Caudan. This is largely attributed to population LPR 1 which stands out with

considerably low diversity relative to the other L. sp. Parker Range populations. Secondly, o

significantly lower for L. sp. Parker Range than L. sp. Mt Caudan (

while both species experienced significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium

due to heterozygote deficiency, such deficits were much more

sp. Parker Range. This is most likely indicative of increased

reproduction reducing genetic variability within L. sp. Parker Range populations.

these alleles were more common in peripheral populations

which is the most geographically isolated of all populations,

eight), which contributed to the significantly greater number of private

relative to L. sp. Mt Caudan.

10

ordinates analysis of genetic differentiation based on chloroplast microsatellites for all

sp. Parker Range (LPR; blue), Lepidosperma sp. Mt

ordinate axes account for

diversity (Table 2). Across

3.97 + 0.03 and 0.498 + 0.01

0.02 respectively, across the

were similar between the two species, there are other important

consistent across populations in

opulation LPR 1 which stands out with

populations. Secondly, observed

Caudan (Table 2). Thus,

Weinberg equilibrium and high

, such deficits were much more

inbreeding or clonal

populations. Finally, both species

populations. Population

of all populations, had the highest

which contributed to the significantly greater number of private

11

Table 2: Genetic diversity statistics for populations of A. Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range (LPR) and B.

Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan (LMC).

Species/

Population

Allelic

Richness

Private

Alleles

Observed

Heterozygosity

Expected

Heterozygosity

Inbreeding

Coefficient

A. L. sp. Parker Range

LPR 1 2.463 (0.34) 1 0.174 (0.06) 0.355 (0.07) 0.516 (0.14)*

LPR 3 3.356 (0.64) 1 0.304 (0.08) 0.423 (0.08) 0.413 (0.13)*

LPR 6 3.603 (0.75) 4 0.274 (0.06) 0.483 (0.07) 0.449 (0.09)*

LPR 7 3.482 (0.56) 2 0.347 (0.08) 0.401 (0.07) 0.180 (0.10)*

LPR 8 3.732 (0.57) 1 0.358 (0.09) 0.493 (0.07) 0.386 (0.13)*

LPR 9 4.218 (0.80) 8 0.304 (0.07) 0.462 (0.09) 0.337 (0.07)*

Mean (SE) 3.475 (0.24) 2.83 (1.13) 0.293 (0.03) 0.436 (0.02) 0.380 (0.05)*

B. L. sp. Mt Caudan

LMC 2 4.48 (0.57) 1 0.358 (0.06) 0.491 (0.05) 0.234 (0.11)*

LMC 3 3.95 (0.62) 2 0.442 (0.09) 0.540 (0.06) 0.200 (0.13)*

LMC 4 3.89 (0.62) 1 0.417 (0.07) 0.486 (0.05) 0.110 (0.13)*

LMC 4.5 3.55 (0.58) 0 0.438 (0.08) 0.476 (0.05) 0.088 (0.13)*

LMC 5 3.88 (0.76) 0 0.434 (0.09) 0.434 (0.06) -0.004 (0.12)

LMC 7 4.14 (0.59) 3 0.534 (0.08) 0.547 (0.06) -0.013 (0.10)

LMC 8 3.53 (0.52) 1 0.464 (0.07) 0.460 (0.05) 0.016 (0.09)

LMC 9 3.68 (0.48) 0 0.364 (0.08) 0.504 (0.05) 0.255 (0.14)*

LMC 10 4.26 (0.47) 2 0.367 (0.07) 0.520 (0.05) 0.281 (0.12)*

LMC 11 4.26 (0.78) 1 0.365 (0.06) 0.520 (0.05) 0.295 (0.10)*

LMC 12 4.05 (0.67) 1 0.379 (0.06) 0.499 (0.05) 0.242 (0.10)*

Mean (SE) 3.97 (0.09) 1.50 (0.27) 0.415 (0.02) 0.498 (0.01) 0.155 (0.04)*

* indicates significant deviation from Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.

All parameters (except for the total number of private alleles) are averaged across loci for each population of 24 individuals

with standard errors in parentheses.

Consistent with the chloroplast microsatellite data, the nuclear microsatellites showed that L. sp.

Parker Range exhibits stronger population structure than L. sp. Mt Caudan. Pairwise FST values (Table

3) were an order of magnitude larger than those for L. sp. Mt Caudan, with a global FST value of

0.277, demonstrating considerable genetic differentiation among all L. sp. Parker Range populations.

Variation in these pairwise comparisons also showed a clear geographic pattern, as shown by PCoA

(Figure 4A) and IBD (Figure 5A), where genetic differentiation increased with increasing geographic

distance between populations. Finally, STRUCTURE analysis identified two major genetic clusters

(Figure 6A), one corresponding with the three central populations (LPR 1, 3 and 6) and the other

cluster with the three more broadly distributed populations (LPR 7, 8 and 9), with slightly more

admixture in population LPR 9. In contrast, there were very low levels of differentiation amongst L.

sp. Mt Caudan populations (Table 4) with a global FST value of 0.051. Moreover, this differentiation

had little geographic structuring. This is visualised in the principle coordinates analysis (PCoA; Figure

12

4B), which shows that geographically close populations did not necessarily cluster together and

confirmed by mantel testing for isolation by distance (IBD; Figure 5B), in which there was no

significant relationship between genetic and geographic distance among populations. Furthermore,

STRUCTURE analysis did not detect any genetic structuring among L. sp. Mt Caudan populations

(Figure 6B).

Table 3: Pairwise FST comparisons amongst Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range populations.

Population LPR 1 LPR 3 LPR 6 LPR 7 LPR 8 LPR 9

LPR 1 -

LPR 3 0.119 -

LPR 6 0.228 0.067 -

LPR 7 0.362 0.269 0.265 -

LPR 8 0.305 0.240 0.231 0.108 -

LPR 9 0.276 0.209 0.275 0.261 0.150 -

Table 4: Pairwise FST comparisons among Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan populations. Non-significant

comparisons are bolded and asterisked.

Population LMC 2 LMC 3 LMC 4 LMC 4.5 LMC 5 LMC 7 LMC 8 LMC 9 LMC 10 LMC 11 LMC 12

LMC 2 -

LMC 3 0.064 -

LMC 4 0.041 0.025 -

LMC 4.5 0.038 0.060 0.023 -

LMC 5 0.096 0.125 0.125 0.102 -

LMC 7 0.072 0.066 0.064 0.069 0.069 -

LMC 8 0.077 0.095 0.057 0.066 0.101 0.079 -

LMC 9 0.063 0.070 0.083 0.082 0.091 0.074 0.078 -

LMC 10 0.037 0.082 0.064 0.059 0.084 0.065 0.047 0.01* -

LMC 11 0.029 0.059 0.053 0.034 0.085 0.052 0.064 0.061 0.042 -

LMC 12 0.020 0.049 0.039 0.036 0.073 0.044 0.053 0.036 0.025 0.00* -

13

Figure 4: Principle co-ordinates analysis of genetic differentiation based on nuclear microsatellite markers

among populations of A. Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and B. Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan. The two co-

ordinate axes account for 77.13% and 52.41% of the total genetic variation for each species, respectively. The

coloured markers indicate geographic relationships; for each species, populations of the same colour are

geographically closer to each other.

LMC 2

LMC 3

LMC 4 LMC 4.5

LMC 5LMC 7

LMC 8

LMC 9

LMC 10

LMC 11

LMC 12

Co

ord

. 2

(2

1.5

7%

)

Coord. 1 (30.84%)

B.

LPR 1

LPR 3

LPR 6

LPR 7

LPR 8

LPR 9

Co

ord

. 2

(2

5.3

7%

)

Coord. 1 (51.76%)

A.

14

Figure 5: Mantel testing of isolation by distance for correlations between genetic and geographic distance

using pairwise population comparisons for A. Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range (significant) and B. Lepidosperma

sp. Mt Caudan (not significant).

y = 0.0769x - 0.0176

R² = 0.4585

p = 0.002

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Ge

ne

tic

Dis

tan

ce F

st/(

1-F

st)

Geographic Distance ln(km)

y = 0.0054x + 0.0569

R² = 0.0188

p = 0.095

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Ge

ne

tic

Dis

tan

ce F

st/(

1-F

st)

Geographic Distance ln(km)

A.

B.

15

Figure 6: Structure analysis inferring genetic clusters across individuals of A. Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range

and B. Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan. Each individual is represented by a vertical bar which is partitioned into

the proportion of its affinity to each genetic cluster. Individuals are arranged in population order to show

geographic structuring (or the lack thereof in the case of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan).

Analysis of the contribution of each population to the genetic diversity and differentiation in the

species showed a high variability among populations in both species. For L. sp. Parker Range,

populations LPR 7 and LPR 8 contribute the most significantly to the diversity in terms of

heterozygosity, while population LPR 9 is the most important contributor to the species’ allelic

richness. The contribution of population LPR 1, at the proposed mine site, to overall species diversity

showed the same pattern for heterozygosity (CT) and allelic richness (CRT) (Figures 7A and 7B

respectively). LPR 1 has the lowest diversity of all six L. sp. Parker Range populations, therefore

having negative contributions to both heterozygosity and allelic richness. In turn and perhaps

because of this, the population is quite differentiated from other populations, positively contributing

to species diversity. However, the combined contribution of LPR 1 to species diversity was negative

for both heterozygosity and allelic richness, indicating that species diversity would not be affected

following the removal of LPR 1.

For L. sp. Mt Caudan, populations LMC 3 and LMC 7 contribute the most significantly to species

diversity in terms of both heterozygosity and allelic richness. Population LMC 5 contributed little to

A.

B.

2 3 4 4.5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12

LMC Population

1 3 6 7 8 9

LPR Population

16

diversity but more to differentiation. Population LMC 2, the population to be impacted by mining,

has a low, but positive contribution to total species diversity. In terms of heterozygosity (CT), LMC 2

was neither particularly diverse nor differentiated from other populations (Figure 8A). With the

highest richness of all 11 populations, LMC 2 contributes positively to total allelic richness (CRT) for

the species, but these alleles are not particularly unique and with a negative contribution for

population differentiation, the population’s overall contribution to total allelic richness is positive

but low (Figure 8B).

Figure 7: Contributions of Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range populations to A. total species diversity (CT) and B.

allelic richness (CTR). The overall contribution of each population (black dot) is split into the contribution due

to the population’s diversity (blue) and it’s differentiation from other populations (red).

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

LPR 1 LPR 3 LPR 6 LPR 7 LPR 8 LPR 9

CT

(%

)

Population

Differentiation

Diversity

Total

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

LPR 1 LPR 3 LPR 6 LPR 7 LPR 8 LPR 9

CT

R (

%)

Population

Differentiation

Diversity

Total

A.

B.

17

Figure 8: Contributions of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan populations to A. total species diversity (CT) and B.

allelic richness (CTR). The overall contribution of each population (black dot) is split into the contribution due

to the population’s diversity (blue) and it’s differentiation from other populations (red).

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

LMC 2 LMC 3 LMC 4 LMC 4.5 LMC 5 LMC 7 LMC 8 LMC 9 LMC 10 LMC 11 LMC 12

CT

(%

)

Population

Differentiation

Diversity

Overall

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

LMC 2 LMC 3 LMC 4 LMC 4.5 LMC 5 LMC 7 LMC 8 LMC 9 LMC 10 LMC 11 LMC 12

CT

R (

%)

Population

Differentiation

Diversity

Overalll

B.

A.

18

Clonality analysis of reproductive system and dispersal

Analysis of clonality revealed some clonal reproduction in each species. While neither species

exhibited high levels of clonality, L. sp. Parker Range was much more frequently clonal and these

clones were spread over greater spatial scales than those of L. sp. Mt Caudan (Table 5). There was

considerable variation among L. sp. Parker Range quadrats, with some being highly clonal (i.e. LPR1

Q1) and others less so (e.g. LPR1 Q2), giving an overall moderate level of clonal richness (mean =

0.437 ± 0.13). The number of ramets per multi-locus lineage (MLL) ranged from two to 18, although

most MLL’s were small with an overall average of 3.15 ± 1.07 ramets per lineage. Ramets within a

given MLL were significantly aggregated, with little crossover among neighbouring MLL’s (Figure 9).

Clonal size, determined by the maximum distance between any two ramets within a given MLL,

ranged from 2.8 to 5.8 m. In contrast, clonality was rare across all L. sp. Mt Caudan quadrats, where

most of the ramets sampled had distinct multi-locus genotypes (Figure 10). As a result, clonal

richness was high across all quadrats (mean = 0.889 ± 0.02) and the few MLL’s detected consisted of

just two to three ramets. These MLL’s tended to consist of neighbouring ramets with significant

aggregation scores and a clonal size averaging 1.3 ± 0.1 m. There was no evidence for an edge effect

in any of the quadrats sampled in either species.

Table 5: Summary of diversity and spatial parameters for multi-locus lineages (MLLs) in populations of A.

Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range and B. Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan.

Population

/Quadrat

#

Loci

#

Ramets

#

MLL Richness

Mean #Ramets

per MLL

Clonal

Subrange (m)

Edge

Effect

Agg.

Index

A. L. sp. Parker Range

LPR1 Q1 8 56 9 0.145 6.222 (1.58) 4.354 -0.313 0.810*

LPR1 Q2 8 75 51 0.766 1.471 (0.12) 2.814 -0.140 0.257*

LPR3 Q1 8 75 39 0.514 1.923 (0.26) 4.118 -0.047 0.423*

LPR3 Q2 8 75 25 0.324 3.000 (0.34) 5.796 -0.144 0.653*

Mean (SE) 31.00 (9.06) 0.437 (0.13) 3.154 (1.07) 4.271 (0.6)

B. L. sp. Mt Caudan

LMC2 Q1 8 75 64 0.851 1.172 (0.06) 1.342 0.028 0.183*

LMC2 Q2 8 75 69 0.919 1.087 (0.03) 1.249 0.004 0.105*

LMC3 Q1 8 75 69 0.919 1.087 (0.04) 1.583 -0.014 0.118*

LMC3 Q2 8 75 65 0.865 1.154 (0.06) 1.043 -0.032 0.169*

Mean (SE) 66.75 (1.31) 0.889 (0.02) 1.125 (0.02) 1.304 (0.11)

*indicates a significant (p < 0.05) result

19

Figure 9: Size and distribution of clonal patches in populations of Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range. Each point

represents a sample collected within 15 x 15m quadrats. Ramets within the same multi-locus lineage (MLL) are

grouped by blue shading. A. LPR1 Q1, B. LPR1 Q2, C. LPR3 Q1, D. LPR3 Q2.

20

Figure 10: Size and distribution of clonal patches in populations of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan. Each point

represents a sample collected within 15 x 15m quadrats. Ramets within the same multi-locus lineage (MLL) are

grouped by red shading. A. LMC2 Q1, B. LMC2 Q2, C. LMC3 Q1, D. LMC3 Q2.

21

Summary and Final Recommendations

This project assessed the genetic diversity and structure of Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan and

Lepidosperma sp. Parker Range with particular regard to the impact of removing one population of

each species for the development of an open cut iron-ore mine in the Parker Range. To date, there

are no full studies of population genetic diversity or structure in Western Australian Lepidosperma

species; however the levels of genetic diversity found in this study were considerably lower than

those found in a brief study of Lepidosperma gibsonii, a congener with a similarly restricted

distribution (Barrett et al. 2012). This suggests that the diversity in L. sp. Mt Caudan and L. sp. Parker

Range is in the low to moderate range which is typical of species with small populations and

restricted distributions. Moreover, the differing spatial arrangements of these populations are

reflected in contrasting genetic signatures for each species.

All 11 populations of L. sp. Mt Caudan are clustered within a maximum range of 15 km of each other.

Diversity across these populations is highly consistent with minimal differentiation among

populations. As a result, there is little geographic structuring across their range, indicating that

populations of L. sp. Mt Caudan are well connected by gene flow. Given that the species does not

appear to favour asexual reproduction (from the low levels of clonality found) L. sp. Mt Caudan must

primarily rely on sexual reproduction for population persistence, despite not producing viable seed

in the last two flowering seasons. Such irregular sexual reproduction must occur sufficiently

frequently and over an adequate spatial scale for maintaining gene flow across the restricted

geographic range of L. sp. Mt Caudan. The CONTRIB analyses highlighted populations LMC 3 and

LMC 7 as key populations contributing highly to the species’ diversity, while population LMC 2 (i.e.

the impact population) was shown to play a less important role.

In contrast to L. sp. Mt Caudan, populations of L. sp. Parker Range are fewer and much more

geographically disjunct (maximum distances of 200 km apart). This is reflected in their genetic

structuring, with much higher levels of differentiation among populations. This restriction of gene

flow is particularly divisive across larger distances between the central populations (LPR 1, 3, and 6)

and the peripheral populations (LPR 7, 8 and 9). The two populations studied exhibited a moderate

level of clonality, which if extrapolated to all populations, suggests that effective population sizes for

L. sp. Parker Range may be approximately one third of the number of plants, rendering population

sizes smaller than originally thought. Consistent with small, isolated populations, genetic diversity

was reduced and more inconsistent among populations, with particularly low diversity in the impact

population LPR 1. Despite being more clonal than L. sp. Mt Caudan, clonal richness in L. sp. Parker

Range was much higher than that typically found in fully clonal species (e.g. Gitzendanner et al.

2011) and therefore, clonality is also not likely to be the primary mode of reproduction in L. sp.

Parker Range. Like L. sp. Mt Caudan therefore, the species must also experience irregular bouts of

sexual reproduction when conditions are favourable. However, gene flow appears to be much more

restricted among populations of L. sp. Parker Range, suggesting that the spatial extent of dispersal is

unlikely to regularly surpass the geographic distance among populations. Lepidosperma sp. Parker

Range, with fewer, small and geographically disjunct populations is therefore of greater

conservation concern than L. sp. Mt Caudan with its larger, more connected populations. The

22

peripheral populations (in particular, LPR 7 and LPR 9) contribute the most to the species overall

diversity, while the impact population LPR 1 makes no particular contribution.

Overall, the available data suggest that the removal of populations LPR 1 and LMC 2 in the

development of an open cut iron-ore mine is unlikely to have an appreciable impact on the overall

genetic diversity and structure for either species in the near future. Neither population contributes

significantly to species diversity nor should their removal interrupt current processes of gene flow.

Nevertheless, both species do have restricted distributions and few populations, with low to

moderate levels of diversity and a tendency for clonality, which renders them vulnerable to disease

and disturbance in the long term. Therefore, considerable effort should be made to restore the

impact populations following the closure of the mine. In doing so, we offer several suggestions;

1. Plants, or cuttings, from the impacted populations could be translocated to a neighbouring

population of similar genetic status prior to mining development and then returned back to

their source during the land rehabilitation process following the mines closure. In this case,

we would suggest translocating plants from LPR 1 to LPR 3 and LMC 2 to LMC 12 as these are

the most geographically and genetically similar pairs of populations, maximising the chances

of successful transplantation without incurring adverse effects. Regular monitoring of the

translocated plants would be required to ensure their survival during the lifetime of the

mine.

2. Alternatively, plants, or cuttings, from the impacted populations could be removed prior to

the mining development and maintained in greenhouse facilities for the duration of the

operation. This would eliminate any genetic or environmental impacts of combining

populations but would require more resources and intensive care of the plants outside of

their natural environment until they could be returned to their source populations following

closure of the mine.

3. In addition to the safeguarding of plant material, we suggest that seed stocks be collected

for rehabilitation purposes. These could be sourced from the impact sites before clearing for

the mine development and/or from nearby, genetically similar populations (i.e. LPR 3 and

LMC 12) during the lifetime of the mine. This is largely a protective mechanism in the event

that the translocated plants have poor survivability, either in natural or greenhouse

conditions. It would be especially important if plants are kept in greenhouse conditions, as

they would cease to have the opportunity to exchange genes with neighbouring populations.

Given the apparent irregular occurrence of a good reproductive season for either species,

populations would need to be monitored annually to ensure that collections are made in a

year of good seed production.

23

Acknowledgements This project was funded by Cazaly Resources Ltd. We appreciate the assistance of Jim Williams in

surveying populations, species identification and sample collection. We thank Mike Gardner for his

role in developing the nuclear microsatellite libraries, as well as Bronwyn MacDonald and Shelley

McArthur for their assistance in the laboratory.

References

Arnaud-Haond, S. & Belkhir, K., 2006. Genclone: a Computer Program To Analyse Genotypic Data,

Test for Clonality and Describe Spatial Clonal Organization. Molecular Ecology Notes, 7(1),

pp.15–17.

Barrett, M.D., Wallace, M.J. & Anthony, J.M., 2012. Characterization and cross application of novel

microsatellite markers for a rare sedge, Lepidosperma gibsonii (Cyperaceae). American Journal

of Botany, 99(1), pp.e14–6.

Doyle, J.J. & Doyle, JL, 1987. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue.

Phytochemical Bulletin, 19, pp.11–15.

Gardner, M., Fitch, A.C., Bertozzi, T., & Lowe, A.J., 2011. Rise of the machines – recommendations

for ecologists when using next generation sequencing for microsatellite development.

Molecular Ecology Resources, 11(6), pp.1093–1101.

Gitzendanner, M.A., Weekley, C.W., Germain-Aubrey, C.C., Soltis, D.E., & Soltis, P.S., 2011.

Microsatellite evidence for high clonality and limited genetic diversity in Ziziphus celata

(Rhamnaceae), an endangered, self-incompatible shrub endemic to the Lake Wales Ridge,

Florida, USA. Conservation Genetics, 13(1), pp.223–234.

Peakall, R. & Smouse, P.E., 2006. GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software

for teaching and research. Molecular Ecology Notes, 6, pp.288–295.

Petit, R.J., El Mousadik, A. & Pons, O., 1998. Identifying Populations for Conservation on the Basis of

Genetic Markers. Conservation Biology, 12(4), pp.844–855.

Pons, O. & Petit, R.J., 1996. Measuring and Testing Genetic Differentiation With Ordered Versus

Unordered Alleles. Genetics, 144(3), pp.1237–1245.

Pritchard, J.K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P., 2000. Inference of population structure using multilocus

genotype data. Genetics, 155(2), pp.945–959.

Raymond, M. & Rousset, F., 1995. GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact

tests and ecumenicism. Journal of Heredity, 86, pp.248–249.

Wallace, M.J., Barrett, M.D. & Barrett, R.L., 2010. Novel chloroplast markers for the study of

intraspecific variation and hybridisation in the Lepidosperma costale species complex

(Cyperaceae). Conservation Genetics Resources, 3(2), pp.355–360.

parker range (mt caudan project) 2015- 2016...

Documents