Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project...The Parker Range Iron Ore Project Mt Caudan Deposit...

Issue Date: 12/06/2020 ENV-TS-RP-0232 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

mailto:[email protected]

MS892 Annual Compliance Assessment Report 2019-2020


Revision History

Revision

Number Issue Date Prepared By Reviewed By Distribution

A 12/06/2020 N Smith T Berryman DWER



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



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.



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.


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.


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.




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.


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.


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).


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).

http://www.mineralresources.com.au/



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.


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.


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.


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).



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.


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).


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).


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).


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).


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).


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.




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.


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.

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




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.



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.



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




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




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




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.



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



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.



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.




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



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).


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).


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.


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.



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.



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


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 exceedance.

Notify the CEO within 7 days of exceedance. Acknowledgement of notification from the CEO within 7

CEO Operation

Within 7 days of exceedance




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.


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 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




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).



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:



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).



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



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.

http://www.mineralresources.com.au/



Appendix 1: Statement of Compliance


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



Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd i

Baseline health assessment of vegetation and weed monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project.

Final Report


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


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

E: [email protected]

Project code: 1299-PR-MRL-BOT



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



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



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



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:


• 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.



[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.



[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


!

!


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)


AJGW

Parker Range Iron OreProject approved projectarea and new developmentenvelope




Western Australia

0 1 2Kilometres



[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


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



[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



[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:


• 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.



[Type here]

The following metrics were recorded for each weed monitoring quadrat:


• 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



[Type here]

3. RESULTS


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 * *



[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



[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



[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


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


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



[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


IQ4


IQ5

Upper 20 10 Eucalyptus eremophila 2.7 0

Mid 20 10 Melaleuca hamata 3.1 0

IQ6



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


Lower 5 5 Olearia muelleri 3.2 0

IQ9



Lower 15 10 Phebalium tuberculosum 3.3 0

IQ10

Upper 40 9 Eucalyptus transcontinentalis 3 0


IQ11



IQ12




[Type here]

Canopy level

Cover (%) No. of

individuals Species

Mean plant health

Mean dust

rating


Mid 20 10 Melaleuca pauperiflora 2.8 0

Lower 6 10 Microcybe multiflora 2 0

IQ13


Mid 12 10 Eucalyptus salubris 1.3 0


IQ14



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



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



[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.



[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



[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.



[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.





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




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




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




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




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




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






Species in quadrat

Acacia enervia subsp. enervia

Allocasuarina corniculata

Beaufortia puberula



Eucalyptus horistes

Euromyrtus maidenii

Grevillea acuaria

Grevillea oncogyne


Isopogon scabriusculus subsp. stenophyllus

Melaleuca calyptroides

Melaleuca cordata


Thryptomene kochii

IQ3



Species in quadrat

Allocasurina corniculata

Banksia shanklandiorum

Beaufortia puberula

Bertya dimerostigma

Beyeria sulcata

Calitris prissii

Daviesia nematophylla


Eucalyptus horistes

Euromyrtus maidenii

Grevillea oncogyne


Hakea scoparia


Lomandra effusa





Melaleuca hamata


Westringia acifolia (P1)

Thryptomene kochii

IQ4



Species in quadrat



Baeckea grandibracteata

Banksia shanklandiorum (P4)

Beaufortia interstans

Beaufortia orbifolia

Bertya dimerostigma

Beyaeria sulcata var. sulcata

Callitris preissii

Drummondita hasellii

Eucalyptus horistes

Eucalyptus incrassata


Hakea scoparia


Thryptomene kochii

Verticordia brachypoda

Verticordia insignis subsp. compta

IQ5



Species in quadrat

Acacia colletoides

Beryta dimerostigma

Deviesia argillacea




Eucalyptus eremophila

Grevillea huegelii

Grevillea oncogyne

Lomandra effusa

Melaleuca eleuterostachya

Melaleuca hamata

Melaluca laxiflora

Olearia dampiera subsp. eremicola

Santalum acuminatum

Scaevola spinescens

IQ6



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



Species in quadrat

Acacia accuminata


Allocasuarina helmsii




Amphipogam carincinus

Euryomyrtus maidenii

Hakea minyma

Hibertia eatoniae

Leptospermum roei

Thryptomene kochii

IQ8



Species in quadrat

Acacia merrallii

Austrostipa elegantissima

Eucalyptus salmonophloia

Eucalyptus transcontinentalis

Olearia muelleri

Westringia cephalantha

IQ9



Species in quadrat

Acacia colletoides

Acacia hemiteles

Allocasuarina acutivalvis

Allocasuarina campestris

Alyxia buxifolia

Beyaria sulcata var. sulcata


Grevillia acacioides

Hibertia eatoniae

Melaluca eleuterostachya

Melaluca hamata

Melaluca laxiflora


Olearia muelleri

Phebalium tuberculosum





Santalum acuminatum

IQ10



Species in quadrat

Acacia hemiteles

Alyxia buxifolia

Daviesia argillacea


Melaleuca lateriflora

Melaluca hamata


Santalum acuminatum

IQ11



Species in quadrat

Acacia erinacea

Acacia hemiteles

*Centaurea melitensis

Eremophila decipiens

Eremophila scoparia


Exocarpos aphyllus

Maireana georgei

Scaevola spinescens

Sclerolaena diacantha

Senna cardiosperma

IQ12



Species in quadrat

Alyxia buxifolia




Austrostypa elogantisima


Eremophila oppositifolia

Eremophila scoparia



Exocarpus aphyllus

Grevillea acuaria

Melaleuca pauperiflora

Micrcybe multiflora subsp. multiflora

Oleara muelleria

Rhagodia drummondii

Scaevola spinescens

IQ13



Species in quadrat

Acacia camptoclada

Acacia colletoides

Acacia conclurens (P2)

Acacia erinacea

Acacia synchronicia

Alyxia buxifolia


Eremophila drummondii

Eremophila ionantha



Eucalyptus salubris

Exocarpos aphyllus


Olearia muelleri

Scaevola spinescens

IQ14






Species in quadrat

Acacia camptoclada

Acacia colletoides

Acacia conclurrens (P2)

Acacia erinacea

Alyxia buxifolia


Eremophila ionantha



Exocarpos aphyllus


Olearia muelleri

Scaevola spinescens

IQ15



Species in quadrat

Acacia beauverdiana


Acacia steedmanii

Acacia yorkakinensis

Allocasaurina acutivalvis

Microcybe multiflora

Leucopogon sp. Outer Wheatbelt

Eucalyptus livida

Grevillea acacioides

Grevillia paradoxa

Hakia multilineata

Hibertia nutans

Melaleuca hamata


Thryptomene australia subsp. brachyandra

IQ16






Species in quadrat

Acacia camptoclada

Acacia enervia subsp enervia

Acacia erinacea


Eucalyptus salubris


Scaevola spinescens

RQ1



Species in quadrat

Acacia erinacea

Acrotriche lancifolia



Alyxia buxifolia

Dodonaea caespitosa



Exocarpos aphyllus

Grevillea acuaria

Hibbertia exasperata

Lepidospermum sp. Mount Caudan

Melaleuca hamata


Olearia muelleri


Santalum acuminatum

Scaevola spinescens


RQ2






Species in quadrat

Acacia colletoides

Acacia camptoclada

Acacia erinacea

Acacia synchronicia

Alyixia buxifolia



Eremophila ionantha



Exocarpos aphyllus


Olearia muelleri

Scaevola spinesens

RQ3



Species in quadrat

Allocasuarina spinosissima

Beaufortia puberula

Callitris preissii

Calytrix leschenaultii

Cassytha melantha




Euryomyrtus maidenii

Grevillea paradoxya

Hakea chordophylla

Hakea erecta

Isopgon scabriusculus subsp. pubifloris


Melaleuca cordata






Thryptomene kochii

Verticordia insignis subsp. compta

RQ4


Canopy: 25 Mid: 30 Lower: 40

Species in quadrat

Acacia hemiteles

Acacia neurophylla


Acacia steedmanii

Allocasuarina accutivelvus subsp. accutivelvus

Beaufortia intersans

Cassytha nodiflora

Leucopogon sp. Outer Wheatbelt


Grevillia acacioides

Grevillia paradoxa

Hibertia eatoniae

Melaleuca cordata

Melaluca hamata

Microcybe multiflora subsp. multiflora



RQ5


Upper: 30 Mid: 40 Lower:0.1

Species in quadrat


Eucalyptus salubris

Exocarpos aphyllus

Melaleuca hamata

Melaleuca laxiflora





Santalum acuminatum

RQ6



Species in quadrat

Acacia enervia subsp. enervia

Acacia erinacea

Acacia hemiteles

Acacia merellii

Alyxia buxifolia



Eremophila ionantha

Eremophila scoparia


Eucalyptus sp.

Exocarpus aphyllus

Grevillea acuaria

Olearia muelleri

Olearia sp.

Rhagodia drummondii

Santalum acuminatum

Scaevola spinescens

Solanum hoplopetalum

RQ7



Species in quadrat

Acacia hemiteles


Melaluca pauperiflora

Olearia muelleri

Santalum acuminatum

Scaevola spinescens

RQ8






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


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


Persoonia coriacea

Stenanthemum stipulosum

Verticordia eriocephata

Verticordia mitoides

Verticordia roei subsp. roei

WQ2


Acacia erinacea




Acacia hemiteles


Alyxia buxifolia




Exocarpos aphyllus

Grevillia aquaria


Olearia muelleri

Phebalium tuberuculosum

Scaevola spinescens

WQ3


Acacia conclurens

Alyxia buxifolia

Cryptandra nutans

Daviesia argillacea

Eremophila granitica

Grevillea acuaria

Melaleuca lateriflora


Microcybe multiflora subsp. multiflora

Olearia muelleri

WQ4


Acacia conclumens


Eremophila ionantha




Olearia muelleri

Scaevola spinescens




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




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


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




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


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


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




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




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





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


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


2.5 3 0

2.5 3 0

3.0 3 0

3.0 3 0

2.7 4 0




2.9 3 0

2.5 3 0

3.2 3 0

3.0 3 0

IQ6


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


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




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


8.0 3 0

4.0 3 0

6.0 4 0

6.0 2 0

9.0 4 0

9.0 3 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




5 4 0

5 4 0

6 3 0

4 4 0

IQ11



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




0.8 2 0

1.2 2 0

0.9 1 0

1 2 0

1 2 0

1.3 2 0

IQ13


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


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


12.0 3 0


4 4 0

4 4 0

4 3 0




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




2 1 0

IQ16

Upper 5 Eucalyptus salubris 4.0 2 0


12 3 0

12 3 0

12 3 0

8 3 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




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



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


February 2020

Final Report




Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project.

Final Report


Version history


Date submitted

Submitted to


K. Crews Draft for client comments

0.1 24-Jan-20 N. Smith, L. Purves


K. Crews Final, client comments addressed




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.



P: 08 6323 5410


Project code: 1299-PR-MRL-BOT




Contents


1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 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


2. METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 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


3.1.1 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




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




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




• 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.



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.


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,




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




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).



!

!

LAKEKOORKOORDINE


MARV

ELLO

CHYE

LLOWD

INERO

AD

SOUTHERNCROSS

MARVEL LOCH ROAD

FORRESTANIA

SOUTHERN CROSS ROAD

PARKER RANGE ROAD



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


°

(at A4)


AJKC





Western Australia



!

!


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


Map authorDrawn by

GDA94 MGA zone 50

°

(at A4)


AJGW





Western Australia

0 1 2Kilometres




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.


Figure 1-3Lepidosperma sp. MountCaudan and Isopogonrobustus quadrat locations

°



This d

rawing

is sub

ject to

COPY

RIGHT

and i

s prop

erty o

f Pho

enix E

nviron

menta

l Scien

ces


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


R1

R2

R1-2


Figure 1-4Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range population and quadrat locations

°



This d

rawing

is sub

ject to

COPY

RIGHT

and i

s prop

erty o

f Pho

enix E

nviron

menta

l Scien

ces


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





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.


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




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.




2. METHODS


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


• the health of each plant (Table 2-1)

• the level of dust deposition evident on each plant (Table 2-2).




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


• the level of dust deposition evident on each plant (Table 2-2)

• the health of each plant (Table 2-3).




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.




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).




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




3. RESULTS


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).




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




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




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.




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.




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.




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




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




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.




5. REFERENCES



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/


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.






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




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




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




33 1 0.4 0.2 Dry 0.0


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




16 1 0.3 0.2 Dry 0.0


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




16 1 0.3 0.1 None 0.0


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




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




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




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





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





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




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


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



Appendix 5 Raw data from Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range relevé surveys



Site: CsPRnewpop Type: Relevé (unbounded)


Topography: hill slope

Soil: sand, sandy loam,

Soil colour: yellow, whitish,


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


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:



Site details

Species Cover (%)

Height (m)



Permanent: No

Allocasuarina acutivalvis


Banksia laevigata

Banksia shanklandiorum P4 (DBCA list)

Beaufortia interstans

Callitris preissii

Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (B.H. Smith 1255) P1 (DBCA list)





Melaleuca cordata

Petrophile merrallii




Site: Csprpop4 Type: Relevé (unbounded)


Topography: hill slope

Soil: sandy loam,

Soil colour: yellow, whitish,


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


Low Eucalyptus capillosa woodland over low Allocasuarina corniculata, Hakea francisiana and Melaleuca cordata shrubland.

Vegetation condition: Excellent, EPA (2016)

Land system:



Site details

Species Cover (%)

Height (m)



Permanent: No

Chamelaucium sp. Parker Range (B.H. Smith 1255) P1 (DBCA list)

Verticordia eriocephala



Grevillea obliquistigma

Hakea francisiana

Melaleuca cordata





Appendix 6: Quadrat site photos

Baseline significant flora plant health monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore

Project

Prepared for Mineral resources Ltd


Appendix 6 Quadrat Site Photos

Isopogon robustus RQ1

NW NE

SE

SW


Project



Isopogon robustus IQ1

NW NE

SW SE


Project




NW NE

SW SE


Project



Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan RQ1

NW NE

SW SE


Project



Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan RQ2

NW NE

SE

SW


Project



Lepidosperma sp. Mount Caudan IQ1

NW NE

SW SE


Project



Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan IQ2

NW NE

SW SE


Project



Lepidosperma sp. Mt Caudan IQ3

NW NE

SW SE



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


March 2020

Final Report




Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project.

Final Report


Version history


Date submitted Submitted to

C. Nagle K. Crews Draft for client comments


K. Crews Final report 1.0 03-Mar-20 N. Smith



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.



P: 08 6323 5410


Project code: 1300-PR-MRL-VER

Baseline Malleefowl monitoring for the Parker Range Iron Ore Project



Contents


1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1


1.2 Federal approval requirements .............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Previous surveys ..................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Requirement for the current baseline assessment................................................................. 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




Appendix 5 Malleefowl breeding habitat assessments




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.




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.




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.


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).




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.




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.



!

!

LAKEKOORKOORDINE


MARV

ELLO

CHYE

LLOWD

INERO

AD

SOUTHERNCROSS

MARVEL LOCH ROAD

FORRESTANIA

SOUTHERN CROSS ROAD

PARKER RANGE ROAD



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


Map authorDrawn by


°

(at A4)


AJKC




Western Australia



!

!


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


Map authorDrawn by

GDA94 MGA zone 50

°

(at A4)


AJGW


Figure 2Approved project area (MS 892)New development envelope


Western Australia

0 1 2Kilometres




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.


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.




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.



!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

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


Map authorDrawn by


°

(at A4)


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


Western Australia




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




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




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.



!(

#*

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

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


Map authorDrawn by


°

(at A4)


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


Western Australia



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


Map authorDrawn by


°

(at A4)


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


Western Australia




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).




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.


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.


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.




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




MFP001 -31.619440 119.548327 Phoenix 2019 Inactive (sub-class 1) Yearly










MFP002 -31.617690 119.545493 Phoenix 2019 Inactive (sub-class 2) Yearly

MFL007 -31.619241 119.564362 Lidar, NMMD Long unused 5 yearly




MFL056 -31.656214 119.553142 Lidar Long unused 5 yearly














Site Latitude Longitude Source Status Monitoring frequency

MFMM003 -31.625451 119.540870 NMMD Long unused 5 yearly










Appendix 2 Malleefowl mound photos

Site Photo Site Photo

MFL041

MFL034

MFL006

MFL056 No photo taken

MFL033

MFL057

MFL046

MFL109

MFL049

MFL110





MFL102

MFL111

MFP001

MFL112

MFL010

MFL115

MFL031

MFL122

MFL043

MFL124 No photo taken





MFL044

MFL128

MFL113

MFL129

MFL114

MFMM003 No photo taken

MFL116

MFMM012

MFL117 No photo taken MFMM022





MFL120

MFMM023

MFP002

MFMM045

MFL007

MFMM047

MFL008

MFMM010

MFL009




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




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.


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


Mallee/allocasurina tall shrub/low woodland over mixed low melaleuca and other shrubs on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.


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.


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






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



Open mallee woodland over tall mulga and allocas shrubs over mixed myrtacea and other shrubs.


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.




Open mallee over allocasurina over myrtacea on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.

plain negligible sand; sandy loam


Mallee/allocasurina woodland over hakea, allocasurina, melaleuca and other on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter




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







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


Open mallee woodland over allocasurina, hakea, Santalum and melaleuca shrubs on red-orange lateritic sandy loam with continuous leaf litter.


undulating plain


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


undulating plain

negligible gravel; alluvial; sandy loam







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


Open mallee and tall allocasurina over allocasurina, myrtacea and other shrubs

vehicle tracks plain negligible sandy loam


Mallee allocasurina calytrix over Melaleuca and other mixed low shrubs on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.



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.



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.



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







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



Open mallee woodland over allocasurina and myrtacea on red-orange lateritic sandy loam with patchy leaf litter


hill slope gentle sandy clay; loam


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


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






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.


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.




Open mallee and tall allocasurina over mixed myrtacea and other shrubs

vehicle tracks hill slope gentle gravel; alluvial; sandy loam


Open mallee woodland over tall allocasurina shrubs over mixed low shrubs of myrtacea and other on yellow sandy loam with patchy leaf litter.



MFMM045 -31.626860 119.551023 Yes open woodland


hill slope gentle sandy clay; sandy loam

MFMM047 -31.608325 119.558799 Yes open woodland


plain negligible sandy loam; clay loam






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.


hill slope negligible sandy loam; clay loam

MFL005 -31.608182 119.566225 No open woodland

open eucalypt woodland over tall melaleuca shrubs.




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


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.


undulating plain


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.







MFL045 -31.629080 119.537509 No woodland Open eucalyptus woodland over melaleuca and Mallee shrubs on orange sandy clay loam with lateritic gravel




Open mallee woodland over sparse myrtacea shrubs over sparse tussock grass.


breakaway gentle sandy clay; loam; rocks; laterite


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


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


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






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.


MFMMnf -31.620807 119.539585 No shrubland tall allocasurina shrubland exploration (drill pads and access tracks); vehicle tracks




Appendix 5 Malleefowl breeding habitat assessments


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







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







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

Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project...The Parker Range Iron Ore Project Mt Caudan Deposit...

Documents

Transcript of Parker Range (Mt Caudan) Iron Ore Project...The Parker Range Iron Ore Project Mt Caudan Deposit...