Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Lake Disappointment Potash ... · Draft documents are submitted to...

Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Lake Disappointment Potash Project

For Reward Minerals Limited

September 2015

FINAL

Prepared by: Botanica Consulting PO Box 2027 Boulder WA 6432 90930024

Disclaimer

This document and its contents are to be treated as confidential and are published in accordance with, and subject to an agreement between Botanica Consulting (BC) and the client for whom it has been prepared, and is restricted to those issues that have been raised by the client in its engagement of BC. Neither this document nor its contents may be referred to or quoted in any manner (report or other document) nor reproduced in part or whole by electronic, mechanical or chemical means, including photocopying, recording or any information storage system, without the express written approval of the client and/or BC. This document and its contents have been prepared utilising the standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by Environmental Scientists in the preparation of such documents. All material presented in this document is published in good faith and is believed to be accurate at the time of writing. Any person or organisation who relies on or uses the document and its contents for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by BC and the client without primarily obtaining the prior written consent of BC, does so entirely at their own risk. BC denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be endured as a consequence of relying on this document and its contents for any purpose other than that agreed with the client.

Quality Assurance An internal quality review process has been implemented to each project task undertaken by BC. Each document and its contents are carefully reviewed by core members of the Consultancy team and signed off at Director level prior to issue to the client. Draft documents are submitted to the client for comment and acceptance prior to final production. Document Job Number: 2015/42 Prepared by: Pat Harton Environmental Scientist

Botanica Consulting

Reviewed by: Andrea Williams Director Botanica Consulting Approved by: Jim Williams Director Botanica Consulting

Table of Contents Page #

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Survey Objectives ...........................................................................................................................................1 2 Regional Biophysical Environment ................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Regional Environment .....................................................................................................................................3 2.2 Topography & Soils .........................................................................................................................................5 2.3 Remnant Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................5 2.4 Lake Disappointment (Savory Creek system) ................................................................................................6 2.5 Climate ............................................................................................................................................................6 2.6 Land Use .........................................................................................................................................................7

3 Survey Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Sampling and Analysis Methods .....................................................................................................................8 3.2 Personnel Involved....................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Scientific licences ......................................................................................................................................... 10

4 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 11

4.1 Species Diversity .......................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Species Density ........................................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Total Vegetation Cover ................................................................................................................................ 14 4.4 Health Condition ........................................................................................................................................... 14 4.5 Flora of Conservation Significance .............................................................................................................. 17 4.6 Introduced Species ...................................................................................................................................... 17

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 18

6 References ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Tables

Table 1: Remaining Beard Vegetation Associations within the Sand Dune vegetation monitoring program of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project (DAFWA, 2011) ............................................................................................................5 Table 2: Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Locations (GDA94, Zone 51K) ............................................................... 10 Table 3: Scientific Licences of Botanica Staff coordinating the survey ....................................................................... 10 Table 4: Summary results of vegetation monitoring from 2013 to 2015 ...................................................................... 12 Table 5: General notes on health rating of each transect in 2015 ............................................................................... 15

Figures

Figure 1: Regional Map of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project .............................................................................2 Figure 2: Map of Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA)-Little Sandy Desert Region of Western Australia ..........................................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Map of IBRA subregions in the vicinity of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project ......................................4 Figure 4: Monthly rainfall from January 2011 to April 2015 and mean monthly rainfall (January 1974 to April 2015) for the Telfer Aero weather station (#13030) (BOM, 2015)..................................................................................................7 Figure 5: Annual rainfall from January 2011 to April 2015 and mean monthly rainfall (January 1974 to April 2015) for the Telfer Aero weather station (#13030) (BOM, 2015)..................................................................................................7 Figure 6: Map of sand dune vegetation monitoring sites Lake Disappointment .............................................................9 Figure 7: Map of fire history along the extent of the area obtained from Landgate fire watch database (Landgate, 2015) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 16

Plates

Plate 1: Photograph taken of camels within the Lake Disappointment Project area (BC, 2015) ................................ 18

Appendices

Appendix 1: Regional Map of Lake Disappointment Potash Project and areas of Conservation Significance ........... 21 Appendix 2: Keighery 1994 Health Rating Scale ........................................................................................................ 22 Appendix 3: List of all species identified in Sand Dune vegetation monitoring program 2015 ................................... 23 Appendix 4: Raw Results of the Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring 2015 .................................................................. 24 Appendix 5: Photographic Records of Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Quadrats .................................................. 30

Executive summary

Reward Minerals Limited Lake Disappointment Potash Project is located within the Little Sandy Desert,

approximately 138km south of Telfer and 285km east of Newman, in the Pilbara of Western Australia. The

Lake Disappointment Potash Project initially comprised of two stages of activities:

Stage 1-track development, exploration camp construction and infill drilling; and

Stage 2-development of pilot ponds/trenches on Lake Disappointment.

Development of the access track and exploration camp were completed in 2014. Infill drilling on the lake

commenced in 2015 and is ongoing. Approvals for development of the pilot ponds/trenches (Stage 2

activities) are currently being processed and are expected to commence end of 2015/start of 2016 (prior

to the 2016 monitoring period). Detailed plans and environmental procedures for the current and

proposed activities within the Lake Disappointment Potash Project have been provided in the current

version of the conservation management plan, “Reward Minerals - Lake Disappointment Potash Project,

Conservation Management Plan, July 2015, Version 2, Revision 1”.

In order to assess any potential impacts of vehicle use in the Lake Disappointment Potash Project on

sand dune vegetation, a sand dune vegetation monitoring programme was developed. The objective of

the monitoring programme is to assess the biodiversity and health of native vegetation immediately

surrounding the site access track (within 250m of track) to determine whether use of the site access track

is having an impact on the surrounding vegetation. In April 2013 ten monitoring sites (quadrats) and ten

control sites were established on the ridges of sand dunes along the Lake Disappointment site access

track. This is the third year of monitoring.

One vegetation association was recorded within the monitoring programme area; Open low woodland of

Corymbia opaca over low scrub of Acacia ligulata/Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia and mid-dense

hummock grass of Triodia basedowii on sand dunes.

Mean species diversity (10m2), species density (10m2) and vegetation cover (%) of the control sites have

all increased since 2013. The impact sites have shown a varied trend, recording a decrease in species

density since 2013. Despite the decrease since 2013, species density has increased since the previous

monitoring period and the impact sites have maintained a constant level of species diversity. Mean

vegetation cover of the impact sites is currently equal to levels recorded in 2013, recording an increase

from 2014 to 2015. Mean health rating of both the impact and control sites has maintained a constant

level since monitoring began in 2013.

Fire has affected both the impact and control sites, with vegetation in various stages of regrowth. One

impact site (Q1) and four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q14 and Q19) were effected by fire in 2012, impact

sites (Q2 and Q6) and control site (Q16) were effected by a fire event in 2014.

The 2015 monitoring period is the second year of analysis since the baseline survey was completed in

2013. As monitoring is still in early stages it is difficult to make any assumptions as to the long term effect

that Lake Disappointment Potash Project may have upon the sand dune vegetation of Lake

Disappointment. The 2015 results show there has been no detrimental reduction in species diversity,

species density, vegetation cover or heath rating recorded in the impact sites. The slight variation in

biodiversity parameters over the monitoring period appears to be attributed to climatic factors rather than

potential impacts.

It is important to note that vegetation destruction caused by fire events and camels is also prevalent within

the Lake Disappointment Potash Project area; the impacts from such natural occurrences outside of

Reward’s control (i.e. Camels and fire) are recorded during monitoring to distinguish the impacts of these

events from the potential impacts of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project.

It is recommended that monitoring be conducted annually in autumn to document and track any future

changes in vegetation condition and recommendations made, if there are any signs of adverse effects on

the vegetation of the sand dunes adjacent to the access track.

Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015

Reward Minerals Ltd

Botanica Consulting 1

1 Introduction

Reward Minerals Limited (Reward) Lake Disappointment Potash Project (LDP Project) is located within

the Little Sandy Desert, approximately 138km south of Telfer and 285km east of Newman, in the

Pilbara of Western Australia (Figure 1).

The southern region of the LDP Project occurs within the proposed Lake Disappointment Nature

Reserve (listed under the Environmental Protection Authority Red Book recommendations for

Conservation Reserves 1975-1993) (Appendix 1), which covers an area of 366,700ha and is proposed

to be managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW). To date this proposed reserve has not

been approved. Lake Disappointment is a Nationally Important Wetland of Western Australia as listed

by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA).

The LDP Project initially comprised of two stages of activities:

Stage 1-track development, exploration camp construction and infill drilling;

Stage 2-development of pilot ponds/trenches on Lake Disappointment;

Development of the access track and exploration camp was completed in 2014. Infill drilling on the lake

commenced in 2015 and is ongoing. Approvals for development of the pilot ponds/trenches (Stage 2

activities) are currently being processed and are expected to commence end of 2015/start of 2016

(prior to the 2016 monitoring period). Detailed plans and environmental procedures for the current and

proposed activities within the Lake Disappointment Potash Project have been provided in the current

version of the conservation management plan, “Reward Minerals - Lake Disappointment Potash

Project, Conservation Management Plan, July 2015, Version 2, Revision 1”.

At the request of the DPaW and Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Reward commissioned

Botanica Consulting (BC) to establish a sand dune vegetation monitoring programme along the site

access track leading to Lake Disappointment in order to assess any potential impacts of vehicle use on

sand dune vegetation within the LDP Project area. From the 23rd to 25th April 2013 ten impact sites

(quadrats) and ten control sites were established on ridges of sand dunes within 250m of the site

access track and >1km from the site access track respectively. Each site will be monitored annually in

autumn with a report submitted annually to the DPaW. Findings of this monitoring will be used to

enhance the DPaW’s knowledge of the area, and more effectively assess the potential environmental

impacts the Project may have on the various conservation values of the Lake Disappointment area.

This is the third year of monitoring.

1.1 Survey Objectives

In order to assess any potential impacts of vehicle use in the LDP Project area on sand dune

vegetation, a sand dune vegetation monitoring programme was established. The objective of the

monitoring programme was to assess the biodiversity and health of the native vegetation immediately

surrounding the site access track (within 250m of track) and compare this against control sites >1km

from the site access track to determine whether use of the site access track is having an impact on the

surrounding vegetation.

Sand dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015

Reward Minerals Limited


Figure 1: Regional Map of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project

Riparian Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015



2 Regional Biophysical Environment

2.1 Regional Environment

The LDP Project lies within the Keartland Botanical District of the Little Sandy Desert Region in the

Eremaean Province of WA (Figure 2). The Keartland Botanical District consists predominantly of shrub

steppes of Acacia and Grevillea, and Triodia spp. on dunes and swales. Patches of desert oak and

mulga also occur within the area (Beard, 1990). Based on the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of

Australia (IBRA) the Little Sandy Desert Region is further divided into subregions, with the LDP Project

located within both the Rudall (LSD1) and Trainor (LSD2) subregions as shown in Figure 3. Lake based

operational activities are located only within the Trainor subregion.

Figure 2: Map of Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA)-Little Sandy Desert Region of Western Australia

Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited


Figure 3: Map of IBRA subregions in the vicinity of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project



2.2 Topography & Soils

The Rudall subregion (LSD1) of the Little Sandy Desert region lies on the Rudall Complex, Throssell

Group and Lamil Group of the Patterson Orogen. It consists of the Proterozoic hill country of Throssell

Mount Sears, Broadhurst and Harbutt Ranges. It includes the headwaters and course of Rudall River.

The Trainor subregion (LSD2) of the Little Sandy Desert lies in the red centre desert on the

Neoproterozoic sedimentary basement (Officer Basin). It consists of red quaternary dune fields with

abrupt Proterozoic sandstones ranges of the Bangemall Basin (Cowan & Kendrick, 2001). Beard (1990)

describes the topography of the Little Sandy Desert region as a sandplain with numerous low hills and

small ranges. The hills and ranges mainly consist of bare rock and shallow stony soils, while the plains

consist of red earthy sands. Beard (1990) also describes the underlying geology as a quaternary

sandplain with longitudinal dunes that have developed over locally exposed Proterzoic siliceous rocks.

2.3 Remnant Vegetation

The DAFWA GIS file (2011) indicates that the Sand Dune monitoring program of the LDP Project is

located within Pre-European Beard vegetation association Little Sandy Desert 134 in the Trainor

(LSD2) subregion. The extent of this vegetation association as described by the DAFWA is provided in

Table 1.

Table 1: Remaining Beard Vegetation Associations within the Sand Dune vegetation monitoring program of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project (DAFWA, 2011)

IBRA subregion

Vegetation association

Pre-European Extent (ha)

Current Extent (ha)

Pre-European

extent remaining

(%)

% of Current extent within DPaW

managed lands

Vegetation Description (Beard,

1990)

LSD2 Little Sandy Desert 134*

7,363,935.09 7,363,935.09 100 1.64

Mosaic: Hummock grasslands, open low tree steppe; desert

bloodwood and feathertop spinifex

(on) sandhills / Hummock

grasslands, shrub steppe; mixed shrubs over spinifex between

sandhills

**Medium Reservation Priority according the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Areas retaining less than 30% of their pre-European vegetation extent generally experience

exponentially accelerated species loss, while areas with less than 10% are considered “endangered”.



2.4 Lake Disappointment (Savory Creek system)

The southern extremity of the LDP Project occurs within Lake Disappointment (often referred to as the

Savory Creek system) which is described as a megascale irregular sumpland with numerous

microscale to macroscale islands and is a major feature of the Little Sandy Desert bioregion. Savory

Creek is an extensive creek over 280 km long and approximately 150m wide at its maximum,

occasionally flooding to 2 km width. It is one of only two significant river systems that flow into the Little

Sandy Desert. Savory Creek originates in the Bangemall Basin, flows across the Savory Basin and into

Lake Disappointment in the Paterson Orogen (DotE, 2012a).

Lake Disappointment lies at the lowest point of the Little Sandy Desert. The lake bed consists of poorly

consolidated saline lacustrine sediments (clay, silt, sand and gypsum). The surrounding area is

composed of mixed aeolian-lacustrine silt, sand and kopi forming longitudinal dunes trending east-west,

interspersed with minor salt lakes and claypans. Dunes on the lake form islands rising 5 to 18 m above

the bed (DotE, 2012a).

Savory Creek enters Lake Disappointment from the north-west, but flow is impeded by a substantial

sand bar to form a large permanent pool. The lake is also fed by smaller ephemeral creeks and direct

precipitation. Lake Disappointment may be fresh immediately after substantial rain, but becomes more

saline as it dries (DotE, 2012a).

The margins of Lake Disappointment and lower reaches of Savory Creek support samphire

communities, but there is no vegetation on the salt-encrusted lake bed. Principle species on islands

and dunes surrounding the lake are spinifex Plectrachne schinzii and Triodia pungens with scattered

shrubs, mainly Acacia and Grevillea. The eastern side of the lake is characterised by scattered shrubs

of Acacia coriacea and Hakea over an open-hummock grassland of another Spinifex Triodia basedowii.

There are large areas of Desert Oak Casuarina decaisneana on the western side (DotE, 2012a).

2.5 Climate

The climate of both the Rudall and Trainor subregions is characterised arid with summer rainfall in the

Rudall subregion and episodic summer rainfall in the Trainor subregion (Kendrick, 2001) Monthly

rainfall data for the Telfer Aero weather station (#13030) located approximately 133km north-west of

the LDP Project is provided in Figure 4 and annual rainfall information is provided in Figure 5 (Bureau

of Meteorology, BOM, 2015). Annual rainfall in 2014 recorded above average results; 416mm

compared to a mean annual rainfall of 369.8mm. Monthly rainfall data to date in 2015 has been above

average in three months (January, April and May) and below average in the remaining months

(February, March, June and July).



Figure 4: Monthly rainfall from January 2011 to April 2015 and mean monthly rainfall (January 1974 to April 2015) for the Telfer Aero weather station (#13030) (BOM, 2015)

1

Figure 5: Annual rainfall from January 2011 to April 2015 and mean monthly rainfall (January 1974 to April 2015) for the Telfer Aero weather station (#13030) (BOM, 2015)

2.6 Land Use

The dominant land uses of the Trainor subregion are UCL and Crown reserves (95.87%), grazing-

native pastures (1.93%), conservation reserves (1.41%), and Aboriginal Reserves (0.75%) (Kendrick,

2001). The dominant land uses of the Rudall subregion are conservation, UCL, mining leases and

urban (Kendrick, 2001).

1 Observations have not been fully quality controlled (BOM, 2015)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Mean

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

Annual Mean



3 Survey Methodology

3.1 Sampling and Analysis Methods

A total of 20 monitoring sites were established; 10 potential impact sites and 10 control sites

(analogues) located ~2.5km apart along the edge of the site access track (avoiding Aboriginal Heritage

exclusion zones) in 2013. In the 2015 monitoring period, one of the control sites (Q13), was unable to

be located and was therefore not monitored, the data analysis has been updated accordingly to exclude

this site from the control sites. Figure 6 provides a map of the monitoring site locations.

At each site a 10m² quadrat was established. Within each quadrat the following parameters were

measured:

Species diversity (10m²);

Species density (10m²);

Percentage vegetation cover (10m²); and

Health condition (1-5 rating).

Annual species were recorded in the quadrats, however only perennial species were included in the

biodiversity calculations.

The health condition will be rated on a 1 to 5 scale, adapted from the Keighery (1994) health rating

scale2 (Appendix 3):

1-Dead/no live vegetation

2-Poor/Declining vegetation health

3-Good/Improving vegetation health

4-Very Good vegetation health/no change from previous monitoring if relevant

5-Excellent health, new germinants

This is the third year of monitoring of the sand dune vegetation programme, providing the second

dataset that will be compared to baseline data collected in 2013, to determine whether sand dune

vegetation surrounding the site access track has been affected by vehicle use in the LDP Project. Each

site is monitored annually in autumn with a report submitted annually to the DPaW.

2 Trudgen (1991) Vegetation Condition Scale more commonly used in the Pilbara Region, however Clearing

Permit specifically stated that Keighery Health Rating (1994) be used for vegetation assessments.



Figure 6: Map of sand dune vegetation monitoring sites Lake Disappointment


Botanica Consulting

10

Table 2: Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Locations (GDA94, Zone 51K)

Vegetation Monitoring

Quadrat Easting Northing

Impact Sites

Q1 484430 7448510

Q2 484370 7446314

Q3 483966 7443923

Q4 482886 7441336

Q5 482259 7438981

Q6 481617 7436505

Q7 480939 7433493

Q8 480810 7431938

Q9 481136 7427099

Q10 481182 7429774

Control Sites

Q11 482647 7448853

Q12 486429 7446265

Q133

482287 7444271

Q14 486278 7440747

Q15 480354 7438740

Q16 482827 7435666

Q17 478876 7433598

Q18 477761 7430655

Q19 484950 7428685

Q20 478664 7427329

3.2 Personnel Involved

Jim Williams - Environmental Consultant (Diploma of Horticulture)

3.3 Scientific licences

Table 3: Scientific Licences of Botanica Staff coordinating the survey

Licensed staff Permit Number Valid Until

Jim Williams SL011451 21-05-2016

3 Location of Quadrat not found during 2015 monitoring period


Botanica Consulting

11

4 Results

Table 4 provides a summary of the monitoring results recorded at each Quadrat from 2013 to 2015.

The raw data for 2015 is provided in Appendix 4. Photographs taken at both the impact and control

sites from 2013 to 2015 are provided in Appendix 5. One vegetation community was identified in the

sand dune monitoring program; Open low woodland of Corymbia opaca over low scrub of Acacia

ligulata/Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia and mid-dense hummock grass of Triodia basedowii on

sand dunes.



Table 4: Summary results of vegetation monitoring from 2013 to 2015

Species Diversity (10m²) Species Density (10m²) Total vegetation cover (%) Health Rating


Quadrat 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

Impact Sites

Q1 7 7 7 50 32 32 20 20 20 2 3 3

Q2 6 6 9 41 41 51 55 55 64 3 4 4

Q3 2 3 4 5 7 11 31 22 24 3 3 3

Q4 3 3 3 6 6 6 20 20 20 3 2 2

Q5 4 3 3 41 40 40 30 30 35 3 3 3

Q6 6 4 6 51 23 23 25 15 17 3 2 2

Q7 5 5 5 12 13 13 30 26 34 3 3 3

Q8 5 5 5 47 47 47 50 50 50 3 4 4

Q9 5 5 6 39 39 41 46 46 47 3 3 3

Q10 6 6 6 15 15 15 40 40 40 3 3 3

Mean 5 5 5 31 26 28 35 32 35 3 3 3

Control Sites

Q11 2 3 4 11 11 15 7 7 9 2 3 3

Q12 4 4 6 9 9 13 20 20 22 2 3 3

Q13 3 3 N/A 8 8 N/A 25 25 N/A 3 3 N/A

Q14 3 4 4 11 12 12 10 12 12 2 3 3

Q15 3 3 3 5 5 5 22 22 22 3 3 3

Q16 3 3 4 9 6 10 15 14 18 3 2 2



Species Diversity (10m²) Species Density (10m²) Total vegetation cover (%) Health Rating


Quadrat 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

Q17 6 7 7 22 24 24 40 41 41 4 4 4

Q18 5 7 7 16 18 18 72 74 74 4 4 4

Q19 2 3 4 19 22 29 10 15 20 2 3 3

Q20 6 6 6 16 16 16 65 65 65 3 3 3

Mean 4 4 5 13 14 16 29 30 31 3 3 3




4.1 Species Diversity

Mean species diversity for the impact sites has remained constant throughout the monitoring period at

five species per 10m2. Mean species diversity for the control sites increased from four to five species

per 10m2 in 2015. Four impact sites (Q2, Q3, Q6 and Q9) recorded an increase in species diversity

from 2014 to 2015, while the remaining quadrats maintaining a constant level of species diversity in

2015. Four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q16, and Q19) recorded an increase in species diversity from 2014

to 2015, while the remaining quadrats maintained a constant level of species diversity in 2015. Species

diversity for the impact sites ranged from three to nine species per 10m2, whereas species diversity for

the control sites ranged from three to seven species per 10m2. A list of all species recorded during

monitoring is provided in Appendix 3.

4.2 Species Density

Mean species density for the impact sites has decreased over the monitoring period, reducing from 31

plants per 10m² in 2013 to 28 plants per 10m² in 2015. Mean species density however did increase

from 26 to 27 plants per 10m² in 2015. Mean species density of the control sites has increased over the

monitoring period, increasing from 13 to 16 plants per 10m2 in 2015. Three impact sites (Q2, Q3 and

Q9) recorded an increase in species density between 2014 and 2015, while the remaining quadrats

maintained a constant level of species density. Four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q16 and Q19) recorded

an increase in species density since 2014, while the remaining quadrats maintained a constant level of

species density in 2015. Species density for the impact sites ranged from 6 to 47 plants per 10m2,

whilst species density for the control sites ranged from 5 to 29 plants per 10m2.

4.3 Total Vegetation Cover

Mean total vegetation cover for the impact sites has fluctuated over the monitoring period initially

decreasing in 2014 before increasing in 2015 to equal the baseline survey result of 35%. The control

sites have shown a gradual increase in mean vegetation cover (1% per year) over the monitoring

period, increasing from 29% in 2013 to 31% in 2015. Six of the impact sites (Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7 and

Q9) have recorded an increase in total vegetation cover from 2014 to 2015; with the remaining

quadrats maintaining a constant vegetation cover in 2015. Four of the control sites (Q11, Q12, Q16 and

Q19) have also recorded an increase in total vegetation cover from 2014 to 2015, with the remaining

sites maintaining a constant level of total vegetation cover in 2015. Total vegetation cover for the

impact sites ranged from 17% to 64%, whereas total vegetation cover for the control sites ranged from

9% to 65%.

4.4 Health Condition

Mean health rating for both the impact and control sites has maintained a ‘Good’ health rating across

the monitoring period. There has been no variation in the health rating of any of the control or impact

quadrats in the 2015 monitoring period. Since monitoring began three of the impact sites (Q1, Q2 and

Q8) have shown an increase in health rating, two sites (Q4 and Q6) have decreased and the remaining

sites have maintained a constant health rating. Since monitoring began, four control sites (Q11, Q12,

Q14 and Q19) have shown an increase, one site (Q16) has decreased and the remaining sites have

maintained a constant health rating. A description of the current health condition for each monitoring

site is provided below in Table 5.

Fire is a natural and common occurrence within the Little Sandy Desert and the greater LDP Project

area; both the impact and control sites have been affected by fire with vegetation in various stages of

regrowth. One impact site (Q1) and four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q14 and Q19) were effected by fire in

2012; Impact sites (Q2 and Q6) and control site (Q16) were effected by a fire event in 2014 (Figure 7).




Table 5: General notes on health rating of each transect in 2015


Quadrat Health condition description (2015)

Impact Sites

Q1 Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition. Affected by fire

disturbance in 2012. No signs of grazing

Q2 Very good vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition. No signs of grazing

present. Site was affected by fire in 2014

Q3 Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in

flower. No disturbance or grazing present.

Q4 Poor/Declining vegetation health. No plants were in flower. No disturbance or grazing

present, but sand erosion present



Q6 Poor/Declining vegetation health. No plants were in flower. No signs of grazing present.

Site was affected by fire in 2014



Q8 Very good vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition. One species was in


Q9 Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition no plants were in




Control Sites





Q13 Site was not monitored in the 2015 monitoring period


flower. Affected by fire disturbance in 2012. No signs of grazing

Q15 Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good, no plants were in flower. No

disturbance or grazing present.


flower. No signs of grazing present. Site was affected by fire in 2014

Q17 Very good vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in flower.

No disturbance or grazing present.

Q18 Very good vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in flower. No disturbance or grazing present.


flower. Affected by fire disturbance in 2012. No signs of grazing






Figure 7: Map of fire history along the extent of the area obtained from Landgate fire watch database (Landgate, 2015)




4.5 Flora of Conservation Significance

No Threatened Flora taxa pursuant to subsection (2) of section 23F of the Wildlife Conservation Act

1950, the EPBC Act 1999 and as listed by the DPaW were identified within the Open low woodland of

Corymbia opaca over low scrub of Acacia ligulata/Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia and mid-dense

hummock grass of Triodia basedowii on sand dunes vegetation community.

4.6 Introduced Species

No introduced species were identified within the 20 sites of the monitoring program.




5 Conclusions and Recommendations

Mean species diversity, species density and vegetation cover of the control sites have all increased

since 2013. The impact sites have shown a varied trend, recording a decrease in species density since

2013. Despite the decrease since 2013, species density has increased since the previous monitoring

period and the impact sites have maintained a constant level of species diversity. Mean vegetation

cover of the impact sites is currently equal to levels recorded in 2013, recording an increase from 2014

to 2015. Mean health rating of both the impact and control sites has maintained a constant level since

monitoring began in 2013.

Fire has affected both the impact and control sites, with vegetation in various stages of regrowth. One

impact site (Q1) and four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q14 and Q19) were effected by fire in 2012, impact

sites (Q2 and Q6) and control site (Q16) were effected by a fire event in 2014.

Large numbers of camels and donkeys have been identified throughout the LDP Project by BC staff

during the 2015 monitoring survey and by Reward staff throughout the year (Plate 1). Grazing and

creation of beds by camels is prevalent throughout the area. This disturbance has not appeared to

directly affect the monitoring sites in 2015; however it has resulted in damage to the access track.

Evidence of camels (e.g. tracks and scats) was identified in two of the monitoring quadrats during the

previous monitoring period (2014), however there was no evidence of camels within any of the

monitoring sites within the current monitoring period.

Plate 1: Photograph taken of camels within the Lake Disappointment Project area (BC, 2015)

The 2015 monitoring period is the second year of analysis since the baseline survey was completed in

2013. As monitoring is still in early stages it is difficult to make any assumptions as to the long term

effect that LDP Project may have upon the sand dune vegetation of Lake Disappointment. The 2015

results show there has been no detrimental reduction in species diversity, species density, vegetation

cover or heath rating recorded in the impact sites. The slight variation in biodiversity parameters over

the monitoring period appears to be attributed to climatic factors rather than potential impacts.




It is important to note that vegetation destruction caused by fire events and camels is also prevalent

within the LDP Project area; the impacts from such natural occurrences outside of Reward’s control (i.e.

Camels and fire) are recorded during monitoring to distinguish the impacts of these events from the

potential impacts of the LDP Project.

It is recommended that monitoring be conducted annually in autumn to document and track any future

changes in vegetation condition and recommendations made if there are any signs of adverse effects

on the vegetation of the sand dunes adjacent to the access track.




6 References

Beard, J.S., (1990), Plant Life of Western Australia, Kangaroo Press Pty Ltd, NSW

BOM, (2009), Kambalda 2007 - 2009, Bureau of Meteorology

BOM, (2015), Telfer Aero rainfall station (#13030) 1974-2015, Bureau of Meteorology

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFil

e&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=13030

DAFWA, (2011), Pre-European Vegetation - Western Australia (NVIS Compliant Version GIS file),

Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia

DotE, (2012a), Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia - Information sheet Lake Disappointment

(Savory Creek) System - WA052. Department of the Environment

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/wetlands/report.pl?smode=DOIW;doiw_refcodelist=WA052

Accessed: 04/12/12

EA (2001). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, Third Edition. Environment Australia,

Canberra.

IBRA, (2015), Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA), Version 6.1, Department of

the Environment

http://www.environment.gov.au/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp

Accessed: 12/04/15

Jacob, A., (2014), Threatened Flora-Declared Rare Flora Notice for Western Australia, Minister for

Environment.

Keighery, B.J. (1994) Bushland plant survey. A guide to plant community survey for the community.

Wildflower Society of WA (Inc.), Nedlands, Western Australia

Kendrick, P., (2001), A Biodiversity Audit of Western Australia’s 53 Biogeographical Region in 2001-

Little Sandy Desert 1 (LSD1 –Rudall subregion), Department of Conservation and Land Management

Landgate, (2015), Landgate fire watch database. Landgate Western Australian Government

http://firewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/landgate_firewatch_public.asp

Accessed: 27/08/2015

WAHERB, (2015), Florabase – Information on the Western Australian Flora, Department of Parks and

Wildlife

http://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au

Accessed 27/08/2015

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=13030

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=13030

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/wetlands/report.pl?smode=DOIW;doiw_refcodelist=WA052

http://www.environment.gov.au/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp

http://firewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/landgate_firewatch_public.asp

http://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/

Appendix 1: Regional Map of Lake Disappointment Potash Project and areas of Conservation Significance

Appendix 2: Keighery 1994 Health Rating Scale

Health

Rating Health Description Definition

6 Pristine No obvious signs of disturbance

5 Excellent Vegetation intact despite disturbance affect, weeds are non-

aggressive individual species

4 Very Good Vegetation altered due to obvious signs of disturbance

3 Good Structure affected multiple disturbances. Retains basic structure,

has ability to regenerate

2 Degraded Structure severely disturbed. Can regenerate to good condition,

but requires intensive management

1 Completely

Degraded Completely bare no native species

Appendix 3: List of all species identified in Sand Dune vegetation monitoring program 2015

(A) Denotes annual species Family Genus Taxon

Amaranthaceae Gomphrena cunninghamii (A)

Amaranthaceae Ptilotus arthrolasius

Asteraceae Chrysocephalum eremaeum

Boraginaceae Trichodesma zeylanicum (A)

Cleomaceae Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla

Cucurbitaceae Cucumis argenteus

Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia drummondii (A)

Fabaceae Acacia bivenosa

Fabaceae Acacia prainii

Fabaceae Acacia sabulosa

Fabaceae Petalostylis cassioides

Fabaceae Thinicola incana

Goodeniaceae Dampiera cinerea

Goodeniaceae Scaevola collaris

Goodeniaceae Scaevola parvifolia subsp. parvifolia

Goodeniaceae Scaevola sericophylla

Goodeniaceae Scaevola sp. (sterile)

Hemerocallidaceae Corynotheca micrantha var. micrantha

Lamiaceae Dicrastylis beveridgei

Lamiaceae Quoya loxocarpa

Malvaceae Abutilon sp. (sterile)

Malvaceae Corchorus walcottii

Malvaceae Hibiscus ?burtonii

Malvaceae Hibiscus sturtii var. platychlamys

Malvaceae Sida calyxhymenia

Myrtaceae Aluta maisonneuvei subsp. maisonneuvei

Myrtaceae Calytrix sp. (sterile)

Myrtaceae Corymbia opaca

Poaceae Aristida holathera var. holathera (A)

Poaceae Eragrostis cumingii (A)

Poaceae Eragrostis eriopoda

Poaceae Eragrostis sp. (sterile) (A)

Poaceae Eriachne aristidea (A)

Poaceae Paractaenum refractum (A)

Poaceae Triodia basedowii

Poaceae Yakirra australiensis (A)

Proteaceae Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia

Rubiaceae Oldenlandia pterospora

Solanaceae Anthotroche pannosa

Solanaceae Solanum chippendalei

Appendix 4: Raw Results of the Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring 2015

(A) and blue text denotes an annual species which were not included in the calculations

Quadrat 1

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)

Total Vegetation Cover (%)

Health Rating

Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 38 10 GC - 20

Dicrastylis beveridgei 1 4 5 MC - 6

Eragrostis cumingii (A) 0 0 0 CC - 0

Euphorbia drummondii (A) 0 0 0

Petalostylis cassioides 1 2 2

Scaevola parvifolia subsp. parvifolia

1 1 1

Scaevola sericophylla 1 7 1

Solanum chippendalei 1 7 1

Thinicola incana 1 2 5

Trichodesma zeylanicum (A) 0 0 0

Triodia basedowii 1 9 5

Yakirra australiensis (A) 0 0 0

Total (Perennial Species) 7 32 20 20 3

Quadrat 2

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating

Acacia bivenosa 1 1 1 GC - 30

Aluta maisonneuvei subsp. maisonneuvei

1 13 10 MC - 35

Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 4 2 CC - 0

Dampiera cinerea 1 5 5

Dicrastylis beveridgei 1 3 1

Eragrostis eriopoda 1 4 1

Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 2 10

Petalostylis cassioides 1 2 2

Scaevola parvifolia subsp. parvifolia 1 3 1



Quadrat 3

Species Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density (10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating

Acacia sabulosa 1 3 20 GC - 4

Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 2 4 MC - 20

Corynotheca micrantha var. micrantha

1 2 1 CC - 0

Eragrostis cumingii (A) 1 7 2

Quoya loxocarpa 1 2 1



Quadrat 4

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating

Acacia sabulosa 1 3 20 GC - <1

Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 1 <1 MC - 20

Dampiera cinerea 1 2 <1 CC - 0


Quadrat 5

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating


Corchorus walcottii 0 0 0 MC - 0

Dampiera cinerea 1 21 20 CC - 0



Quadrat 6

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating



1 0 1 MC - 10


Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1





Quadrat 7

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating


Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla 1 1 1 MC -5

Cucumis maderaspatanus 1 1 1 CC -9



Thinicola incana 1 6 9


Quadrat 8

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating


1 4 2 GC - 40

Dampiera cinerea 1 8 5 MC - 15

Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 1 1 CC - 2




Quadrat 9

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating


1 15 5 GC - 45


Dicrastylis beveridgei 1 12 5 CC - 0



Oldenlandia pterospora 1 1 1

Scaevola sp. (sterile) 1 2 1



Quadrat 10

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating

Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 GC - 40

Dicrastylis beveridgei 1 2 2 MC - 5

Eragrostis cumingii (A) 1 7 5 CC - 0



Oldenlandia pterospora 1 1 1



Quadrat 11

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating


Calytrix sp. (sterile) 1 1 1 MC - 8

Dampiera cinerea 1 5 5 CC-0




Quadrat 12

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating

Anthotroche pannosa 1 2 5 GC - 22


Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla 1 4 10 CC - 0


Eragrostis sp. (sterile) (A) 1 1 1

Eriachne aristidea (A) 1 17 5

Euphorbia drummondii sens. lat.(A) 1 12 6

Hibiscus ?burtonii 1 2 3

Sida calyxhymenia 1 2 1



Quadrat 14

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating


Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 MC - 5

Corchorus walcottii 1 1 2 CC - 0




Quadrat 15

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating


Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 MC - 20

Corchorus walcottii 1 1 1 CC - 0

Gomphrena cunninghamii (A) 1 2 2

Hibiscus sturtii var. platychlamys 1 3 20


Quadrat 16

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating



Dampiera cinerea 1 3 4 CC - 10




Quadrat 17

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating

Abutilon sp. (sterile) 1 10 10 GC - 40


Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla 1 2 5 CC - 10



Ptilotus arthrolasius 1 3 5




Quadrat 18

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating

Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 GC - 55

Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla

1 1 1 MC - 10

Corymbia opaca 1 2 20 CC - 40

Corynotheca micrantha var. micrantha

1 1 1

Cucumis argenteus 1 1 1





Paractaenum refractum (A) 1 10 5



Quadrat 19

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating



Euphorbia drummondii (A) 1 3 5 CC - 0



Scaevola collaris 1 18 10

Triodia basedowii 1 1 <1


Quadrat 20

Species

Species Diversity

(10m²)

Species Density

(10m²)

Species cover (%)


Health Rating

Acacia ligulata 0 0 0 GC - 65


1 1 2 MC - 5


Corchorus walcottii 1 1 1

Corymbia opaca 1 1 10





Appendix 5: Photographic Records of Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Quadrats

Quadrat 1 2013 Quadrat 1 2014 Quadrat 1 2015


Quadrat 13 2013 Quadrat 13 2014 Quadrat 13 2015 (Not Monitored)


Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Lake Disappointment Potash ... · Draft documents are submitted to...

Documents

Transcript of Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Lake Disappointment Potash ... · Draft documents are submitted to...