Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
P a g e | 1
S i n o st ee l M i d w est C o rp o ra t i o n L i mi t ed : K o o l a n o o k a Veg et a t i o n
Mo n i t o r i n g P ro g ra m, Sp r i n g 2 0 1 5
17 December 2015
Version 1
maia.net.au
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | i
This document presents the results of the spring 2015 assessment of sites in a vegetation monitoring program
being carried out in the vegetation of the threatened ecological community (TEC) around Sinosteel Midwest
Corporation Limited’s (SMC) mine at Koolanooka. Sixteen monitoring sites were established during 2010 and 2011
and have been assessed each spring (September) since establishment.
Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd
ABN 25 141 503 184
PO Box 1213
Subiaco WA 6904
© 2015 Maia Environmental Consultancy
Document Prepared By: Rochelle Haycock and Christina Cox
Document Reviewed By: Christina Cox
Document Revision Number: Version 1
Project Number: 1513V1
Date: 17 December, 2015
This document has been prepared for SMC by Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia). Copyright and any
intellectual property associated with the document belong to SMC and Maia. The document may not be
reproduced or distributed to any third party by any physical or electronic means without the express permission of
SMC.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | i i
Table of Contents
1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1
1.1 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK 1 1.2 MINING ACTIVITIES AT KOOLANOOKA 1 1.3 MONITORING PROGRAM AND SITES ESTABLISHED 1 1.4 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AROUND THE MINE AT KOOLANOOKA 2
2 METHODS 5
2.1 MONITORING SITES, SURVEYS AND TIMING 5 2.2 SITE SET-UP AND MEASUREMENTS 5 2.3 VEGETATION CONDITION ASSESSMENTS 6 2.4 MONITORING DATA ANALYSES 7 2.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 7 2.6 PROJECT TEAM 7
3 RESULTS – SITES, FLORA, VEGETATION CONDITION, INTRODUCED FAUNA AND FIRE 9
3.1 SITE INFORMATION 9 3.2 FLORA 9
3.2.1 Conservation Significant Flora 9 3.2.2 Environmental Weeds 10
3.3 VEGETATION CONDITION 13 3.4 INTRODUCED FAUNA 13 3.5 FIRE 14
4 RESULTS - MONITORING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS 15
4.1 DUST COVER RATINGS, DUST MONITORING AND RAINFALL 15 4.2 PLANT NUMBERS 17 4.3 HEALTH (HR) 20 4.4 PROPORTIONAL CANOPY VOLUME (PCV) 25 4.5 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH) 28 4.6 DUST AND PLANT HEALTH RATINGS 30 4.7 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES RESULTS 31
5 CONCLUSIONS, OVERALL COMMENTS AND FUTURE WORK 33
5.1 CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANT SPECIES, WEEDS AND VEGETATION CONDITION 33 5.2 FIRE AND FERAL ANIMALS 33 5.3 DUST 34 5.4 PLANT NUMBERS 34 5.5 HEALTH (HR) 34 5.6 PROPORTIONAL CANOPY VOLUME (PCV) 35 5.7 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH) 35 5.8 OVERALL COMMENT 35 5.9 FUTURE WORK 35
6 REFERENCES 37
7 MAPS 39
APPENDIX 1: MONITORING SITE COORDINATES 49
APPENDIX 2: SITE SHEETS 51
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | i i i
APPENDIX 3: STATISTICAL ANALYSES – HR, PCV AND DBH 69
Tables
TABLE 1.1: DPAW VEGETATION COMMUNITY TYPES 2 TABLE 1.2: VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS AND MONITORING SITES 3 TABLE 2.1: SITE ESTABLISHMENT AND ASSESSMENTS 5 TABLE 2.2: SUMMARY OF THE VEGETATION CONDITION SCALE (GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA, 2000) 6 TABLE 2.3: PROJECT TEAM 8 TABLE 3.1: WEED SPECIES RECORDED 2014 AND 2015 11 TABLE 3.2: WEED SPECIES RANKINGS 12 TABLE 3.3: NUMBER OF WEED SPECIES RECORDED AT EACH SITE, BASELINE TO 2015 12 TABLE 3.4: BASELINE VEGETATION CONDITION RATING AT EACH MONITORING SITE 13 TABLE 4.1: OVERALL SITE DUST COVER RATINGS 15 TABLE 4.2: RAINFALL RECORDS KOOLANOOKA MINE (SMC 2010-2013) AND MORAWA AIRPORT (BOM, 2015) 16 TABLE 4.3: CHANGE (BASELINE TO 2015) IN LIVE PLANT NUMBERS (≥ 1M AND <1 M) AND TURNOVER OF DEAD PLANTS AND RECRUITS 18 TABLE 4.4: DEATHS OF PLANTS ≥ 1 M TALL, BASELINE (FIRST) TO 2015 (LAST) AND 2014 TO 2015 19 TABLE 4.5: CHANGE IN HEALTH BY SITE, BASELINE TO 2015 20 TABLE 4.6: CHANGE IN HEALTH BY SITE, 2014 - 2015 21 TABLE 4.7: OVERALL CHANGE IN HEALTH BY TREATMENT GROUP, BASELINE TO 2015 AND 2014 TO 2015 22 TABLE 4.8: OVERALL MEAN HR, BASELINE AND 2015 22 TABLE 4.9: CHANGE IN HR BY SITE AND TREATMENT GROUP, BASELINE TO 2015 23 TABLE 4.10: CHANGE IN PCV, BASELINE TO 2015 25 TABLE 4.11: CHANGE IN DBH, BASELINE TO 2015 28 TABLE 4.12: STATISTICAL ANALYSES SUMMARY TABLE - CHANGE IN HR, PCV AND DBH SINCE BASELINE 31
Figures
FIGURE 4.1: MEAN CHANGE IN HR (+/- SE) BASELINE TO 2015 - BY SITE (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN BARS = IMPACT SITES)
23 FIGURE 4.2: MEAN CHANGE IN HR (+/- SE) BASELINE TO 2015 – BY TREATMENT GROUP (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN BARS
= IMPACT TREATMENTS) 24 FIGURE 4.3: MEAN CHANGE IN PCV (M
3 +/- SE) BASELINE TO 2015 – BY MONITORING SITE (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN
BARS = IMPACT SITES) 26 FIGURE 4.4: MEAN CHANGE IN PCV (M
3 +/- SE) BASELINE TO 2015 - BY TREATMENT GROUP (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN
BARS = IMPACT TREATMENTS) 26 FIGURE 4.5: MEAN CHANGE IN DBH, BASELINE TO 2015 (MM +/- SE) – BY SITE (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK GREEN BARS =
IMPACT SITES) 29 FIGURE 4.6: MEAN CHANGE IN DBH, BASELINE TO 2015 (MM +/- SE) – BY TREATMENT GROUP (LIGHT GREEN BARS = CONTROL AND DARK
GREEN BARS = IMPACT TREATMENTS) 29
Maps
MAP 7.1: GENERAL LOCATION 41 MAP 7.2: MONITORING SITES 43 MAP 7.3: PRIORITY FLORA LOCATIONS 45 MAP 7.4: WEED LOCATIONS 47
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | i v
Summary
Background
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Pty Ltd (SMC) was granted approval to mine iron ore at Koolanooka and
Blue Hills (EPA, 2009). To comply with conditions in Ministerial Statement (MS) 811 SMC engaged Maia
Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia) to establish a vegetation monitoring program within its mining
tenements and the boundaries of the threatened ecological community (TEC) at Koolanooka.
This report presents the results to date of the monitoring program established at Koolanooka.
Monitoring Sites
Sixteen 20 m x 20 m monitoring sites were established around the mine at Koolanooka, some within the
50 m wide dust buffer zone around the pit and others at different locations up to 1,500 m away from the
pit.
The monitoring sites were also established in three different floristic community types (FCT) surrounding
the mine at Koolanooka. The FCTs were defined by the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) after
carrying out a survey of the flora and vegetation of the Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills.
Eight sites were established in FCT 3 (three impact sites within the dust buffer around the pit, two control
sites 1,500 m from the pit and three control sites approximately 150 m from the pit). Four were
established in FCT 4 (two as impact sites outside the dust buffer but close to the waste dumps and two as
control sites for this FCT) and four in FCT 5 (two as impact sites outside the dust buffer but close to the
waste dumps and two as control sites for this FCT).
Monitoring Methods
The monitoring sites are assessed in spring (September) each year.
All plants 1 m or more in height are measured in a 20 m x 5 m sub-plot within each 20 m x 20 m
monitoring plot. The measurements taken include: diameter at breast height, height from ground to
base of foliage, height from ground to top of foliage, north-south canopy width and east-west canopy
width. The crown density for each plant measured is estimated and the health of each plant ranked.
Dust levels are estimated at each monitoring site and the numbers of plants ≥ 1 m in height and plants
< 1 m in height in each 20 m x 5 m sub-plot are counted.
At least one photograph of each measuring plot is taken. Overall Conclusions
Priority Flora and Weed Species
Natural year to year fluctuations are apparent in the populations of the annual conservation significant
species located in the monitoring plots (Millotia dimorpha, Priority (P) 1) while the number of perennial
conservation significant species (Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336), P1) has hardly
changed since baseline assessments, increasing by one plant. Mining activities have not affected the
conservation significant flora in the vegetation monitoring plots surrounding the mine.
Eleven weed species have been located in the monitoring plots since 2010 and the same number of weed
species (nine) have been recorded each year since all 16 monitoring sites were first assessed in 2011 up
to 2014; in 2015 seven weed species were located. As the mine is no longer operational and the
monitoring sites are not close to used tracks, the year to year fluctuations in weed numbers will be a
result of a combination of factors e.g. spreading by vectors such as goats, native animals, wind and water,
differing seasonal conditions (e.g. temperature and rainfall in the weeks before the survey) and variability
in the number of weeds estimated by the botanists.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | v
Feral Animals and Fire
Fewer feral goats were observed around the mine in September 2015 than in 2013 and no foxes were
sighted.
Fire hasn’t affected the vegetation around the mine for at least 13 years.
Dust
Ambient dust levels are probably lower now that mining activities have decreased around the mine and
this is being reflected in the site dust ratings as, overall, there was decreases in two of the three impact
treatment groups and three of the four control treatment groups between 2014 and 2015. Dust levels at
one impact and one control treatment group did not change between 2014 and 2015.
Plant Numbers
The turnover of plants in the impact treatment sites does not appear to have been affected by the mining
activities at Koolanooka. When the overall change in the impact and control groups is compared there is
only a 3.6% difference - the overall increase in plants was 3.6% higher in the control group than the
impact group. When total deaths and total recruits that have occurred between baseline and 2015 are
compared in impact and control groups there have been fewer deaths and recruits in the impact group
than in the control group.
Health Rating (HR)
The mining at Koolanooka affected the health of the plants within the dust buffer more than at sites
outside the dust buffer. A 50 m wide dust buffer was therefore appropriate in this area.
Proportional Canopy Volume (PCV)
PCV has increased since baseline data collection but there is no difference between impact and control
groups, between FCT groups or between treatment groups. Therefore PCV has not been affected by the
mining activities at Koolanooka.
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)
DBH increased between baseline and 2015 assessments but there was no difference in DBH between
impact and control groups. There was a significant difference between DBH of plants in FCT 3 and FCT 4
and also between some of the treatment groups - the change in DBH of plants in treatment group 1 (FCT
3 sites within the dust buffer zone) between baseline and 2015 is less than that in treatment group 4 (FCT
4 control sites). Therefore the DBH of the dust buffer impact site plants appears to have been affected by
the mining activities and not that of plants outside the dust buffer.
Future Work
The 2015 data and analyses indicate that dust levels are generally decreasing around the mine and that
the health of plants outside the dust buffer appears generally not to have been affected by the mining
activities.
SMC’s mine at Koolanooka has been under care and maintenance since July 2013. Currently only
rehabilitation works and research are being carried out on the mining tenements.
SMC could discuss this monitoring program with DPaW / OEPA and gain permission from the CEO of the
OEPA to amend the current annual monitoring program. The time between monitoring events could be
extended or monitoring could cease once all of the rehabilitation works have been completed in areas
that could potentially affect the health of the vegetation through high dust levels.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | v i
Acronyms
ANOVA Analysis of variance
ATA Alan Tingay and Associates
K01-K16 Koolanooka vegetation monitoring sites
BAM Act Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007
BIF Banded ironstone formation
BoM Bureau of Meteorology
CEO Chief Executive Officer
Cl Confidence interval
DAFWA Department of Agriculture and Food, WA
DBH Diameter at breast height
DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (now DPaW)
DF Degrees of freedom
DPaW Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia
EPA Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia
ESCAVI Executive Steering Committee for Australian Vegetation Information
FCT Floristic community type
GDA94 Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994
GoWA Government of Western Australia
HR Health rating
HRT1 to HRT7 Health rating treatment groups 1 to 7
KOOL Koolanooka Hills – DPaW quadrat label
km Kilometre
MGA Map grid of Australia
m Metre
mE Metres east (easting)
mm Millimetre
mN Metres north (northing)
Maia Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd
MGA50 Map Grid of Australia, zone 50
MS Ministerial Statement
n Number of samples in a treatment group
N Total number of samples used in analysis
NVIS National Vegetation Inventory System
OEPA Office of Environmental Protection Authority
p Probability value
P Priority
P1 Priority 1 species
PCV Proportional canopy volume
RE Range extension
SD Standard deviation
SE Standard error
SMC Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited
sp. Species
subsp. Subspecies
TEC Threatened Ecological Community
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | v i i
var. Variety
WA Western Australia
WAH Western Australian Herbarium
WAOL Western Australian Organism List
X2 Chi squared
≥ Greater than or equal to
< Less than
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1
SMC: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program S P R I N G , 2 0 1 5
1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited (SMC) has been granted approval to mine iron ore at Koolanooka and Blue
Hills (Environmental Protection Authority, EPA, 2009). To comply with Conditions 6-4 and 6-5 in Ministerial
Statement (MS) 811 SMC is required to monitor impacts from activities undertaken in implementing the proposal
including (1) dust; (2) saline water application for dust control; (3) fire; and, (4) the attraction of and increase in
introduced fauna, on the health and condition of the threatened ecological community “Plant assemblages of the
Koolanooka System” and the Blue Hills vegetation complex Priority Ecological Community shown in Figures 4 and 5
of MS 811. This monitoring is to be carried out to the requirements of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
As saline water was not applied to any of the tracks running through or close to the threatened ecological
community (TEC) the monitoring program was not designed to look at the effects of saline water on the
vegetation of the TEC.
This report describes the current year’s results of the vegetation monitoring program being carried out at 16
monitoring sites established around SMC’s mine at Koolanooka, which is located approximately 18 kilometres (km)
east of Morawa (Map 7.1, Section 7) in the Avon Wheatbelt 1 subregion of the Avon-Wheatbelt bioregion in
Western Australia (WA).
1.2 MINING ACTIVITIES AT KOOLANOOKA
Mining ceased at Koolanooka in 2013 and the mine site continued on care and maintenance during 2015.
Rehabilitation works and restoration research were carried out during the year.
1.3 MONITORING PROGRAM AND SITES ESTABLISHED
A monitoring program was developed for Koolanooka (Maia, 2010a) and vegetation in the area approved for the
pit extension at Koolanooka was cleared in early April 2010. In late March 2010, before any clearing took place,
eight monitoring sites were established around the pit. Existing vegetation mapping (ATA, 2004) was used to
determine where the monitoring sites should be located in relation to the vegetation units of the TEC. Sites were
established in three of ATA’s mapped vegetation units (6, 3 and 1) surrounding the pit.
In September (spring) 2010 two additional sites were established. These sites were placed in an area mapped as
vegetation unit 1 but where the vegetation was not the same as that described for vegetation unit 1 (ATA, 2004).
In March 2011 two more sites were established in a vegetation unit on the flats at the base of the hill and in an
area where the TEC wraps around an area proposed to be disturbed by the mining activities.
In September 2011 Maia established four additional sites to increase replication in two of the vegetation units. In
total, 16 sites are being monitored within the vegetation of the TEC around the mine at Koolanooka and they are a
mixture of impact and control sites (Map 7.2, Section 7).
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2
1.4 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AROUND THE M INE AT KOOLANOOKA
Maia initially used the ATA (2004) vegetation mapping to determine which vegetation communities surrounded
the mine at Koolanooka. However, the mapping did not accurately represent the actual distribution of the
vegetation communities on the ground and, while selecting monitoring site locations, Maia had to visually
compare the vegetation units to attempt to locate the monitoring plots in the same units.
To determine the vegetation community types to which the monitoring sites belong pattern analysis was carried
out to compare the vegetation at the monitoring sites with the vegetation recorded by the Department of Parks
and Wildlife (DPaW) on the Koolanooka Hills (Maia, 2011).
DPaW surveyed the flora and vegetation of the Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills and established 50 permanent sites
across the area (Meissner & Caruso, 2008) and five floristic community types (FCTs), with two sub-communities in
one of the communities, were defined. Four of these sites (Koolanooka (KOOL) 32, 33, 34 and 35) are within
approximately 600 metres (m) of a 50 m wide dust buffer zone in place around the pit at Koolanooka (Map 7.2,
Section 7).
The 16 monitoring sites grouped with the DPaW’s vegetation community types 3, 4 and 5 (Table 1.1). The three
vegetation associations (=communities) in which the 16 monitoring plots occur are described and shown in
Table 1.2.
Table 1.1: DPaW vegetation community types
DPaW Community Type
Vegetation Description Typical Habitat
DPaW Floristic Sites
3 Open woodlands, shrublands and open shrublands of Allocasuarina spp., Melaleuca nematophylla, and Calycopeplus paucifolius over a mixed shrubland of Dodonaea inaequifolia and Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei.
Indicator species for this community are: Acacia exocarpoides, C. paucifolius, D. inaequifolia and P. brucei subsp. brucei.
Midslopes and crests of Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills
KOOL16, 31, 32, 34, 40, 41.
4 Shrublands and open shrublands of Allocasuarina spp., M. cordata,
Hemigenia sp. Paynes Find (A.C. Beauglehole 49138) and Mirbelia
microphylla.
Indicator species for this community are: Acacia stereophylla var.
stereophylla, A. campestris, Drosera macrantha subsp. macrantha,
Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma, H. sp. Paynes Find
(A.C. Beauglehole 39138), Hibbertia arcuata, M. cordata, M.
microphylla, Monachather paradoxus and Stypandra glauca.
Mainly on low
fertility lower
slopes of
Koolanooka
Hills
KOOL33, 35,
38, 39.
5 Woodlands and Mallee Woodlands of Eucalyptus species (E.
loxophleba, E. ebbanoensis or E. salmonophloia) over Acacia spp.
and chenopods.
Indicator species for this community are: Acacia andrewsii, Acacia
erinacea, Austrodanthonia caespitosa, Austrostipa elegantissima,
Enchylaena lanata, Maireana carnosa, Maireana georgei, Rhagodia
drummondii, Scaevola spinescens, Sclerolaena diacantha, Senna
charlesiana.
Colluvial
outwash soils
and pockets of
fertile soil
from the
ranges
KOOL08, 10,
17, 21, 27,
37.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3
Table 1.2: Vegetation associations and monitoring sites
Broad Floristic Formation: Allocasuarina Low Open Woodland
This vegetation association occurs on the upper slopes (left photograph) and a minor gully (right photograph) on banded and non-banded ironstone. Sites K01,
K03, K04, K05, K06, K07 and K08 are located within this association. Based on the results of pattern analysis, this association is equivalent to DPaW Community
Type 3.
Vegetation Association
Description
Low Open Woodland and High
Open Shrubland of Allocasuarina
acutivalvis with a mixed
Shrubland (Melaleuca
nematophylla, Dodonaea
inaequifolia and mixed Acacia
spp.) and a mixed Low Open
Shrubland (Grevillea paradoxa,
Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei
and+/- Eremophila clarkei).
Associated Species
Acacia acuminata, A.
ramulosa var. ramulosa A.
nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa,
A. exocarpoides, Daviesia
hakeoides subsp. hakeoides,
Calycopeplus paucifolius,
Solanum cleistogamum,
Austrostipa elegantissima
and Sida sp. Dark Green Fruit
(S. van Leeuwen 2260).
Broad Floristic Formation: Acacia High Open Shrubland
This vegetation association occurs on west facing moderate slopes and at the base of a gully with a surface layer of laterised banded ironstone rocks on the
southern side of the range. Sites K02, K09, K10, K14 and K16 were located within this association and they belong in DPaW Community Type 4. Although K02
(gully) groups with this association, it was an outlier and should be grouped with DPaW Community Type 3.
Vegetation Association
Description
Open Tall Shrubland of Acacia
stereophylla var. stereophylla
with an Open Mid Shrubland of
Daviesia hakeoides subsp.
hakeoides and a Open Low
Shrubland of Xanthosia bungei.
Associated Species
Allocasuarina acutivalvis
subsp. Prinsepiana,
Allocasuarina campestris,
Monachather paradoxus,
Austrostipa elegantissima,
Acacia assimilis subsp.
assimilis, Hibbertia arcuata
and Cheilanthes sieberi subsp.
sieberi.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 4
Broad Floristic Formation: Eucalyptus Low Open Woodland
This vegetation association occurred on the previously disturbed footslopes and gravelly flats to the south-west of the range. Sites K11, K12, K13 and K15 are
located within this association and they belong in DPaW Community Type 5.
Vegetation Association
Description
Low Open Woodland of
Eucalyptus horistes with a
mixed Sparse Tall to Mid
Shrubland of Acacia acuminata,
Hakea recurva subsp. recurva
and Eremophila clarkei with a
Low Open Mallee Woodland of
Eucalyptus oldfieldii and a Low
Sparse Shrubland of Mirbelia
microphylla and Ptilotus
obovatus.
Associated Species
Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp.
supralaevis, Acacia andrewsii,
Acacia anthochaera,
Austrostipa elegantissima,
Dianella revoluta var.
divaricata, Maireana carnosa,
Rhagodia drummondii.
Eight of the 16 monitoring plots group within DPaW’s vegetation community type 3, four in DPaW’s community type 4 and four in the DPaW’s community type 5.
(Although K02 (gully site) falls within DPaW Community Type 4, it was an outlier and has been included with DPaW Community Type 3.)
The growth form, height classes and cover characteristics of vegetation in the quadrats are described using the current NVIS methodology at the association
level. At this level up to three strata and a maximum of three taxa per stratum are used to describe the association (ESCAVI, 2003).
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5
2 METHODS
2.1 MONITORING SITES , SURVEYS AND TIMING
The dates sites were established and dates monitoring has been carried out at Koolanooka are listed in Table 2.1.
The locations of the 16 monitoring sites at Koolanooka are shown on Map 7.2 (Section 7).
Table 2.1: Site establishment and assessments
Sites established Assessment carried out Date of assessment
K01, K02, K03, K04, K05, K06, K07 & K08
Baseline measurements March 27 – 30, 2010
K09 & K10 Baseline measurements and sites assessed
September 29 – October 2, 2010
K11 & K12 Baseline measurements March 16 – 18, 2011
K13, K14, K15 & K16 Baseline measurements and sites assessed
September 21 – 25, 2011
None All 16 sites assessed September 18 – 19, 2012
None All 16 sites assessed September 20-22, 2013
None All 16 sites assessed September 19-20, 2014
None All 16 sites assessed September 9-10, 2015
2.2 SITE SET-UP AND MEASUREMENTS
A 20 m by 20 m quadrat was set up at each site. Four star pickets were used to mark the corners of the quadrat
and two fence droppers were used to mark the 5 m point within the 20 m by 20 m quadrat. One of the four
corner posts was marked with a numbered metal tag to indicate the site number.
The following information was recorded at each monitoring site:
A species list was generated for the 20 m by 20 m quadrat;
The general condition of the vegetation in the 20 m by 20 m quadrat was ranked between 1 and 6 (where
1 indicates pristine vegetation and 6 indicates completely degraded vegetation) based on Keighery’s
vegetation condition scale (Government of Western Australia, 2000) as described in Table 2.2;
One photograph (at least) was taken of the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot (and its direction recorded);
An overall rating for dust cover in the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot was ranked from 0 (no dust) to 5 (thick dust
cover);
The number of live plants of each shrub/tree species occurring within the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot including
the following:
• The number of live plants of each species greater than or equal to (≥) 1 m in height; and
• The number of live plants less than (<) 1 m in height.
The number of dead plants of each shrub/tree species still standing within the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot;
The health of each plant ≥ 1 m in height in the sub-plot was ranked from 0 (totally healthy) to 5 (dead);
The height of each plant ≥ 1 m in height in the sub-plot was measured;
The height to the lowest live leaves at the base of the canopy was measured on each plant ≥ 1 m in height
in the sub-plot;
The dimensions of the canopy of each plant ≥ 1 m in height in the sub-plot were measured in two
directions – north-south and east-west;
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6
The diameter at breast height (DBH) of the largest branch of each plant ≥ 1 m in height within the sub-
plot was measured and the measured branch was tagged and numbered;
The crown density (in 5% intervals) of each measured plant in each 20 m by 5 m sub-plot was estimated.
Crown density estimates were made using the density diagram included in the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA), Forest inventory and Analysis Program field instructions (USDA, 2005).
A mud map was drawn of the trees and shrubs occurring in each 20 m by 5 m sub-plot to help to locate
the measured plants during future assessments.
Each of the shrubs and trees measured in the 20 m by 5 m sub-plot was tagged and numbered for future
reference. Missing or damaged tags were replaced as needed.
When conservation significant flora and weeds occurred in a quadrat their numbers were recorded, or estimated
if a species was present in large numbers (e.g. species in the Asteraceae family).
2.3 VEGETATION CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
Vegetation condition noted for each monitoring site is based on the scale outlined in the Government of Western
Australia (2000) Bush Forever documentation. A summary of the scale is outlined in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Summary of the vegetation condition scale (Government of Western Australia, 2000)
Condition scale Description
Pristine (1) Pristine or nearly so, no obvious signs of disturbance.
Excellent (2) Vegetation structure intact, disturbance affecting individual species and weeds are non-aggressive species.
Very Good (3) Vegetation structure altered, obvious signs of disturbance. For example, disturbance to vegetation structure caused by repeated fires, the presence of some more aggressive weeds, dieback, logging and grazing.
Good (4) Vegetation structure significantly altered by very obvious signs of multiple disturbances. Retains basic vegetation structure or ability to regenerate it. For example, disturbance to vegetation structure caused by very frequent fires, the presence of some very aggressive weeds at high density, partial clearing, dieback and grazing.
Degraded (5) Basic vegetation structure severely impacted by disturbance. Scope for regeneration but not to a state approaching good condition without intensive management. For example, disturbance to vegetation structure caused by frequent fires, the presence of very aggressive weeds, partial clearing, dieback and grazing.
Completely Degraded (6)
The structure of the vegetation is no longer intact and the area is completely or almost completely without native species. These areas are often described as “parkland cleared’ with the flora comprising weed or crop species with isolated native trees or shrubs.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7
2.4 MONITORING DATA ANALYSES
Analyse-it software (Analyse-it Software, 2015) was used to carry out the analyses presented in the following
sections. Basic descriptive statistics were carried out on each data set analysed. The calculations and statistics
were performed on data collected for each factor using consecutively measured plants. The following texts were
referenced to determine which tests were appropriate with the data collected: Zar (1984); Townend (2002);
Coakes and Steed (2001); and, Mead, Curnow and Hasted (2000). In addition information on the University of
California Los Angelas Institute for Digital Research and Education webpage was refered to (UCLA, 2015).
Baseline (first) and 2015 (last) comparisons were carried out on the monitoring data recorded to date (e.g. the
number of plants ≥ 1 m in height, health ranks (HR), canopy volume and (DBH).
A t-test is appropriate for comparisons between two independent variables e.g. a comparison of the difference in
canopy volume at control and impact sites will determine whether there is statistical difference between the two
sample groups. A number of assumptions must be met to apply a t-test to data. These assumptions include that
the data must be normal, the data continuous rather than discrete, the subjects independent and the variances
equal. The data to be used in t-tests were checked against these assumptions. When data were not normal (and
the variances not equal) the non-parametric t-test equivalent, the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used.
If differences in the response of a particular variable (e.g. health) to a treatment (e.g. FCT or treatment group) are
to be tested a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is appropriate for comparisons between the means of two or
more populations e.g. a comparison of change in plant health at the sites in different FCTs or treatment groups.
However, a number of assumptions must be met to carry out an ANOVA on data. These assumptions include that
the data must be normal and the variances and sample sizes equal. The data to be tested was checked against
these assumptions and when the assumptions were not met a non-parametric ANOVA equivalent, the Kruskal-
Wallis test, was performed on the data.
When the Kruskal-Wallis test resulted in a significant probability (p) value multiple contrasts were carried out
when three or more groups were compared (using the Bonferroni correction) to determine which treatments
differed.
2.5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
While the mine was in operation additional information on dust levels recorded at dust monitoring sites around
the mine, on any feral animal sightings, on rainfall at Koolanooka and also on any fires in the vegetation around
the mine was recorded by SMC. However, since the mine has entered a care and maintenance phase this
information is no longer being collected.
2.6 PROJECT TEAM
This monitoring project was carried out by the botanists listed in Table 2.3.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 8
Table 2.3: Project team
Project team
Name Qualification Project role DPaW flora license number
(and expiry date)
Christina Cox PhD Report Not applicable
Scott Hitchcock BSc Survey SL011397 (exp. Apr 2016)
Rochelle Haycock BSc Survey and report SL011398 (exp. Apr 2016)
Casey Causley BSc Survey SL011401 (exp. Apr 2016)
Emily Ager BSc Survey SL011411 (exp. Apr 2016)
Cate Tauss BSc Plant identifications Not applicable
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 9
3 RESULTS – SITES, FLORA, VEGETATION CONDITION, INTRODUCED FAUNA AND
FIRE
3.1 SITE INFORMATION
Coordinates for each site are provided in Appendix 1 and the site sheets listing the general site and floristic
information initially collected at each monitoring site are included in Appendix 2. These sheets are added to as
additional species are located at a site.
3.2 FLORA
3.2.1 CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANT FLORA
Two conservation significant flora species have been located at the monitoring sites: Lepidosperma sp.
Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (Priority 1) at K02 and K10 and Millotia dimorpha P.S. Short (Priority 1) at K02,
K04, K09, K10 and K16.
Descriptions and photographs of these two priority species follow and their 2015 locations are shown on Map 7.3,
Section 7.
Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (Priority 1)
L. sp. Koolanooka is a sedge. It grows to 0.5 m on hill slopes and rocky outcrops of orange-brown soils over
banded ironstone (Plate 3.1). L. sp. Koolanooka produces brown flowers during October (Plate 3.2)
(WAH, 1998-). The plants were flowering in September 2015.
Thirteen plants were located at two sites; 12 plants at K02 and one at K10. The number of plants recorded at K02
increased by one in 2014 and there was no change in 2015. One plant has been located at K10 since baseline
assessment.
Plate 3.1: Growth habit
Plate 3.2: Close-up of flower heads
Millotia dimorpha (Priority 1)
M. dimorpha is a small erect or ascending annual herb (Plate 3.3) growing to 0.11 m high on slopes and outcrops
of lateritised banded ironstone, banded ironstone and dolerite. The species was flowering at the time of the
September 2015 survey (Plate 3.4).
In September 2015 approximately 15 plants were recorded at two sites; 10 plants at K02 (impact site) and 5 plants
at K16 (a control site). M. dimorpha was located at K04 (control site), K09 (impact site) and K10 (control site) in
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 0
2014, however, it was not located at these sites in 2015. Approximately 350 M. dimorpha were recorded in 2012,
2,500 in 2013 and 1,630 in 2014.
The number of plants varies from year to year at both impact and control sites. As the mine has been under care
and maintenance since 2013 the fluctuations in plant numbers are not a result of mining activities. Fewer annual
plants were seen in the general area in 2015 than since monitoring started in 2010. The fluctuations are most
likely due to year to year differences in rainfall and temperature over winter.
Plate 3.3: Growth habit
Plate 3.4: Close-up of flower
3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL WEEDS
Eleven general environmental weed species have been located at the monitoring sites since assessments began:
Acetosa vesicaria, Arctotheca calendula, Cuscuta planiflora, Ehrharta longiflora, Hordeum leporinum, Hypochaeris
glabra, Lamarckia aurea, Monoculus monstrosus, Pentameris airoides, Sonchus oleraceus and Vulpia muralis and
seven of these were located in 2015 (Table 3.1).
Nine weed species were recorded in 2011 (when all 16 sites were assessed for the first time), 2012, 2013 and
2014. In 2015 seven species were recorded and four were not (Arctotheca calendula, Acetosa vesicaria, Hordeum
leporinum and Monoculus monstrosus) (Table 3.1). The monitoring sites where weeds were located in 2015 are
shown on Map 7.4, Section 7.
The sites at which weed species were located in 2014 and 2015 are listed in Table 3.1 along with the number of
plants recorded. The total number of weeds recorded decreased by 5,238 plants between 2014 and 2015. The
number of two species increased between 2014 and 2015 – Hypochaeris glabra by nine plants and Sonchus
oleraceus by 2 plants – while the number of seven species decreased.
The total number of weeds recorded each September since 2012 has varied from a low of 270 in 2015 to a high of
5,705 in 2014. At impact sites the number varied from 169 in 2015 to 3,260 in 2013 and at control sites from 101
in 2015 to 3,289 in 2014 (Table 3.3).
As the monitoring sites are not close to used tracks, the change in weed numbers will be a result of a combination
of factors i.e. baseline weed numbers in the general area, spreading by goats, other animals, wind and water,
differing seasonal conditions (e.g. temperature and rainfall in the weeks before the survey), general population
dynamics and variability in the number of weeds estimated by the botanists.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 1
Table 3.1: Weed species recorded 2014 and 2015
Weeds recorded September 2014 and 2015 Total 2015
Total 2014
Change 2014 to 2015 Species Site (number of plants 2015; 2014)
Acetosa vesicaria K03 (0; 0), K06 (0; 4), K08 (0, 0) 0 4 Decrease
Arctotheca calendula K02 (0; 1), K04 (0; 0), K08 (0; 0), K12 (0; 0) 0 1 Decrease
Cuscuta planiflora K01 (10; 50), K02 (20; 20), K03 (20; 300), K06 (10; 1,000), K07 (1; 100), K08 (1; 500), K09 (0; 100), K11 (0; 10), K14 (0; 150), K16 (5; 10)
67 2,240 Decrease
Ehrharta longiflora K02 (20; 50), K07 (1; 0) 21 50 Decrease
Hypochaeris glabra K02 (30; 20), K05 (0;0), K08 (0; 0) 30 20 Increase
Lamarckia aurea K06 (5; 13), K08 (1; 10) 6 23 Decrease
Pentameris airoides K02 (50; 1,000), K04 (2; 100), K05 (40; 20), K06 (30; 500), K07 (4; 5), K08 (4; 1,000), K09 (2; 20)
132 2,645 Decrease
Sonchus oleraceus K02 (5; 5), K09 (2; 0) 7 5 Increase
Vulpia muralis K02 (5; 500), K05 (2; 20) 7 520 Decrease
Total 270 5,508 Decrease
To protect WA agriculture the Department of Agriculture and Food, WA (DAFWA) regulates harmful plants under
the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007 (BAM Act; GoWA, 2014). Plants that are prevented entry
into WA or have control or keeping requirements within WA are listed on the Western Australian Organism List
(WAOL), which has been created to easily find out the status of organisms that have been classified as part of the
enactment of the BAM Act (DAFWA, 2015).
Organisms are grouped into four main classifications: Declared pests; Permitted; Prohibited; and, Permitted
requiring a permit (DAFWA, 2015). Under the BAM Act, all declared pests are placed in one of three categories,
namely, C1 (exclusion), C2 (eradication) or C3 (management) (DAFWA, 2015b).
The WAOL list was downloaded (DAFWA, 2015) and the weed species located at the monitoring sites were
checked against the list. None of the weed species located at the monitoring sites is listed as Declared Pests in
WA.
Environmental weeds have been ranked by DPaW based on their consequence, risk and management ability.
Current regional rankings summary spreadsheets are not available as they are being revised (DPaW, 2015);
however, the previous Midwest DPaW region rankings summary spread-sheet (DPaW, 2013) is used to provide an
indication of the prioritisation of the weed species located at the assessment sites.
DPaW’s ranking process results in some weed species achieving a very high rank and DPaW’s objective for those
species is eradication. The objective for lower ranks (high, medium and low) can be eradication, control or
containment, while the lowest rank (negligible) requires no action to be taken but the status of the weed to be
monitored. Other species have been listed as requiring further assessment before they can be ranked (DPaW,
2013).
Monoculus monstrosus has the highest rank (medium) of the 11 species that have been recorded at the
monitoring sites (Table 3.2). However, M. monstrosus was not recorded at the monitoring sites in 2014 or 2015.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 2
Table 3.2: Weed species rankings
Species DPaW (2013) rank
Acetosa vesicaria (Ruby Dock) Negligible
Arctotheca calendula (Cape Weed) Low
Cuscuta planiflora (Small-seeded Dodder) Negligible
Ehrharta longiflora (Annual Veldt Grass) Negligible
Hordeum leporinum (Barley Grass) Low
Hypochaeris glabra (Flat Weed) Negligible
Lamarckia aurea (Goldentop) Low
Monoculus monstrosus (Stinking Roger) Medium
Pentameris airoides (False Hairgrass) Low
Sonchus oleraceus (Common Sowthistle) Low
Vulpia muralis (Wall Fescue) Low
The number of weed species recorded at each quadrat from baseline to 2015 is listed in Table 3.3.
The site with most weed species in 2015 was K02 (five). Since baseline assessments the number of weed species
recorded has decreased at three of the 16 sites, has not changed at seven sites and has increased at six sites. Sites
with most weed species are those in the steeper rocky areas favoured by goats (i.e. K02, K06 and K08).
Table 3.3: Number of weed species recorded at each site, baseline to 2015
Site Number of weed species recorded in September each year Change since baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
K01 1 0 0 0 1 1 No change
K02 5 5 5 7 7 5 No change
K03 0 2 2 1 1 1 Increase
K04 0 1 1 1 1 1 Increase
K05 1 1 1 1 3 2 Increase
K06 3 5 5 4 4 3 No change
K07 1 1 2 1 2 3 Increase
K08 2 6 6 2 3 3 Increase
K09 These sites not established in 2010
1 1 0 2 2 Increase
K10 0 0 0 0 0 No change
K11 1 1 0 1 0 Decrease
K12 1 1 0 0 0 Decrease
K13 0 0 0 0 0 No change
K14 1 1 0 1 0 Decrease
K15 0 0 0 0 0 No change
K16 1 1 1 1 1 No change
Number of weed plants recorded each year
Total number of plants 1,846 3,979 5,705 270
Number of plants – impact sites 1,438 3,260 2,416 169
Number of plants – control sites 426 719 3,289 101
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 3
3.3 VEGETATION CONDITION
Based on the vegetation condition scale outlined in the Bush Forever documents (Government of Western
Australia, 2000) the overall baseline vegetation condition rating recorded for each monitoring site was either Very
Good or Excellent (Table 3.4). The Very Good and Excellent ratings were based on the degree of grazing by goats
and the density, type and number of weeds present at the sites. These condition ratings have not changed since
baseline assessments were carried out.
Old exploration tracks and drill pads are common in many of the areas where sites were established.
Table 3.4: Baseline vegetation condition rating at each monitoring site
Overall baseline vegetation condition rating at each monitoring site established
Site Mar-10 Sep-10 Mar-11 Sep-11 Baseline Condition
K01 3 Very good
K02 3 Very good
K03 3 Very good
K04 3 Very good
K05 3 Very good
K06 3 Very good
K07 3 Very good
K08 3 Very good
K09 3 Very good
K10 3 Very good
K11 3 Very good
K12 3 Very good
K13 2 Excellent
K14 2 Excellent
K15 2 Excellent
K16 2 Excellent
Note: See Table 2.2 for an explanation of each condition rating.
3.4 INTRODUCED FAUNA
SMC has had no permanent presence at the mine at Koolanooka since July 2013 and the feral animal sighting
register has not been maintained since that time. While SMC personnel were at site mobs of 20 to 30 goats were
seen on the flats around the hills at the mine (pers. comm. S. Neill, SMC).
Maia has sighted goats on the north-eastern and south-western sides of the hill close to the mine each time a
vegetation monitoring assessment has been carried out. In September 2015 Maia saw 12 goats (adults and kids)
on most days. They were wandering around the pit, over areas to the north-west of the pit and moving from area
to area during the day.
While a fox has been observed by SMC and Maia in the past (2012 and 2013), no foxes were seen in September
2014 or 2015.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 4
3.5 FIRE
No fires have occurred on the hills around the mine since the vegetation was assessed in March 2010. There is no
evidence of recent fire in the vegetation of the TEC surrounding the mine (or further away from the mine on the
same ridge) and the vegetation has not been burnt for a long time – for more than 13 years.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 5
4 RESULTS - MONITORING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASUREMENTS The results for each parameter measured or rated are presented by site and also by treatment group in the
following sections. Overall change results have also been totalled by treatment group and these groups are based
on the location of the sites (impact or non-impact and distance from the pit) and the vegetation communities to
which they belong i.e. K01, K02 and K03 are impact sites that were within a 50 m dust buffer, K04 and K05 were
control sites approximately 1,500 m from the pit and K06 - K08 are control sites closer to the pit (approximately
150 m away). Sites K01 – K08 all belong to DPaW’s FCT 3 and sites K09, K10, K14 and K16 belong to FCT 4. Sites
K09 and K14 were outside the buffer that was in place around the pit but close to the waste dump and were
therefore considered to be impact sites, while sites K10 and K16 were further away from the waste dumps and
were considered to be control sites for that community. Sites K11, K12, K13 and K15 belong to FCT 5. Sites K11
and K13 were relatively close to the waste dump and a track and were regarded as impact sites, while K12 and K15
were control sites for FCT 5.
The results of the statistical analyses carried out on health rank (HR), proportional canopy volume (PCV) and
diameter at breast height (DBH) are included in Appendix 3.
4.1 DUST COVER RATINGS , DUST MONITORING AND RAINFALL
The overall dust cover ratings for the vegetation at each monitoring site are presented in Table 4.1. Highest
baseline dust level ratings were recorded at K09, K10 and K14 (a rating of 1). This is probably because these sites
were established after mining works had started compared with sites K01 to K08 which were established before
mining activities began and had a dust rating of 0. The dust rating did not change between baseline and 2015
assessments at six sites - K04, K10, K11, K12, K13 and K14 – three control and three impact sites. The dust rating
increased by one between baseline and 2015 assessments at nine of the monitoring sites - K01, K02, K03, K05,
K06, K07, K08, K09 and K14 (four impact sites and five control sites). The increase in dust rating does not appear
to be correlated with mining activities because it increased at both impact and control sites.
The maximum increase in dust rating between first assessment and September 2015 was 1, either from an initial
dust rating of 0 or of 1 (on a scale of 0 to 5). The highest dust rating recorded between 2010 and 2015 was 3 at
sites K01 and K02 and these sites are within the 50 m wide dust buffer. A rating of 3 was recorded for the first
time in 2011 and the last time in 2013. The dust rating at the dust buffer sites was 1 in 2015. The highest rating
recorded in 2015 was a 2 at impact site K09 and this rating has not changed since March 2011. The rating is
probably high because the site is close to a waste dump which would have been dusty while the mine was
operational and is now dusty because rehabilitation works have been carried out in the area since 2013.
Between 2014 and 2015 dust levels decreased at five sites and there was no change at 11 sites.
Table 4.1: Overall site dust cover ratings
FCT Treatment and overall site dust cover rating (0-5)
Treatment and FCT
Site Mar-10
Sep-10 Mar-11
Sep-11 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Change: baseline to 2015
Change: 2014 to 2015
Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 Increase No change
K02 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 Increase No change
K03 0 3 3 3 3 2 1 Increase Decrease
Mean 0 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.7 1.3 1.0 Increase Decrease
Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3
K04 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 No change Decrease
K05 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Increase No change
Mean 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 Increase Decrease
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 6
FCT Treatment and overall site dust cover rating (0-5)
Treatment and FCT
Site Mar-10
Sep-10 Mar-11
Sep-11 Sep-12 Sep-13 Sep-14 Sep-15 Change: baseline to 2015
Change: 2014 to 2015
Control 150 m, FCT 3
K06 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Increase No change
K07 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Increase No change
K08 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Increase No change
Mean 0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Increase No change
Impact, outside buffer, FCT 4
K09 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Increase No change
K14 1 2 2 2 1 No change Decrease
Mean NC NC 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 No change Decrease
Control, FCT 4
K10 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 Decrease Decrease
K16 0 1 1 1 1 Increase No change
Mean NC NC 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 Increase Decrease
Impact, outside buffer, FCT 5
K11 0 0 2 0 0 0 No change No change
K13 0 2 0 0 0 No change No change
Mean NC 0 2.0 0 0.0 0 No change No change
Control FCT 5 K12 0 0 0 0 0 0 No change No change
K15 0 1 1 1 0 No change Decrease
Mean NC 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 No change Decrease
Note: 0 = no dust, 5 = vegetation completely and thickly covered with dust, NC = not calculated.
The locations of the six depositional dust gauges that were in place around the mine are shown on Map 7.2,
Section 7. Dust level records were collected at these gauges between 2010 and 2013; however, as the mine is no
longer operational dust levels have not been recorded since July 2013.
Rainfall data recorded at Koolanooka (January 2010 to July 2013) and at Morawa Airport (2013, 2014 and January
to September 2015) are presented in Table 4.2. As rainfall was recorded only up to July in 2013 at the mine, totals
for January to July since 2010 have been included in Table 4.2 to show year to year variability. Morawa Airport
rainfall data for January to September 2013, 2014 and 2015 have been included to provide an indication of the
rains received at Koolanooka in the weeks preceding the monitoring assessments post 2013. Total rainfall
received between January and July and between June and August (winter) has also been calculated for each year
of data in Table 4.2.
Winter rainfall (June to August) was 37.6 mm lower in 2015 than in 2014 and 58.0 mm lower in 2015 than in 2013.
Based on these records the vegetation could be expected to be in poorer condition in 2015 than in September
2013 and September 2014.
Table 4.2: Rainfall records Koolanooka Mine (SMC 2010-2013) and Morawa Airport (BoM, 2015)
Year / Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tot
Koolanooka Mine, SMC records
2010 0 4.1 22.8 4.0 24.5 22.0 31.8 58.8 11.5 0 0 27.2 206.6
January to July 0 4.1 22.8 4.0 24.5 22.0 31.8 109.2
June to August 22.0 31.8 58.8 112.6
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 7
Year / Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tot
Koolanooka Mine, SMC records
2011 26.0 109.5 44.5 14.6 22.4 36.6 53.9 40.0 25.0 42.6 15.5 20.0 450.6
January to July 26.0 109.5 44.5 14.6 22.4 36.6 53.9 307.5
June to August 36.6 53.9 40.0 130.5
2012 25.3 12.0 1.0 17.0 18.0 103.0 40.2 12.5 18.0 4.0 6.5 0 257.5
January to July 25.3 12.0 1.0 17.0 18.0 103.0 40.2 216.5
June to August 103.0 40.2 12.5 155.7
2013 26.0 0 26.5 4.5 73.5 8.5 14.0 No data recorded Aug 2013 onwards 153.0
January to July 26.0 0 26.5 4.5 73.5 8.5 14.0 153.0
June to August 8.5 14.0 No data recorded Aug 2013 onwards
Morawa Airport (station number 008296) (BoM, 2015)
2013 8.2 0 23.8 7.2 79.2 14.8 29.2 44.6 20.0 227.0
January to July 8.2 0 23.8 7.2 79.2 14.8 29.2 162.4
June to August 14.8 29.2 44.6 88.6
2014 7.4 3 3.6 69.4 36.8 20 29.4 18.8 52.0 240.4
January to July 7.4 3 3.6 69.4 36.8 20 29.4 169.6
June to August 20 29.4 18.8 68.2
2015 2.6 0.6 73.2 20.6 14.4 29.6 0.0# 1.0
# 1.8 *143.0
January to July 2.6 0.6 73.2 20.6 14.4 29.6 0.0# 138.4
June to August 29.6 0.0# 1.0
# 30.6
Note:# Indicates months when data missing in 2015 and *Indicates 1 January to 30 September total
4.2 PLANT NUMBERS
Table 4.3 summarises the overall change in the number of live plants ≥ 1 m and < 1 m in height for all of the
species being assessed within the 20 m by 5 m sub-plots at each monitoring site. Overall change is calculated
between first (baseline) and last (2015) assessments and as a proportion of total number of plants measured at
baseline assessment. The total number of deaths and recruits is also listed in Table 4.3 to provide an idea of plant
turnover at each site and in each treatment group. The total overall change in the number of plants ≥ 1 m and
< 1 m in height along with all deaths and recruits for all impact and control sites is also included in Table 4.3.
When the change in number of plants ≥ 1 m in height between baseline and 2015 assessments is expressed as a
percentage of the total number of plants counted at sites in each treatment group, there has been an overall
negative change in the impact dust buffer FCT3 treatment group, control 150 m FCT3 group, control FCT4 group
and the impact outside buffer FCT5 group. In all other treatment groups the change was positive. The change in
number of plants < 1 m in height is positive in all treatment groups.
When total deaths and recruits at sites and treatment groups are compared most deaths have been at the dust
buffer impact FCT 3 group (15) followed by the control FCT 4 group (9) and most recruits have been at the control
1,500 m FCT 3 group (27). When all sites are considered deaths in the control groups (28) have been higher than
those in the impact groups (22) and recruits are higher in the control sites (68) than the impact sites (42);
although, there are more control sites than impact sites.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 8
Table 4.3: Change (baseline to 2015) in live plant numbers (≥ 1m and <1 m) and turnover of dead plants and recruits
Treatment and FCT
Live plants ≥ 1 m Live plants < 1 m Total deaths
Total recruits
Treatment and FCT
Site Increase Decrease Overall Change
Increase Decrease Overall Change
Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01 0 2 -2 0 0 0 2 0
K02 5 2 3 3 2 1 4 8
K03 0 9 -9 11 0 11 9 11
Overall change -8 12 15 19
Change as a % of all plants recorded in treatment group at baseline
-14.29 21.43
Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3
K04 1 2 -1 0 1 -1 3 1
K05 6 0 6 20 4 16 4 26
Overall change 5 15 7 27
Change as a % of all plants recorded in treatment group at baseline
12.50 37.50
Control 150 m, FCT 3
K06 0 3 -3 1 0 0 3 1
K07 0 4 -4 16 0 16 4 16
K08 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2
Overall change -7 18 7 19
Change as a % of all plants recorded in treatment group at baseline
-18.42 47.37
Impact, outside buffer, FCT 4
K09 0 1 -1 0 2 -2 3 0
K14 2 0 2 8 0 8 0 10
Overall change 1 6 3 10
Change as a % of all plants recorded in treatment group at baseline
3.13 18.75
Control, FCT 4
K10 2 7 -5 1 0 1 7 3
K16 2 1 1 6 1 5 2 8
Overall change -4 6 9 11
Change as a % of all plants recorded in treatment group at baseline
-8.51 12.77
Impact, outside buffer, FCT 5
K11 0 1 -1 8 0 8 1 8
K13 0 1 -1 5 2 3 3 5
Overall change -2 11 4 13
Change as a % of all plants recorded in treatment group at baseline
-7.14 39.29
Control FCT 5 K12 0 1 1 3 0 3 1 3
K15 4 3 -1 4 1 3 4 8
Overall change 0 6 5 11
Change as a % of all plants recorded in treatment group at baseline
0 12.77
Impact sites overall number -9 29 22 42
Control sites overall number -6 45 28 68
Note: Deaths = total number of measured and not-measured plants that have died (decreases) since first assessment (2012).
Recruits= total number of measured and not-measured plants that have recruited (increases) since first assessment (2012).
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 1 9
The turnover of plants ≥ 1 m in height and < 1 m in height in the impact and control groups does not appear to
have been affected overly by the mining activities at Koolanooka as there has been an overall increase in plant
numbers at both impact and control sites (20 and 39 respectively).
Measured plant deaths (i.e. ≥ 1 m in height) by treatment group between baseline and 2015 and 2014 and 2015
are summarised in Table 4.4. To date nine shrubs have died at impact sites and 16 at control sites; this indicates
the background turnover in the vegetation of the area.
Table 4.4: Deaths of plants ≥ 1 m tall, baseline (first) to 2015 (last) and 2014 to 2015
Treatment and FCT
Sites Difference between measurements
Deaths
Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01, K02, K03 First to last K01, two Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis that had health ratings of 4 (very unhealthy) when first assessed.
K02, one Melaleuca radula that had a health rank of 2 (good condition) in 2012 and likely died of natural causes. One Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis that has a health rating of 2 (good condition) when first assessed.
K03, one Acacia nigripilosa - no plant found at second assessment, presumed dead. Two Acacia acuminata that had a health rank of 2 (good condition) and has been dead since 2012 and the other plant had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy). One Mirbelia microphylla was dead in 2013, re-sprouted but < 1 m in 2014 and dead in 2015.
K01, K02, K03 2014-2015 K01, no deaths
K02, one Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis
K03, one Acacia acuminata and one Mirbelia microphylla
Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3
K04, K05 First to last K04, two Melaleuca radula - both had health ranks of 2 (good condition) but have been dead since 2011
K05, one Eremophila clarkei that had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy) when first assessed.
K04, K05 2014-2015 K04, no deaths
K05, one Eremophila clarkei
Control 150 m, FCT 3
K06, K07, K08 First to last K06, one Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana that had health ratings of 4 (very unhealthy) when first assessed and has been dead since 2013. One Melaleuca nematophylla that had a health rating of 2 (good condition) when first assessed.
K07, one Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei that had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy) from 2011 to 2012 and died between 2012 and 2013. One Eremophila clarkei that had a health rank of 4 (very unhealthy) when first assessed and in 2013 was under plant measurement height. One Dodonaea inaequifolia that when first assessed had a health rank of 3 (unhealthy).
K08, no deaths
K06, K07, K08 2014-2015 K06, one Melaleuca nematophylla
K07, no deaths
K08, no deaths
Impact, outside buffer, FCT 4
K09, K14 First to last K09, one Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla that had a health rating of 2 (good condition) when first assessed.
K14, no deaths
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 0
Treatment and FCT
Sites Difference between measurements
Deaths
K09, K14 2014-2015 K09, one Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla
K14, no deaths
Control, FCT 4 K10, K16 First to last K10, three Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla - one with a health rating of 2 (good condition) when first assessed, and two that had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy) when first assessed. wo Allocasuarina campestris that had a health rating of 2 each when first assessed and one Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides that has a health rating of 0 (very healthy) when first assessed in 2010.
K16, one Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla that had a health rating of 3 (unhealthy) when first assessed.
K10, K16 2014-2015 K10, one Allocasuarina campestris and one Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides
K16, one Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla
Impact, outside buffer, FCT 5
K11, K13 First to last No deaths
K11, K13 2014-2015 No deaths
Control FCT 5 K12, K15 First to last K12, one Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma that had a health rating of 1 (healthy) when first assessed.
K05, no deaths
K12, K15 2014-2015 K12, one Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma
K05, no deaths
4.3 HEALTH (HR)
HRs recorded at each site are used to calculate a percentage change in health of the plants between assessments
i.e. how many of the plants measured at a site had a higher or lower health rating and how many remained the
same. Table 4.5 summarises the mean change (as a percentage) in the health of the plants assessed at each
monitoring site between baseline and 2015 assessments. The plants measured at eight of the monitoring sites
have become more than 50% less healthy (highlighted rows) since baseline assessments were carried out; five of
the eight are impact sites and three are control sites.
Table 4.5: Change in health by site, baseline to 2015
Group number
Treatment and FCT
Site No. of plants measured consecutively
Healthier (%) Less healthy (%)
No change (%)
1 Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01 14 0 92.9 7.1
K02 22 4.5 81.8 13.6
K03 9 0 77.8 22.2
2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3
K04 12 8.3 50.0 41.7
K05 20 25.0 40.0 35.0
3 Control 150 m, FCT 3
K06 2 100.0 0 0
K07 25 32.0 32.0 36.0
K08 10 10.0 40.0 50.0
4 Impact, ex K09 7 0 100.0 0
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 1
Group number
Treatment and FCT
Site No. of plants measured consecutively
Healthier (%) Less healthy (%)
No change (%)
buffer, FCT 4 K14 11 18.2 27.3 54.5
5 Control, FCT 4 K10 19 0 78.9 21.1
K16 23 8.7 26.1 65.2
6 Impact, ex buffer, FCT 5
K11 9 11.1 88.9 0
K13 11 0 36.4 63.6
7 Control FCT 5 K12 14 0 100.0 0
K15 16 6.3 37.5 56.3
The change in health (expressed as percentage change) between the last two monitoring assessments (2014 and
2015) is shown in Table 4.6. The greatest decrease in health occurred at K09 (100.0%) which is an impact site.
Table 4.6: Change in health by site, 2014 - 2015
Group number
Treatment and FCT Site No. of plants measured consecutively
Healthier (%) Less healthy (%)
No change (%)
1 Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01 14 0 7.1 92.9
K02 22 4.5 18.2 77.3
K03 9 0 0 100.0
2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3
K04 12 16.7 8.3 75.0
K05 19 10.5 10.5 78.9
3 Control 150 m, FCT 3
K06 2 0 0 100.0
K07 24 16.7 16.7 66.7
K08 10 10.0 20.0 70
4 Impact, outside buffer, FCT 4
K09 7 0 100.0 0
K14 11 9.1 18.2 72.7
5 Control, FCT 4 K10 19 5.3 5.3 89.5
K16 23 4.3 17.4 78.3
6 Impact, outside buffer, FCT 5
K11 12 0 8.3 91.7
K13 11 0 0 100.0
7 Control FCT 5 K12 14 21.4 7.1 71.4
K15 16 12.5 6.3 81.3
Table 4.7 lists the mean change in health (expressed as percentage) by treatment group between baseline and
2015 assessments and between 2014 and 2015 assessments. The only treatment group where the plants became
more than 50% less healthy between baseline and 2015 (first to last) assessments is the impact site group within
the dust buffer (group 1, K01, K02 and K03; 84.4% less healthy).
The greatest change in plant health between 2014 and 2015 was in the impact FCT 4 group, where 20% of the
plants were less healthy in 2015 than in 2014.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 2
Table 4.7: Overall change in health by treatment group, baseline to 2015 and 2014 to 2015
Group number
Treatment and FCT
Site Assessment No. of plants rated consecutively
Healthier (%)
Less healthy (%)
No change (%)
1 Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01, K02, K03
First to last 45 2.2 84.4 13.3
2014-2015 45 2.2 11.1 86.7
2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3
K04, K05 First to last 32 13.3 31.1 26.7
2014-2015 31 8.9 6.7 53.3
3 Control 150 m, FCT 3
K06, K07, K08
First to last 37 24.4 26.7 31.1
2014-2015 36 11.1 13.3 55.6
4 Impact, outside buffer, FCT 4
K09, K14 First to last 18 4.4 22.2 13.3
2014-2015 18 2.2 20.0 17.8
5 Control, FCT 4 K10, K16 First to last 42 4.4 46.7 42.2
2014-2015 42 4.4 11.1 77.8
6 Impact, outside buffer, FCT 5
K11, K13 First to last 20 2.2 26.7 15.6
2014-2015 23 0.0 2.2 48.9
7 Control FCT 5 K12, K15 First to last 30 2.2 44.4 20.0
2014-2015 30 11.1 4.4 51.1
The mean HR for all plants repeatedly assessed from baseline to 2015 is listed in Table 4.8. As the scale used for
HR starts at 0 for a healthy plant and increases to 5 to indicate a dead plant, the overall health of consecutively
rated plants had decreased a little in 2015 (2.39) relative to baseline health (1.76).
Table 4.8: Overall mean HR, baseline and 2015
Assessment Number of plants measured consecutively Overall mean HR Standard deviation
Baseline 227 1.76 0.90
2015 2.39 1.00
Table 4.9 summarises the overall mean change in HR by site and treatment group; this data is also presented in
Figure 4.1 (by site) and Figure 4.2 (by treatment group).
The mean change in HR per site was calculated as follows:
(HR in 2015 – initial HR)/number of plants assessed at site.
The group mean change in HR was calculated in the same way:
(HR in 2015 - initial HR)/number of plants assessed in treatment group.
While the scale used for HR starts at 0 for a healthy plant and increases to 5 to indicate a dead plant, the change in
HR between measurement sessions is indicated by negative numbers in Table 4.9 and on Figure 4.1 and 4.2 to
more clearly illustrate changes in health. HR decreased at 15 of the 16 monitoring sites. The greatest decrease in
HR at an individual site was at K09, an impact site, and the greatest decrease in HR in the treatment groups was in
treatment group 1 the impact dust buffer FCT 3 group.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 3
Table 4.9: Change in HR by site and treatment group, baseline to 2015
Group no. Treatment and FCT Site Mean change in HR (baseline to 2015) Group mean
1 Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01 -1.29 -1.18
K02 -1.23
K03 -0.89
2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3 K04 -0.42 -0.25
K05 -0.15
3 Control 150 m, FCT 3 K06 +1.00 -0.22
K07 -0.28
K08 -0.30
4 Impact, outside buffer, FCT 4
K09 -1.86 -0.78
K14 -0.09
5 Control, FCT 4 K10 -0.89 -0.52
K16 -0.22
6 Impact, outside buffer, FCT 5
K11 -0.67 -0.65
K13 -0.64
7 Control FCT 5 K12 -1.21 -0.73
K15 -0.31
Figure 4.1: Mean change in HR (+/- SE) baseline to 2015 - by site (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact sites)
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
K01Imp
K02Imp
K03Imp
K04Con
K05Con
K06Con
K07Con
K08Con
K09Imp
K10Con
K11Imp
K12Con
K13Imp
K14Imp
K15Con
K16Con
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 4
Figure 4.2: Mean change in HR (+/- SE) baseline to 2015 – by treatment group (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact treatments)
Statistical analyses – Health Rating
HR, Baseline to 2015
A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was performed on the data to compare mean HR at baseline and 2015 assessments
The results of the test (Table A3.1, Appendix 3) indicate that HR data collected at baseline and 2015 are not the
same at the 5% significance level (p = <0.0001). Overall, the plants measured were less healthy in 2015 than when
first measured.
HR, Impact and Control Groups
The results of a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test carried out on the impact and control data (Table A3.2, Appendix 3)
indicate that the impact group population health has become less healthy than the control group population
(p = <0.0001).
HR, Floristic Community Types
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups is not significant at the 5% significance level (p = 0.7930)
(Table A3.3, Appendix 3) and there is no difference in HR between FCTs.
HR, Treatment Groups
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the seven treatment groups is significant at the 5% significance level
(p = <0.0001) (Table A3.4, Appendix 3). Therefore the medians of the treatment group populations are not all
equal. Multiple contrasts were carried out (using the Bonferroni correction) to determine between which
treatment group differences occur. The plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites within the dust buffer zone) have
become less healthy than those in treatment groups 2, 3 and 5 (FCT 3 control sites 1,500 m from the pit; FCT 3
control sites 150 m from the pit; FCT 4 control sites).
-1.4
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
K01, K02, K03:Impact, dustbuffer, FCT 3
K04, K05:Control, 1,500 m,
FCT 3
K06, K07, K08:Control, 150 m,
FCT 3
K09, K14:Impact, outside
buffer, FCT 4
K10, K16:Control, FCT 4
K11, K13:Impact, outside
buffer, FCT 5
K12, K15:Control, FCT 5
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 5
4.4 PROPORTIONAL CANOPY VOLUME (PCV)
The measurements for each shrub / tree canopy assessed within the 20 m by 5 m monitoring plots have been used
to estimate the volume of each canopy measured and the change in volume between first (baseline) and last
(September 2015) assessments.
PCVs have been calculated using crown density estimates. Crown density ratings (recorded as a percentage) have
been used to allow for differences in the canopies of the different species measured at each site. Using crown
density estimates in these calculations allows for more accurate canopy volume calculations. Crown density
estimates were first recorded in 2011 and the data collected for each shrub / tree in 2011 was used as baseline
canopy volume data for plants first measured in 2010. While density could have changed a little between the
2010 and 2011 assessments, using the density estimates allows a more accurate assessment of canopy volume to
be calculated than not using them.
The following formulae were used to calculate canopy and proportional canopy volumes:
Canopy volume = (canopy depth) x (north-south width) x (east-west width);
PCV = canopy volume x (crown density/100).
Table 4.10 summarises the estimated total and mean change in PCV (m3) between the baseline (first) and last
(September 2015) monitoring assessments for each monitoring site and each treatment group.
Table 4.10: Change in PCV, baseline to 2015
Group number
Treatment and FCT
Site Total change in PCV (m
3)
Mean change in PCV (m
3)
Standard deviation
1 Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01 -0.69 -0.05 1.34
K02 -10.55 -0.48 1.96
K03 5.16 0.57 1.95
Group -6.09 -0.14 1.79
2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3
K04 2.73 0.23 1.42
K05 -6.34 -0.33 1.03
Group -3.60 -0.12 1.21
3 Control 150 m, FCT 3
K06 -1.86 -0.93 1.05
K07 -3.95 -0.16 0.53
K08 -10.10 -1.01 1.66
Group -15.91 -0.43 1.03
4 Impact, ex buffer, FCT 4
K09 4.56 0.65 1.98
K14 45.03 4.09 6.71
Group 49.59 2.75 5.56
5 Control, FCT 4 K10 -1.68 -0.09 1.46
K16 0.30 0.01 1.41
Group -1.38 -0.03 1.42
6 Impact, ex buffer, FCT 5
K11 -7.60 -0.63 3.63
K13 63.96 5.81 11.16
Group 56.36 2.45 8.61
7 Control FCT 5 K12 106.82 7.63 16.92
K15 108.32 6.77 20.72
Group 215.14 7.17 18.72
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 6
Total and mean PCV increased at eight of the monitoring sites (4 impact and 4 control) and decreased at eight (3
impact and 5 control). The greatest increase in both total and mean canopy volume was recorded at sites K12 and
K15; K15 is a site where large eucalypt trees are measured. The greatest decrease in total PCV was at K02 (impact)
and K08 (control).
Figure 4.3: Mean change in PCV (m3 +/- SE) baseline to 2015 – by monitoring site (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact sites)
Figure 4.4: Mean change in PCV (m3 +/- SE) baseline to 2015 - by treatment group (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact treatments)
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
K01Imp
K02Imp
K03Imp
K04Con
K05Con
K06Con
K07Con
K08Con
K09Imp
K10Con
K11Imp
K12Con
K13Imp
K14Imp
K15Con
K16Con
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
K01, K02, K03:Impact, dustbuffer, FCT 3
K04, K05: Control,1,500 m, FCT 3
K06, K07, K08:Control, 150 m,
FCT 3
K09, K14: Impact,outside buffer,
FCT 4
K10, K16: Control,FCT 4
K11, K13: Impact,outside buffer,
FCT 5
K12, K15: Control,FCT 5
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 7
The total and mean change in PCV is positive in three of the seven treatment groups and negative in four of them.
Largest increase in mean PCV is in the Control FCT 5 group which has large eucalypt trees and largest decrease in
the mean PCV is in the Control 150 m, FCT 3 group.
The mean change in PCV between first (baseline) and 2015 assessments for all plants measured at each site is
shown in Figure 4.3, impact (Imp) and control (Con) sites are indicated. The mean change in PCV between first
and 2015 assessments for each treatment group is shown in Figure 4.4.
Statistical analyses – PCV
PCV, Baseline to 2015
The mean PCV recorded for plants repeatedly assessed from baseline to 2015 are listed in Table A3.6
(Appendix 3); PCV increased between baseline and 2014 assessments.
The results of the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (Table A3.7, Appendix 3) on all plants measured at baseline and
again in 2015 indicate that PCV was larger in 2015 than when first measured i.e. plant crowns have grown
significantly since baseline (p = <0.0001).
PCV, Impact and Control Groups
The result of a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test carried out to compare all impact PCV data with all control PCV data
(Table A3.8, Appendix 3) was not significant (p = 0.2212).
PCV, Floristic Community Types
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for PCV in the different FCT groups is significant at the 5% significance level
(p = 0.0910) (Table A3.9, Appendix 3). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the median of the FCT
populations are equal and there is no difference in PCV between FCTs.
PCV, Treatment Groups
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the treatment groups is not significant at the 5% significance level, the test
statistic is more than 0.05 (p = 0.1067) (Table A3.10, Appendix 3). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the
median of the treatment populations are equal and there is no difference in PCV between treatment groups.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 8
4.5 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH)
DBH was measured only on plants 1.3 m high (i.e. breast height) or taller. The change (between baseline and
latest) in mean DBH data collected at each 20 m by 5 m monitoring site and within each treatment group is
presented in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Change in DBH, baseline to 2015
Group number Treatment and FCT Site Mean change in DBH (mm) Standard deviation
1 Impact, dust buffer, FCT 3
K01 -1.78 4.01
K02 -3.46 7.40
K03 0.61 4.45
Group mean (SD) -2.43 6.16
2 Control, 1,500 m, FCT 3 K04 1.87 6.77
K05 -2.90 11.43
Group mean (SD) 0.01 8.88
3 Control 150 m, FCT 3 K06 3.11 0.00
K07 1.61 9.15
K08 9.71 18.67
Group mean (SD) 4.52 13.19
4 Impact, ex buffer, FCT 4
K09 6.18 18.67
K14 4.72 8.46
Group mean (SD) 5.24 8.51
5 Control, FCT 4 K10 -0.40 19.68
K16 1.28 12.05
Group mean (SD) 0.70 14.78
6 Impact, ex buffer, FCT 5
K11 1.87 16.01
K13 1.77 8.91
Group mean (SD) 1.82 12.57
7 Control FCT 5 K12 3.98 6.35
K15 3.88 8.46
Group mean (SD) 3.95 5.43
The greatest negative change between baseline and 2015 in DBH was at site K02 (-3.46 mm) a dust buffer impact
site. The greatest increase in DBH was at site K08 (9.71 mm) a control site. Negative changes in treatment group
mean DBH between baseline and 2015 occurred in one impact (dust buffer FCT 3 group). Mean DBH increased
between baseline and 2015 in all other groups.
Mean DBH by site and by treatment group is shown in Figure 4.5 and 4.6.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 2 9
Figure 4.5: Mean change in DBH, baseline to 2015 (mm +/- SE) – by site (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact sites)
Figure 4.6: Mean change in DBH, baseline to 2015 (mm +/- SE) – by treatment group (light green bars = control and dark green bars = impact treatments)
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
K01Imp
K02Imp
K03Imp
K04Con
K05Con
K06Con
K07Con
K08Con
K09Imp
K10Con
K11Imp
K12Con
K13Imp
K14Imp
K15Con
K16Con
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
K01, K02, K03:Impact, dust buffer
FCT 3
K04, K05: Control,1,500 m
FCT 3
K06, K07, K08:Control, 150 m
FCT 3
K09, K14: Impact,outside buffer
FCT 4
K10, K16: ControlFCT 4
K11, K13: Impact,outside buffer
FCT 5
K12, K15: ControlFCT 5
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 0
Statistical analyses – Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)
DBH, Baseline to 2015
The mean DBH recorded for those plants assessed each year between baseline and 2015 are listed in Table A3.11
(Appendix 3); there has been a small increase in mean DBH between baseline and 2015 assessments.
The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Table A3.12, Appendix 3) indicate that DBH has significantly
increased since baseline assessment (P = 0.0065) i.e. the plant stems have grown overall since baseline.
DBH, Impact and Control Groups
The results of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Table A3.13, Appendix 3) were not significant (P = 0.1256) and
the independent variable (treatment) had no influence on the change in DBH between impact and control groups.
DBH, Floristic Community Types
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups was significant, the test statistic is less than 0.05
(p = 0.0033 at the 5% significance level) (Table A3.14, Appendix 3). Therefore FCT group DBHs are not the same.
Multiple contrasts, using the Bonferroni correction, were carried out between the three different FCTs to
determine which groups differed. The results of these contrasts are presented in Table A3.15 (Appendix 3).
Significant differences occur between FCT 3 and FCT 4 and the change in DBH between baseline and 2015 in FCT 4
is less than that in FCT 3.
DBH, Treatment Groups
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the treatment groups is significant at the 5% significance level, the test
statistic is less than 0.05 (p = 0.0318) (Table A3.16, Appendix 3). Therefore treatment group DBH changes are not
all equal.
As the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic was significant pairwise multiple contrasts were then carried out between the
different treatment groups (using the Bonferroni correction) to determine which groups differed significantly.
One of the contrasts has a significant p-value when a 5% significance level is used (shaded row in Table A3.17,
Appendix 3) - the contrast between T1 and T4. The change in DBH of plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites
within the dust buffer zone) between baseline and 2015 is less than that in treatment group 4 (FCT 4 impact
outside buffer).
4.6 DUST AND PLANT HEALTH RATINGS
A correlation analysis was carried out to determine whether a relationship exists between change in dust level and
change in mean plant health between baseline and 2015 assessments at the 16 monitoring sites. The non-
parametric Kendall’s tau correlation test was carried out because the data are not linearly related and the data are
ordinal (ranks) rather than continuous.
The result of the Kendall test was not significant at the 5% significance level (n = 16; tau statistic = -0.122; p =
0.5684).
There is therefore no correlation between the two sets of data and they are independent.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 1
4.7 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL ANALYSES RESULTS
Table 4.12 summarises the results of the statistical analyses performed on the HR, PCV and DBH data collected to
date.
Table 4.12: Statistical analyses summary table - change in HR, PCV and DBH since baseline
Factor Baseline and 2015 Impact and control FCTs Treatment groups
HR S (2015 < baseline) S (impact < control) NS S (T1>T2, T3 and T5)
Comment Overall, plants were less healthy in 2015 than at baseline
HR of plants in the impact group decreased more than that in control group
There is no difference in the change in HR in the three FCTs
The mean change in HR between baseline and 2015 is not the same in the seven treatments – the reduction in plant health in T1 is greater than that in T2, T3 and T5
PCV S (2015 > baseline) NS NS NS
Comment Overall, PCV was larger in 2015 than at baseline and the plant crowns have grown
There is no difference between increase in crown size in impact and control groups
There is no difference in the change in PCV in the three FCTs
The change in PCV between baseline and 2015 is the same in the seven treatments
DBH S (2015 > baseline) NS S (FCT 3 > FCT 4) S (T1 < T4)
Comment Plant DBH was greater in 2015 than at baseline i.e. plant trunks/stems have increased in diameter (grown)
There is no difference in the change in DBH between baseline and 2015 in the impact and control groups
The mean change in DBH between baseline and 2015 is not the same in the three FCTs– the change in DBH in FCT 4 is less than that in FCT 3
The change in DBH between baseline and 2015 is not the same in the seven treatments – the change in DBH in T1 is less than that in T4
Notes: FCT = floristic community type, S = significant at the 5% significance level, p < 0.05; NS = not significant.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 2
This page is intentionally blank.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 3
5 CONCLUSIONS, OVERALL COMMENTS AND FUTURE WORK SMC’s Koolanooka mine has been under care and maintenance since July 2013 and the only activities currently
being carried out on the tenements are rehabilitation works and research.
5.1 CONSERVATION S IGNIFICANT SPECIES, WEEDS AND VEGETATION CONDITION
Since monitoring began in 2010 two conservation significant flora species have been located at the monitoring
sites: Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (Priority 1) and Millotia dimorpha (Priority 1). The
number of the perennial species Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka has been relatively constant since baseline and has
increased by one plant. The number of the annual species M. dimorpha recorded varies from year to year. No M.
dimorpha was located at the sites assessed in 2010 or 2011 while approximately 350 plants were recorded in
2012, 2,500 in 2013, 1,630 in 2014 and 30 in 2015. The variation is similar in both impact (100 plants initially
recorded then 2,200 then 1,100 and 10 in 2015) and control sites (250 plants initially recorded then 350 then 530
and 5 in 2015). These year to year fluctuations are not unexpected because M. dimorpha is a small annual species
and numbers would be affected by the species’ population dynamics, seasonal fluctuations (temperatures, rain
received and timing of rain in the weeks before main growing period). Some variation will also come from the
estimation of numbers by the botanists.
Mining activities have not affected the number of conservation significant flora occurring at the
monitoring sites.
Eleven general environmental weed species have been located at the monitoring plots since assessments began
and seven of these 11 species were located in September 2015. Nine weed species were recorded in 2011 (when
all 16 sites were assessed for the first time), 2012, 2013 and 2014. None of the weed species that have been
located to date is a declared species in WA and none have been listed as high risk weeds by DPaW. Sites with
consistently more weed species than others are those in the steep rocky areas favoured by goats (i.e. K02, K06 and
K08).
Mining activities have not affected the number of weed species located each year and none of the species
located at the monitoring sites is a declared plant or has a high DPaW rating.
The total number of weeds recorded each September since 2012 has varied from a low of 270 in 2015 to a high of
5,705 in 2014. At impact sites the number varied from 169 in 2015 to 3,260 in 2013 and at control sites from a
low of 101 in 2015 to a high of 3,289 in 2014.
As the mine is no longer operational and the monitoring sites are not close to used tracks, year to year
variation in weed number will not be a direct result of the mining activities but will be a reflection of a
combination of factors i.e. baseline weed numbers in the general area, spreading by goats and native
animals, dispersion of seed by wind and water, differing seasonal conditions (e.g. temperature and rainfall
in the weeks before the survey), general population dynamics and variation in the number of weeds
estimated by the botanists.
Mining has not affected the overall condition of the vegetation around the mine as the condition rating
for each site has not changed since 2012.
5.2 FIRE AND FERAL ANIMALS
No fires have affected the vegetation around the mine for more than 13 years.
Goats are common around the mine at Koolanooka and the number recorded by Maia has varied from
year to year. Six were recorded in September 2011 and 12 in September 2015; however, as few as 3 and
as many as 20 to 30 were seen by SMC personnel when the mine was operational. A fox was seen by SMC
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 4
and Maia personnel in 2012 and by Maia in 2013 but not in 2014 and 2015. The goats have been on the
hills for many years and their numbers vary from year to year. Maia does not know whether they are
harvested or culled at all but if they were this would affect the numbers seen each year. The fox was
probably attracted to the area looking for food when the mine was operational but it has not been seen
for the past two years; it could have moved away or been killed. Either way, mining activities do not
appear to have led to an increase in the number of feral animals.
5.3 DUST
Between 2014 and 2015 dust levels decreased at five of the 16 sites and there was no change at 11 sites. Highest
dust levels were recorded at sites within the dust buffer when the mine was operational; by September 2015 dust
levels in the buffer were similar to those in the surrounding area and highest dust levels were recorded at the sites
closest to the area where large scale rehabilitation works were carried out in 2015.
As total rainfall was lower in winter 2015 than in winter 2014 it wouldn’t explain the generally lower dust levels;
they are probably a reflection of the fact that only rehabilitation works were carried out in 2015 and ambient dust
levels are lower than they were in the past.
5.4 PLANT NUMBERS
When change between baseline and 2015 assessments in the number of plants ≥ 1 m in height is expressed as a
percentage of the total number of plants counted in each treatment group, there has been an overall reduction in
the impact dust buffer FCT 3 treatment group, the control 150 m FCT 3 group, control FCT 4 group and the impact
outside buffer FCT 5 group. When similar calculations are carried out on plants < 1 m in height there has been an
overall increase in all treatment groups between baseline and 2015.
When total deaths and recruits at sites and in treatment groups are compared, most deaths occurred in the dust
buffer impact FCT 3 group (15) followed by the control FCT 4 group (9), while most recruits were in the control
1,500 m FCT 3 group (27). When deaths and recruits are totalled for impact and control treatments overall,
deaths in the control treatment (28) were higher than those in the impact treatment (22) and recruits were higher
in the control treatment (68) than impact treatment (42).
Deaths that have occurred since baseline of plants ≥ 1 m in height were collated and, to date, nine shrubs have
died at impact sites and 16 at control sites.
The turnover of all plants in the impact treatment sites does not appear to have been affected by the mining
activities at Koolanooka. When the overall change in the impact and control groups is compared there is only a
3.6% difference - the overall increase in plants was 3.6% higher in the control group than the impact group. When
total deaths and total recruits that have occurred between baseline and 2015 are compared in impact and control
groups there have been fewer deaths and recruits in the impact group than in the control group.
The mining activities do not appear to have had a greater effect on population turnover at impact sites
relative to at control sites.
5.5 HEALTH (HR)
The mean change in health (expressed as a percentage) by treatment group between baseline and 2015
assessments and between 2014 and 2015 assessments was calculated. The treatment group in which the health
of the plants decreased the most between baseline and 2015 assessments was the impact site group within the
dust buffer (group 1, 84.4% less healthy). The next highest decrease in health was in the control FCT 4 and FCT 5
sites (46.7% and 44.4% respectively).
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 5
The decrease in health at the impact sites outside the dust buffer was similar to that at the control sites and
therefore the 50 m wide dust buffer was appropriate. The negative change in health of some of the control group
plants highlights the natural background change in plant health in the area generally.
While plant health has generally decreased since baseline assessments were carried out, the change in plant
health between baseline and 2015 differed between impact and control groups; the change in HR in the impact
group population was more negative than the control group population - this change is influenced by the dust
buffer plant health rating which decreased more than other treatments.
The plants within the dust buffer zone were less healthy than those in FCT 3 control sites 1,500 m from the pit;
FCT 3 control sites 150 m from the pit and the FCT 4 control sites. The difference between the other impact sites
and the control groups was not significant. This indicates that a 50 m wide dust buffer zone was appropriate at
Koolanooka, as the plants inside this band have been affected more than those outside the buffer. Differences in
the control groups indicate the general change in health of the vegetation of the different floristic communities of
the area.
The mining at Koolanooka affected the health of the plants within the dust buffer more than at sites
outside the dust buffer. A 50 m wide dust buffer was appropriate in this area.
5.6 PROPORTIONAL CANOPY VOLUME (PCV)
Canopy volume data and analyses indicate that overall: PCV increased between baseline and September 2015
assessments i.e. the plant canopies had grown; there was no difference in the change in PCV between baseline
and 2015 in the impact and control groups; there was no difference in PCV between the three FCT groups; there
was no difference in the paired comparisons between the different treatment groups.
Therefore mining at Koolanooka has not affected the PCV of the plants close to the mine relative to those
further away from the mine.
5.7 DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (DBH)
DBH data and analyses indicate that overall: plant DBH increased significantly between baseline and September
2015 assessments i.e. the plant stems/trunks had grown; there was no difference overall in the change in DBH
between baseline and 2015 in the control and impact groups; there was a difference between the three FCT
groups and the change in DBH between baseline differed in FCT 4 and FCT 3; there was a difference between the
seven treatment groups and the change in DBH of plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites within the dust buffer
zone) between baseline and 2015 is less than that in treatment group 4 (FCT 4 control sites).
Therefore the DBH of the dust buffer impact site plants appears to have been affected by the mining
activities.
5.8 OVERALL COMMENT
A 50 m wide dust buffer was appropriate around the mine at Koolanooka. The plants within the dust buffer were
less healthy than in other areas and the change in DBH in dust buffer plants was less than that of plants in some of
the areas outside the dust buffer, while the PCV of the plants in the dust buffer was no different from that of the
plants further away from the mine.
5.9 FUTURE WORK
The 2015 data and analyses indicate that dust levels are generally decreasing around the mine and that
the health of plants outside the dust buffer appears not to have been affected by the mining activities.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 6
SMC’s mine at Koolanooka has been under care and maintenance since July 2013. Currently only
rehabilitation works and research are being carried out on the mining tenements.
SMC could discuss this monitoring program with DPaW / OEPA and gain permission from the CEO of the
OEPA to amend the current annual monitoring program. The time between monitoring events could be
extended or monitoring could cease once all of the rehabilitation works have been completed in areas
that could potentially affect the health of the vegetation through high dust levels.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 7
6 REFERENCES Analyse‐it Software (2015). Analyse‐it statistical analysis add‐in for Microsoft Excel, Standard Edition v4.20.1. Available:
http://www.analyse–it.com.
ATA Environmental (2004). Notice of Intent, Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) Project Koolanooka Iron Ore Mine. Unpublished
Report for Midwest Corporation (now Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited).
BoM (2015). Morawa Airport climate statistics. Available:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_008296.shtml. Accessed: November, 2015.
Coakes, S. J. and Steed, L. G. (2001). SPSS Analysis without Anguish. John Wiley and Sons Australia.
Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA) (2015). Western Australian Organism List (WAOL). Department of
Agriculture and Food, Perth Western Australia. Available: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/organisms/export/-1.
Accessed: November 2015.
Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) (2013). DPaW Midwest Rankings Summary. Available:
http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/plants/weeds/156-how-does-dpaw-manage-weeds.
Available: Not currently available, was accessed in 2014.
Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) (2015). How does Parks and Wildlife manage weeds? Available:
http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/plants/weeds/156-how-does-dpaw-manage-weeds.
Accessed: November, 2015.
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2009). Statement that a Proposal may be Implemented (Pursuant to
Provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986). Koolanooka/Blue Hills Direct Shipping Iron Ore Mining
Project, Shires of Morawa and Perenjori. Ministerial Statement 811, November 2009. Environmental
Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia.
Executive Steering Committee for Australian Vegetation Information (ESCAVI) (2003). Australian Vegetation Attribute
Manual: National Vegetation Information System, Version 6.0. Department of the Environment and Heritage,
Canberra.
Government of Western Australia (2000). Bush Forever, Volume 2. Directory of Bush Forever Sites, 2000, Government
of Western Australia.
Government of Western Australia (GoWA) (2014). Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007, 2 July 2014,
Version 01-b0-01.
Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia) (2010a). SMC Koolanooka Project. Vegetation Monitoring Program:
Proposed Methodology. Unpublished report prepared for Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited.
Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia) (2010b). SMC Koolanooka Project. Vegetation Monitoring Program:
Monitoring Sites Established in March 2010. Unpublished report prepared for Sinosteel Midwest Corporation
Limited.
Maia Environmental Consultancy Pty Ltd (Maia) (2011). SMC: Koolanooka Mine Vegetation Monitoring, Spring 2011.
Unpublished report prepared for Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited.
Mead, R., Curnow, R. N. and Hasted, A. M. (2000). Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental Biology. Second
Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Meissner, R. & Caruso, Y. (2008). Flora and Vegetation of Banded Ironstone Formations of the Yilgarn Craton:
Koolanooka and Perenjori Hills. Conservation Science W. Aust. 7(1): 73-88.
Townend, J. (2002). Practical Statistics for Environmental and Biological Scientists. John Wiley and Sons, England.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 8
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2005). Field Instructions for the Annual Inventory of Washington,
Oregon, California and Alaska. Supplement For: Phase 3 (FHM) Indicators. Forest Inventory and Analysis
Program, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
University of California Los Angeles, Institute of Digital Research in Education (UCLA, IDRE) (2015). What statistical
analysis should I use? Available: http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mult_pkg/whatstat/. Accessed: November
2015.
Western Australian Herbarium (WAH) (1998-). FloraBase - the Western Australian Flora. Available:
http://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/. Western Australian Herbarium, Department of Parks and Wildlife.
Accessed: November, 2015.
Zar, J. H. (1984). Biostatistical Analysis. Second Edition. Prentice‐Hall, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 3 9
7 MAPS
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 4 0
This page is intentionally blank.
General location!(
!(
!(
PerthGeraldton
Port Hedland !( TownsMajor roadsRailLakes
LocationMap
!(
!(
!(
")")")
")")
")")
")
")")")")")")")")
M 70/1014
M 70/1013
M 70/1012
MUNGADA RD
BELL RD
FALL
ON R
D
KADJI RD
BESTRY RDSETTLEMENT RD
NORT
H RD
MULLEWA WUBIN RD
HILL RD
LOCH
ADA R
D
MORA
WA - Y
ALGO
O RD
MILL
OY R
D
CALVER RD
NORRISH RD
MOFF
ET R
D
SOLO
MON
RD
MUNCKTON RD
LUDLOW RD
MALC
OLM
RD
WHITE RD
JONES LAKE RD
KADJI LAKE RD
OLDE
N RD
BORE
RD
JOHNSON RD
NEATES RD
THREE SPRINGS - MORAWA RD
NORTON RD
MINGENEW MORAWA RD
FITZGERALD RD
PAYN
E RD
ROTHSAY RD
PINTHARUKA WEST RD
LOCHARDA RD
RYAN RD
SHAR
PE R
D
EVAS
IDE
RD
KADJI - MELLENBYE RD
TASS
EFF R
D
HOEY RD
JUDGE RD
VANDELEUR RD MURRAY RD
ODEA
RD
NORTHS RD
VALENTINE RD
BROA
D RD
TAIT RD
ROSS RD
KOOLANOOKA SOUTH RD
KEOGH RD
DREGHORN RD
GARNSWORTHY RD
CLUB
RD
MOORE RD
MULLEWA WUBIN RD
Morawa
Bowgada
390000
400000
410000
420000
430000
440000
450000
6760000
6770000
6780000
6790000
") Maia monitoring sitesTenement boundaries
0 5
KilometresDatum: GDA 1994, MGA 50
±Map: 7.1Prepared for: SMCDrawn by: RHDate: 24/11/2015Version: 1
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 4 2
This page is intentionally blank.
Vegetation monitoring sites!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Perth
WilunaNewman
GeraldtonKalgoorlie
Port Hedland
Major roads
LocationMap
421500
423000
424500
6769500
6771000
Maia monitoring sites") Control") Impact# DPaW sites
Previous dust monitoring sites (not in use since 2015)Koolanooka TEC boundary
Tenement boundariesAccess tracksDust BufferWaste dumps
0 0.375
KilometresDatum: GDA 1994, MGA 50
±Map: 7.2Prepared for: SMCDrawn by: RHDate: 24/11/2015Version: 1
Service Layer Credits: © 2010 DigitalGlobe© 2010 GeoEye Earthstar GeographicsSIO © 2015 Microsoft Corporation
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 4 4
This page is intentionally blank.
Conservation significant flora!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Perth
WilunaNewman
GeraldtonKalgoorlie
Port Hedland
Major roads
LocationMap
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")K16
K15
K14
K13
K12
K11
K10
K09
K08
K07
K06
K05
K04
K03
K02
K01
Millotia dimorpha (P1)
Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (P1)Millotia dimorpha (P1)
Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (P1)
422000
423000
424000
425000
6770000
6771000
Maia monitoring sites") Control") Impact
Tenement boundaries
0 0.25
KilometresDatum: GDA 1994, MGA 50
±Map: 7.3Prepared for: SMCDrawn by: RHDate: 24/11/2015Version: 1
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 4 6
This page is intentionally blank.
Weeds!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Perth
WilunaNewman
GeraldtonKalgoorlie
Port Hedland
Major roads
LocationMap
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Cuscuta planifloraLamarckia aureaPentameris airoides
K16
K15
K14
K13
K12
K11
K10
K09
K08
K07
K06
K05
K04
K03
K02
K01
Cuscuta planifloraLamarckia aureaPentameris airoides
Cuscuta planiflora
Pentameris airoidesSonchus oleraceus
Pentameris airoidesVulpia muralis
Cuscuta planiflora
Cuscuta planiflora
Pentameris airoides
Cuscuta planifloraEhrharta longifloraPentameris airoides
Cuscuta planifloraEhrharta longifloraHypochaeris glabraPentameris airoidesSonchus oleraceusVulpia muralis
422000
423000
424000
425000
6770000
6771000
Maia monitoring sites") Control") Impact
Tenement boundaries
0 0.25
KilometresDatum: GDA 1994, MGA 50
±Map: 7.4Prepared for: SMCDrawn by: RHDate: 24/11/2015Version: 1
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 4 8
This page is intentionally blank.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 4 9
APPENDIX 1: MONITORING SITE COORDINATES
Table A1.1: Coordinates for vegetation monitoring sites (GDA94, MGA50)
Site
North-east North-west South-east South-west
Easting (mE)
Northing (mN)
Easting (mE)
Northing (mN)
Easting (mE)
Northing (mN)
Easting (mE)
Northing (mN)
K1 422844 6771399 422836 6771382 422860 6771389 422852 6771374
K2 423015 6771023 423007 6771017 423033 6771011 423017 6771002
K3 423068 6771225 423047 6771222 423066 6771204 423046 6771200
K4 424260 6769610 424242 6769610 424260 6769589 424244 6769588
K5 424079 6769805 424062 6769794 424090 6769788 424070 6769776
K6 423092 6771339 423076 6771344 423090 6771321 423067 6771324
K7 423232 6771029 423215 6771029 423236 6771009 423219 6771008
K8 422893 6771486 422878 6771490 422890 6771469 422871 6771474
K9 422967 6770848 422946 6770851 422962 6770832 422942 6770831
K10 423021 6770684 423012 6770673 423039 6770676 423029 6770661
K11 422788 6770500 422769 6770492 422796 6770480 422777 6770476
K12 422998 6770289 422978 6770285 423002 6770270 422982 6770263
K13 422815 6770422 422795 6770415 422823 6770404 422804 6770395
K14 422925 6770720 422905 6770726 422916 6770699 422898 6770707
K15 422945 6770389 422928 6770380 422956 6770372 422939 6770362
K16 423092 6770628 423079 6770615 423107 6770615 423092 6770601
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 0
This page is intentionally blank.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 1
APPENDIX 2: SITE SHEETS
Note: In the following site sheets, sp. = species, subsp. = subspecies, var. = variety, P1 = Priority 1 species, RE =
range extension and * indicates an introduced species.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 2
This page is intentionally blank.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 3
Site: K01 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: North facing gentle slope.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: BIF (banded iron formation) - exposed rock/plates 10%, boulders/stones 80%.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 2, Leaf litter – 4, Wood litter – 3.
Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis and Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa with an Open Mid Shrubland of Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa and Isolated Low Shrubs of Dodonaea inaequifolia.
Disturbance Details: Previously disturbed by exploration activities; signs of rehab in the area.
Vegetation Condition: Very Good (3) Dust Cover: 2 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Monachather paradoxus
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Myriocephalus guerinae
Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa Podolepis canescens
Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Ptilotus gaudichaudii
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Arthropodium dyeri Thysanotus manglesianus
Astroloma serratifolium Trachymene ornata
Austrostipa elegantissima Velleia rosea
Blennospora drummondii Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Calandrinia polyandra
Calycopeplus paucifolius
Crassula colorata
*Cuscuta planiflora
Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides
Dioscorea hastifolia
Dodonaea inaequifolia
Feldstonia nitens
Goodenia occidentalis
Grevillea paradoxa
Melaleuca nematophylla
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 4
Site: K02 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: West facing mid slope of a minor gully.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: BIF - stones and boulders.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 1, Leaf litter – 3, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Open Low Woodland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana with an Open Mid Shrubland of Acacia exocarpoides, Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis and Isolated Low Shrubs of Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides.
Disturbance Details: Goats and weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Very Good (3) Dust Cover: 3 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis *Hypochaeris glabra
Acacia exocarpoides Lawrencella davenportii
Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa Lawrencella rosea
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (P1)
*Arctotheca calendula Melaleuca radula
Astroloma serratifolium Millotia dimorpha (P1)
Austrostipa elegantissima *Monoculus monstrosus
Austrostipa scabra Myriocephalus guerinae
Bromus arenarius *Pentameris airoides
Calandrinia polyandra Podolepis lessonii
Calothamnus gilesii Rhodanthe battii
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Rhyncharrhena linearis
*Cuscuta planiflora Schoenia cassiniana
Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata Solanum cleistogamum
Dioscorea hastifolia *Sonchus oleraceus
Dodonaea inaequifolia Trachymene ornata
Drosera macrantha *Vulpia muralis
*Ehrharta longiflora Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Erodium cygnorum
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 5
Site: K03 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Low relief upper to midslope.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 2, Leaf litter – 3, Wood litter – 3.
Vegetation Sub-association: Open Tall Shrubland of Acacia acuminata with a Sparse Mid Shrubland of Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa and Sparse Low Shrubland of Grevillea paradoxa.
Disturbance Details: Goats and weeds. Old exploration tracks in area and small stockpiles/bunds throughout this area.
Vegetation Condition: Very Good (3) Dust Cover: 3 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Rhodanthe battii
Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Sida sp. Golden calyces glabrous (H.N. Foote 32)
*Acetosa vesicaria Solanum cleistogamum
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Solanum lasiophyllum
Astroloma serratifolium Stylidium confluens
Austrostipa elegantissima Trachymene ornata
Bellida graminea Velleia rosea
Calandrinia polyandra Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Calycopeplus paucifolius
*Cuscuta planiflora
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata
Dioscorea hastifolia
Erodium cygnorum
Goodenia occidentalis
Grevillea paradoxa
Lawrencella davenportii
Mirbelia microphylla
Monachather paradoxus
Myriocephalus guerinae
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 6
Site: K04 Size: 20 x 20 m
Habitat: Upperlope of southern range.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone - small boulders, stones and gravel.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 3, Leaf litter – 1, Wood litter – 3.
Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana with an Open Mid Shrubland of Melaleuca radula, Open Low Shrubland of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei and Open Low Woodland of Acacia acuminata.
Disturbance Details: Old exploration activities; goats and weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 0 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Lobelia winfridae
Acacia coolgardiensis Melaleuca nematophylla
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Melaleuca radula
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Millotia dimorpha (P1)
Amphipogon caricinus var. caricinus Mirbelia microphylla
*Arctotheca calendula Monachather paradoxus
Arthropodium dyeri *Pentameris airoides
Austrostipa elegantissima Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Pimelea angustifolia
Crassula colorata Podolepis lessonii
Dioscorea hastifolia Poranthera leiosperma (RE)
Dodonaea inaequifolia Ptilotus polystachyus
Erodium cygnorum Rhodanthe polycephala
Eucalyptus ebbanoensis subsp. ebbanoensis Ricinocarpos muricatus
Goodenia mimuloides Ricinocarpos velutinus
Goodenia occidentalis Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Goodenia pinnatifida Solanum cleistogamum
Grevillea levis Solanum lasiophyllum
Halgania cyanea var. Allambi Stn (B.W. Strong 676) Trachymene ornata
Hemigenia sp. Yalgoo (A.M. Ashby 2624) Velleia rosea
Hydrocotyle pilifera var. glabrata Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Lawrencella davenportii Xanthosia kochii
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 7
Site: K05 Size: 20 x 20 m
Habitat: Upperslope (negligible slope) of southern ridge.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone - boulders and stones.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 2, Leaf litter – 2, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Melaleuca nematophylla with an Open Mid Shrubland of Eremophila clarkei and Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei, Low Open Woodland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana and Sparse Low Shrubland of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei.
Disturbance Details: Evidence of previous exploration; goats and weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 1 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Lobelia winfridae
Acacia exocarpoides Lomandra collina
Acacia tetragonophylla Melaleuca nematophylla
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Mirbelia microphylla
Arthropodium dyeri Myriocephalus guerinae
Austrostipa elegantissima *Pentameris airoides
Brachyscome ciliocarpa Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei
Calandrinia sp. Blackberry (D.M. Porter 171) Pimelea angustifolia
Calycopeplus paucifolius Podolepis lessonii
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Ptilotus obovatus
Comesperma volubile Ptilotus polystachyus
Crassula colorata Rhodanthe battii
Dioscorea hastifolia Rhodanthe polycephala
Dodonaea inaequifolia Scaevola spinescens
Eremophila clarkei Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Erodium cygnorum Solanum cleistogamum
Goodenia pinnatifida Solanum lasiophyllum
Grevillea paradoxa Trachymene ornata
Hakea recurva subsp. recurva *Vulpia muralis
*Hypochaeris glabra Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Lawrencella davenportii Wahlenbergia preissii
Lawrencella rosea Xanthosia kochii
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 8
Site: K06 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Upper rocky slope (moderate slope).
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: BIF - stones, boulders and surface plates.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 1, Leaf litter – 2, Wood litter – 3.
Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Melaleuca nematophylla with a Low Open Woodland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana, Sparse Mid Shrubland of Dodonaea inaequifolia and Melaleuca nematophylla and Sparse Low Shrubland of Ptilotus obovatus.
Disturbance Details: Goats and weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Very Good (3) Dust Cover: 1 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Abutilon oxycarpum Erodium cygnorum
Acacia exocarpoides Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila
Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa Goodenia pinnatifida
Acacia tetragonophylla Grevillea paradoxa
*Acetosa vesicaria Hakea recurva subsp. recurva
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana *Hordeum leporinum
Aristida contorta *Lamarckia aurea
Austrostipa elegantissima Maireana planifolia
Austrostipa trichophylla Melaleuca nematophylla
Brachyscome ciliocarpa Monachather paradoxus
Bromus arenarius *Pentameris airoides
Calandrinia sp. Blackberry (D.M. Porter 171) Ptilotus gaudichaudii
Calotis hispidula Ptilotus obovatus
Calycopeplus paucifolius Ptilotus polystachyus
Cheilanthes lasiophylla Rhodanthe battii
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
*Cuscuta planiflora Sida sp. Golden calyces glabrous (H.N. Foote 32)
Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Solanum cleistogamum
Dioscorea hastifolia Solanum lasiophyllum
Dodonaea inaequifolia Trachymene ornata
Dysphania melanocarpa forma melanocarpa Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 5 9
Site: K07 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Upper slope of northern ridge. Slope negligible. N -NE facing slope.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone and BIF.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 1, Leaf litter – 3, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Open Low Woodland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana with an Open Mid Shrubland of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei, Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia acuminata and Sparse Low Shrubland of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei.
Disturbance Details: Weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 1 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Melaleuca nematophylla
Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Mirbelia microphylla
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Monachather paradoxus
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Myriocephalus guerinae
Austrostipa elegantissima *Pentameris airoides
Calandrinia eremaea Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei
Calotis hispidula Rhodanthe battii
Calycopeplus paucifolius Rhodanthe polycephala
Comesperma integerrimum Scaevola spinescens
*Cuscuta planiflora Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Solanum cleistogamum
Dioscorea hastifolia Solanum lasiophyllum
Dodonaea inaequifolia Thysanotus manglesianus
Eremophila clarkei Trachymene ornata
*Ehrharta longiflora Velleia rosea
Erodium cygnorum Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Grevillea paradoxa Xanthosia kochii
Lawrencella davenportii
Lawrencella rosea
Lobelia winfridae
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 0
Site: K08 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Midslope northern end of range, 120 m from NE of site K1 in buffer.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Ironstone - stones and boulders.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 1, Leaf litter – 3, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana with a Sparse Mid Shrubland of Calycopeplus paucifolius and Isolated Low Shrubs of Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei.
Disturbance Details: Grazing by goats and weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 1 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Abutilon oxycarpum *Lamarckia aurea
Acacia exocarpoides Maireana planifolia
Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa Melaleuca nematophylla
Acacia tetragonophylla Monachather paradoxus
*Acetosa vesicaria *Pentameris airoides
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Podolepis lessonii
*Arctotheca calendula Ptilotus gaudichaudii
Austrostipa elegantissima Ptilotus obovatus
Calandrinia sp. Blackberry (D.M. Porter 171) Ptilotus polystachyus
Calycopeplus paucifolius Rhodanthe battii
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Rhodanthe polycephala
Crassula colorata Senna glutinosa subsp. chatelainiana
*Cuscuta planiflora Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Sida sp. Golden calyces glabrous (H.N. Foote 32)
Dioscorea hastifolia Solanum cleistogamum
Erodium cygnorum Solanum lasiophyllum
Euphorbia tannensis subsp. eremophila Trachymene ornata
Goodenia berardiana Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Hakea recurva subsp. recurva
*Hypochaeris glabra
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 1
Site: K09 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Fan at the base of a gully - west facing.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Granite 80% composition - stones.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 2, Leaf litter – 4, Wood litter – 3.
Vegetation Association: Tall Shrubland of Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla with a Sparse Mid Shrubland of Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides and Sparse Low Shrubland of Xanthosia kochii.
Disturbance Details: Goat tracks, rabbits, weeds and track to west approximately 20 m away.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 2 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis *Pentameris airoides
Acacia exocarpoides Podolepis lessonii
Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Rhodanthe polycephala
Aristida contorta Solanum cleistogamum
Arthropodium dyeri Solanum lasiophyllum
Astroloma serratifolium Trachymene ornata
Austrostipa elegantissima Velleia discophora
Blennospora drummondii Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Xanthosia kochii
*Cuscuta planiflora
Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata
Drosera macrantha
Erodium cygnorum
Goodenia occidentalis
Lawrencella davenportii
Lobelia heterophylla
Millotia dimorpha (P1)
Monachather paradoxus
Myriocephalus guerinae
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 2
Site: K10 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: West facing (moderate) slope.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Granite.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 2, Leaf litter – 4, Wood litter – 3.
Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla with a Low Open Woodland of Allocasuarina campestris, Sparse Low Shrubland of Xanthosia bungei and Isolated Mid Shrubs of Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides.
Disturbance Details: Goats, track nearby, water erosion.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 1 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Isotoma ?pusilla
Acacia coolgardiensis Lawrencella davenportii
Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Lepidosperma sp. Koolanooka (K.R. Newbey 9336) (P1)
Allocasuarina campestris Melaleuca cordata
Amphipogon caricinus var. caricinus Millotia dimorpha (P1)
Arthropodium dyeri Mirbelia microphylla
Astroloma serratifolium Monachather paradoxus
Austrostipa elegantissima Myriocephalus guerinae
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Ricinocarpos muricatus
Cyanicula amplexans Stylidium confluens
Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Thysanotus manglesianus
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata Trachymene ornata
Drosera macrantha Velleia discophora
Erodium cygnorum Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Gonocarpus nodulosus Xanthosia bungei
Goodenia occidentalis
Grevillea paradoxa
Hemigenia ciliata
Hibbertia arcuata
Hyalosperma demissum
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 3
Site: K11 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Undulating gravelly plain at the base of the footslope.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Laterite gravel and stones.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 3, Leaf litter – 2, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Low Open Mallee Woodland of Eucalyptus horistes with a Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia anthochaera and Acacia acuminata, Sparse Low Shrubland of Acacia andrewsii and Isolated Low Trees of Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis.
Disturbance Details: Old exploration tracks, ripped and rehabbed. Fox sighted in 2012 & 2013. Weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 0 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Maireana planifolia
Acacia andrewsii Mirbelia microphylla
Acacia anthochaera Monachather paradoxus
Acacia tetragonophylla Myriocephalus guerinae
Austrostipa elegantissima Olearia dampieri subsp. eremicola
Brunonia australis Ptilotus gaudichaudii
Calotis hispidula Ptilotus obovatus
Cephalipterum drummondii Ptilotus polystachyus
*Cuscuta planiflora Rhagodia drummondii
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata Rhodanthe polycephala
Dodonaea inaequifolia Schoenia cassiniana
Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Eremophila clarkei Thysanotus manglesianus
Erodium cygnorum Trachymene ornata
Eucalyptus horistes Velleia discophora
Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis Velleia rosea
Feldstonia nitens Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Hakea recurva subsp. recurva
Lawrencella davenportii
Maireana carnosa
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 4
Site: K12 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Lower footslopes of main range, almost an undulating stony plain.
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Laterite pebbles, gravel and stones.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 3, Leaf litter – 2, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Open Mid Shrubland of Eremophila clarkei with an Open Low Shrubland of Mirbelia microphylla and Low Open Mallee Woodland of Eucalyptus oldfieldii and Eucalyptus horistes.
Disturbance Details: Evidence of previous clearing and rehab evident from mining activities 20+ years ago. The soil has been ripped and there are deep uniform furrows across the entire area. Weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 0 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Marsdenia australis
Acacia andrewsii Monachather paradoxus
Acacia anthochaera Myriocephalus guerinae
Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Olearia humilis
Acacia coolgardiensis Ptilotus obovatus
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Rhagodia drummondii
*Arctotheca calendula Scaevola spinescens
Austrostipa elegantissima Trachymene ornata
Calotis hispidula Velleia discophora
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Dodonaea inaequifolia
Eremophila clarkei
Eucalyptus horistes
Eucalyptus oldfieldii
Feldstonia nitens
Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma
Hemigenia sp. Yalgoo (A.M. Ashby 2624)
Hibbertia arcuata
Maireana carnosa
Maireana georgei
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 5
Site: K13 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Lower footslope (Negligible to very gentle slope).
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Many ironstone and laterite pebbles with stones.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 4, Leaf litter – 3, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Low Open Mallee Woodland of Eucalyptus horistes with a Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia anthochaera, Sparse Low Shrubland of Acacia andrewsii and Mirbelia microphylla and Isolated Low Shrubs of Eremophila clarkei.
Disturbance Details: Fenceline and track nearby.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 0 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Rhagodia drummondii
Acacia andrewsii Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Acacia anthochaera Solanum lasiophyllum
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Stenopetalum anfractum
Arthropodium dyeri Velleia discophora
Austrostipa elegantissima Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Mirbelia microphylla
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata
Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa
Eremophila clarkei
Eucalyptus horistes
Feldstonia nitens
Hakea recurva subsp. recurva
Maireana carnosa
Maireana georgei
Monachather paradoxus
Olearia humilis
Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei
Pimelea angustifolia
Ptilotus obovatus
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 6
Site: K14 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Lower footslope (negligible to very gentle slope).
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Continuous laterite with ironstone pebbles and stones.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 3, Leaf litter – 3, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Open Tall Shrubland of Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla with Isolated Mid Shrubs of Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis and Isolated Low Shrubs of Xanthosia kochii.
Disturbance Details: Weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 2 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Rhodanthe polycephala
Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Solanum cleistogamum
Aluta aspera subsp. hesperia Stylidium confluens
Aristida contorta Thysanotus manglesianus
Arthropodium dyeri Trachymene ornata
Bellida graminea Velleia rosea
Brunonia australis Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Xanthosia kochii
*Cuscuta planiflora
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata
Erodium cygnorum
Goodenia occidentalis
Grevillea paradoxa
Lawrencella davenportii
Lobelia heterophylla
Melaleuca cordata
Mirbelia microphylla
Monachather paradoxus
Myriocephalus guerinae
Podolepis lessonii
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 7
Site: K15 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Lower slope to plain (very gentle slope).
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Continuous ironstone with laterite pebbles.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 4, Leaf litter – 2, Wood litter – 2.
Vegetation Association: Low Open Mallee Woodland of Eucalyptus oldfieldii and Eucalyptus horistes with Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis with a Sparse Tall Shrubland of Acacia acuminata, Sparse Mid Shrubland of Scaevola spinescens and Eremophila clarkei and Sparse Low Shrubland of Acacia andrewsii and Mirbelia microphylla.
Disturbance Details: Evidence of feral animals.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 1 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia acuminata Ptilotus obovatus
Acacia andrewsii Rhagodia drummondii
Acacia anthochaera Rhodanthe polycephala
Acacia assimilis subsp. assimilis Scaevola spinescens
Acacia nigripilosa subsp. nigripilosa Sida sp. dark green fruits (S. van Leeuwen 2260)
Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. prinsepiana Thysanotus manglesianus
Alyxia buxifolia Trachymene ornata
Arthropodium dyeri Velleia discophora
Austrostipa elegantissima Velleia rosea
Comesperma volubile Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Dianella revoluta var. divaricata
Dodonaea inaequifolia
Eremophila clarkei
Eucalyptus horistes
Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis
Eucalyptus oldfieldii
Hemigenia sp. Yalgoo (A.M. Ashby 2624)
Lawrencella davenportii
Maireana carnosa
Mirbelia microphylla
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 8
Site: K16 Size: 20 x 20 m Habitat: Footslope (gentle to moderate slope).
Soil: Red-orange clay loam. Rock Type: Laterite with ironstone stones with some pebbles and boulders.
Ground Cover: Bare ground – 3, Leaf litter – 3, Wood litter – 3.
Vegetation Association: Tall Shrubland Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla with Melaleuca cordata with a Sparse Mid Shrubland of Allocasuarina campestris and Sparse Low Shrubland of Xanthosia bungei.
Disturbance Details: Track nearby; goats; weeds.
Vegetation Condition: Excellent (2) Dust Cover: 1 Fire Age: None evident
Species
Acacia stereophylla var. stereophylla Lawrencella davenportii
Allocasuarina campestris Lobelia heterophylla
Amphipogon caricinus var. caricinus Melaleuca cordata
Arthropodium dyeri Melaleuca nematophylla
Astroloma serratifolium Melaleuca uncinata
Austrostipa elegantissima Millotia dimorpha (P1)
Brachyscome ciliocarpa Mirbelia microphylla
Brunonia australis Monachather paradoxus
Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei
*Cuscuta planiflora Solanum cleistogamum
Cyanicula amplexans Stenopetalum anfractum
Daviesia hakeoides subsp. hakeoides Stylidium confluens
Dioscorea hastifolia Stypandra glauca
Diuris corymbosa Thysanotus manglesianus
Drosera macrantha Trachymene ornata
Gonocarpus nodulosus Velleia rosea
Goodenia occidentalis Waitzia acuminata var. acuminata
Grevillea obliquistigma subsp. obliquistigma Xanthosia bungei
Grevillea paradoxa
Hibbertia arcuata
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 6 9
APPENDIX 3: STATISTICAL ANALYSES – HR, PCV AND DBH
Statistical analyses – Health Rating (HR)
HR, Baseline to 2015
Plant HR data are not normal, the data is ordinal and the measurements are repeated on the same plants. As a
result a Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was performed on the data to compare mean HR at baseline and 2015
assessments. The following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The shift in the location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.
HA: The shift in the location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.
The results of the test (Table A3.1) indicate that HR data collected at baseline and 2015 are not the same at the
5% significance level (p = <0.0001). Overall, the plants were less healthy in 2015 than when first measured.
Table A3.1: Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, HR baseline and 2015
Sign n Rank sum Mean rank
Positive 24 1538.0 64.08
Negative 127 9938.0 78.25
Zero 76
Median difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) -0.5
95.02% Cl -0.5 to -0.5
T statistic 1538.00
Z approximation -8.28
p-value <0.0001
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, Cl = confidence interval.
Tests were carried out to determine whether the change in HR between baseline and 2015 assessments differed
between impact and control groups, treatment groups (1 – 7) and between the three FCTs (FCT 3, FCT 4 and FCT
5). The results of these analyses follow. Treatment group numbers (1 – 7) used and discussed in the following
section are those indicated in column 1 of Table 4.9.
HR, Impact and Control Groups
To determine whether there are differences in change in HR between impact and control groups the non-
parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was performed on the data (because they are not normal and sample
size not equal). The following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.
HA: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.
The results of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Table A3.2) indicate that the shift in location between the
distributions of the populations is not equal to 0 when tested at the 5% significance level (p = <0.0001). The
impact group population health has become more negative than the control group population.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 0
Table A3.2: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, change in HR, impact and control
Treatment and test results n Rank sum Mean rank
Impact 86 7818.0 90.91
Control 141 18060.0 128.09
Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) -1.0
95.02% CI -1.0 – 0.0
W statistic 7818.00
Z approximation -4.38
p-value <0.0001
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, Cl = confidence interval.
HR, Floristic Community Types
The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the HR data to determine whether the change in plant
health between baseline and 2015 assessments is the same in each of the FCTs. The null and alternative
hypotheses tested were:
HO: The median of the FCT populations are all equal.
HA: The median of the FCT populations are not all equal.
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups is not significant at the 5% significance level (p = 0.7930)
(Table A3.3). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the median of the FCT populations are equal and there is
no difference in HR between FCTs.
Table A3.3: Kruskal-Wallis test, change in HR, FCTs
FCT and test results n Rank sum Mean rank
FCT 3 114 80.8 0.71
FCT 4 60 440.1 7.34
FCT 5 53 1260.8 23.79
Kruskal-Wallis' statistic (H statistic) 0.46
X2 approximation 0.46
DF 2
p-value 0.7930
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, X2 = chi squared.
HR, Treatment Groups
The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the HR data to determine whether the change in plant
health between baseline and 2015 assessments is the same in each of the seven treatment groups. The null and
alternative hypotheses tested were:
HO: The median of the treatment group populations are all equal.
HA: The median of the treatment group populations are not all equal.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 1
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the seven treatment groups is significant at the 5% significance level
(p = <0.0001) (Table A3.4). Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted –
the medians of the treatment group populations are not all equal.
Table A3.4: Kruskal-Wallis test, change in HR, treatment group
Treatment and test results n Rank sum Mean rank
1 45 73649.3 1636.65
2 32 15753.1 492.29
3 37 39341.7 1063.29
4 18 1104.5 61.36
5 42 2193.1 52.22
6 23 26.1 1.13
7 30 1825.2 60.84
Kruskal-Wallis' statistic (H statistic) 34.85
X2 approximation 34.85
DF 6
p-value <0.0001
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, X2 = chi squared, DF = degrees of freedom.
As the result of the Kruskal-Wallis test was significant, multiple contrasts were carried out (using the Bonferroni
correction) to determine between which treatment group differences in the medians occur. The results of these
contrasts are listed in Table A3.5. Three of the contrasts have a significant p-value (<0.05) when a 5% significance
level is used (shaded rows in Table A3.5). The plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites within the dust buffer zone)
have become less healthy than those in treatment groups 2, 3 and 5 (FCT 3 control sites 1,500 m from the pit; FCT
3 control sites 150 m from the pit; FCT 4 control sites).
Table A3.5: Multiple contrasts (change in HR from baseline to 2015, treatment groups) - using Bonferroni
correction
Contrast Difference p-value
Change in HRT1 v Change in HRT2 -62.6431 0.0001
Change in HRT1 v Change in HRT3 -73.0637 <0.0001
Change in HRT1 v Change in HRT4 -32.6222 0.9263
Change in HRT1 v Change in HRT5 -47.6817 0.0033
Change in HRT1 v Change in HRT6 -39.3903 0.1762
Change in HRT1 v Change in HRT7 -32.6556 0.3637
Change in HRT2 v Change in HRT3 -10.4206 1.0000
Change in HRT2 v Change in HRT4 30.0208 1.0000
Change in HRT2 v Change in HRT5 14.9613 1.0000
Change in HRT2 v Change in HRT6 23.2527 1.0000
Change in HRT2 v Change in HRT7 29.9875 0.8883
Change in HRT3 v Change in HRT4 40.4414 0.3287
Change in HRT3 v Change in HRT5 25.3819 1.0000
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 2
Contrast Difference p-value
Change in HRT3 v Change in HRT6 33.6733 0.6133
Change in HRT3 v Change in HRT7 40.4081 0.1015
Change in HRT4 v Change in HRT5 -15.0595 1.0000
Change in HRT4 v Change in HRT6 -6.7681 1.0000
Change in HRT4 v Change in HRT7 -0.0333 1.0000
Change in HRT5 v Change in HRT6 8.2914 1.0000
Change in HRT5 v Change in HRT7 15.0262 1.0000
Change in HRT6 v Change in HRT7 6.7348 1.0000
Note: HRT1 to HRT7 = health rating treatment groups 1 – 7.
Statistical analyses – Projected Canopy Volume (PCV)
PCV, Baseline to 2015
Before any statistical analyses were carried out the data checks were carried out. Three outliers in the FCT 5
control group and one in the FCT 5 impact group were obvious in the PCV data and these were removed from the
dataset before analysis.
The mean PCV recorded for plants repeatedly assessed at the baseline and 2015 assessments are listed in Table
A3.6, PCV increased between baseline and 2014 assessments.
Table A3.6: Mean PCV, baseline and 2015
Assessment Number of plants measured consecutively Overall mean PCV (m3) Standard
deviation
Baseline 226 4.05 12.22
2015 5.35 19.04
A non-parametric repeated measures t-test equivalent, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, was performed on the
baseline and 2015 PCV data. The following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.
HA: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.
The results of the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (Table A3.7) indicate that the mean ranks of PCV at baseline and
2015 assessments are the same and is significant at the 5% significance level (p = <0.0001). Therefore, the null
hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis is accepted –the PCV is larger in 2015 compared with when first
measured.
Table A3.7: Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, PCV baseline and 2015
Difference between pairs n Rank sum Mean rank
Positive 221 24531.0 111.0
Negative 0 0.0 -
Zero 1
Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) 1.615
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 3
Difference between pairs n Rank sum Mean rank
95.02% CI 1.235 – 1.980
Wilcoxon’s statistic (T statistic) 24531.00
Z approximation 12.89
p-value <0.0001
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, Cl = confidence interval.
Tests were carried out to determine whether the change in PCV between baseline and 2015 assessments differs
between all control and impact sites, between sites in the three FCTs and the seven different treatment groups.
The results of these analyses follow. Treatment group numbers (1 – 7) used and discussed in the following section
are those indicated in column 1 of Table 4.10.
PCV, Impact and Control Groups
To determine whether there are differences in change in PCV between impact and control groups the non-
parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was performed on the data (because they are not normal and sample
size not equal). The following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.
HA: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.
The results of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Table A3.8) indicate that the shift in location between the
distributions of the populations is equal to 0 when tested at the 5% level (p = 0.2212).
Table A3.8: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, change in PCV, impact and control
Treatment and test results n Rank sum Mean rank
Impact 85 10046.5 118.19
Control 137 14706.5 107.35
Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) 0.110
95.02% CI -0.060 – 0.390
W statistic 10046.50
Z approximation 1.22
p-value 0.2212
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, Cl = confidence interval.
PCV, Floristic Community Types
To determine whether there are differences in change in proportional canopy volume between FCT groups the
non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the data. The following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The median of the populations are all equal.
HA: The median of the populations are not all equal.
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups is significant at the 5% significance level, the test statistic is
less than 0.05 (p = 0.0910) (Table A3.9). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the median of the FCT
populations are equal and there is no difference in PCV between FCTs.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 4
Table A3.9: Kruskal-Wallis test, change in PCV, FCTs
FCT and test results n Rank sum Mean rank
FCT 3 113 9090.1 80.44
FCT 4 60 2325.0 38.75
FCT 5 49 8359.2 170.60
Kruskal-Wallis H statistic 4.79
X2 approximation 4.79
DF 2
p-value 0.0910
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, X2 = chi squared.
PCV, Treatment Groups
To determine whether there are differences in change in PCV between the different treatment groups (i.e. sites at
different locations and in different FCTs) the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the data. The
following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The median of the populations are all equal.
HA: The median of the populations are not all equal.
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the treatment groups is significant at the 5% significance level, the test
statistic is less than 0.05 (p = 0.1067) (Table A3.10). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted – the median of the
FCT populations are equal and there is no difference in PCV between treatment groups.
Table A3.10: Kruskal-Wallis Test, change in PCV, treatment groups
Treatment group and test results n Rank sum Mean rank
1 45 149.4 3.32
2 31 943.3 30.43
3 37 15631.4 422.47
4 18 15341.7 852.32
5 42 550.1 13.10
6 22 715.9 32.54
7 27 9804.1 363.11
Kruskal-Wallis' statistic (H statistic) 10.46
X2 approximation 10.46
DF 6
p-value 0.1067
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, X2 = chi squared.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 5
Statistical analyses – Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)
DBH, Baseline to 2015
Before any statistical analyses were carried out the data checks were carried out. One outlier in the FCT 5 control
group, two outliers in the FCT 3 150 m control group and two in the FCT 4 control group were obvious in the DBH
data and these were removed from the dataset before analysis.
The mean DBH recorded for those plants assessed each year between baseline and 2015 are listed in Table A3.11;
there appears to have been a small increase in mean DBH between baseline and 2015 assessments.
Table A3.11: Overall mean DBH, baseline and 2015
Assessment Number of Plants Measured Consecutively Overall Mean DBH (mm) Standard Deviation
Baseline 140 38.18 35.23
2015 39.75 35.54
The non-parametric repeated measures t-test equivalent, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, was performed on DBH
data to compare baseline DBH with that in 2015.
The following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The shift in the location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.
HA: The shift in the location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.
The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Table A3.12) indicate that the shift in location between the
distributions of the DBH data collected at the baseline and 2015 assessments is not the same (p = 0.0065 at the 5%
significance level). DBH has increased since baseline assessment.
Table A3.12: Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, DBH, baseline and 2015
Difference between pairs n Rank sum Mean rank
Positive 49 3351.0 68.39
Negative 86 5829.0 67.78
Zero 0
Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift)
-1.790
95.03% CI -3.010 to -0.530
Wilcoxon’s statistic (T statistic) 3351.00
Z approximation -2.72
p-value 0.0065
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, Cl = confidence interval.
Tests were carried out to determine whether the change in DBH between baseline and 2015 assessments differs
between control and impact sites, between sites in the seven different treatment groups and in the three FCTs.
The results of these analyses follow. Treatment group numbers (1 – 7) used and discussed in the following section
are those indicated in column 1 of Table 4.11.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 6
DBH, Impact and Control Groups
To determine whether there are differences in change in DBH between impact and control groups the non-
parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was performed on the data (because they are not normal and sample
size not equal). The following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is equal to 0.
HA: The shift in location between the distributions of the populations is not equal to 0.
The results of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Table A3.13) were not significant (P => 0.05) indicate that the
shift in the distributions of the populations arose through sampling effects and the independent variable
(treatment) had no influence on the change in DBH between impact and control groups.
Table A3.13: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, change in DBH, impact and control
Treatment and test results n Rank Sum Mean Rank
Impact 56 3465.0 61.88
Control 79 5715.0 72.34
Mean difference (Hodges-Lehmann shift) -2.14
95.03% CI -4.72 to 0.47
W statistic 3465.00
Z approximation -1.53
p-value 0.1256
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, Cl = confidence interval.
DBH, Floristic Community Types
To determine whether there are differences in change in DBH between FCT groups the non-parametric Kruskal-
Wallis test was performed on the data. The following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The median of the populations are all equal.
HA: The median of the populations are not all equal.
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the FCT groups is significant, the test statistic is less than 0.05 (p = 0.0033
at the 5% significance level) (Table A3.14). Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative
hypothesis is accepted – the median of the populations are not all equal.
Table A3.14: Kruskal-Wallis test, change in DBH, FCTs
FCT and test results n Rank sum Mean rank
FCT 3 61 7782.3 127.58
FCT 4 41 9634.4 234.99
FCT 5 33 110.9 3.36
Kruskal-Wallis H statistic 11.46
X2 approximation 11.46
DF 2
p-value 0.0033
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, X2 = chi squared.
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 7
As the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic was significant multiple contrasts, using the Bonferroni correction, were carried
out between the three different FCTs to determine which groups differed. The results of these contrasts are
presented in Table A3.15. Significant differences occur between FCT 3 and FCT 4 and the change in DBH between
baseline and 2015 in FCT 4 is less than that in FCT 3.
Table A3.15: Multiple contrasts (change in DBH from baseline to 2015 in FCT Groups) - using Bonferroni
correction
Contrasts Difference P value
FCT 3 v FCT 4 -26.6244 0.0019
FCT 3 v FCT 5 -13.1284 0.3280
FCT 4 v FCT 5 13.4959 0.3843
DBH, Treatment Groups
To determine whether there are differences in change in DBH between the different treatment groups (i.e. sites at
different locations and in different FCTs) the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the data. The
following hypotheses were tested:
HO: The median of the populations are all equal.
HA: The median of the populations are not all equal.
The result of the Kruskal-Wallis test for the treatment groups is significant at the 5% significance level, the test
statistic is less than 0.05 (p = 0.0318) (Table A3.16). Therefore the null hypothesis is not accepted – the median of
the populations are not all equal.
Table A3.16: Kruskal-Wallis Test, change in DBH, treatment groups
Treatment group and test results n Rank sum Mean rank
1 25 1204.5 48.18
2 18 1153.0 64.06
3 20 1501.0 75.05
4 14 1288.0 92.00
5 29 2213.0 76.31
6 18 1225.0 68.06
7 16 1285.5 80.34
Kruskal-Wallis' statistic (H statistic) 13.81
X2 approximation 13.81
DF 6
p-value 0.0318
Note: n = sample size, p = probability, X2 = chi squared.
As the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic was significant pairwise multiple contrasts were then carried out between the
different treatment groups (using the Bonferroni correction) to determine which groups differed significantly.
One of the contrasts has a significant p-value when a 5% significance level is used (shaded row in Table A3.17) -
the contrast between T1 and T4. The change in DBH of plants in treatment group 1 (FCT 3 sites within the dust
buffer zone) between baseline and 2015 is less than that in treatment group 4 (FCT 4 control sites).
Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited: Koolanooka Vegetation Monitoring Program, Spring 2015
m a i a P a g e | 7 8
Table A3.17: Multiple Contrasts (change in DBH from baseline to 2015, treatment groups) - using Bonferroni
Correction
Contrasts Difference P value
T1 v T2 -15.8756 1.0000
T1 v T3 -26.8700 0.5131
T1 v T4 -43.8200 0.0231
T1 v T5 -28.1303 0.2064
T1 v T6 -19.8756 1.0000
T1 v T7 -32.1638 0.2479
T2 v T3 -10.9944 1.0000
T2 v T4 -27.9444 1.0000
T2 v T5 -12.2548 1.0000
T2 v T6 -4.0000 1.0000
T2 v T7 -16.2882 1.0000
T3 v T4 -16.9500 1.0000
T3 v T5 -1.2603 1.0000
T3 v T6 6.9944 1.0000
T3 v T7 -5.2938 1.0000
T4 v T5 15.6897 1.0000
T4 v T6 23.9444 1.0000
T4 v T7 11.6563 1.0000
T5 v T6 8.2548 1.0000
T5 v T7 -4.0334 1.0000
T6 v T7 -12.2882 1.0000
Note: T1 to T7 = DBH treatment groups 1 – 7.