Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Lake Disappointment Potash Project For Reward Minerals Limited

September 2015 FINAL

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

Disclaimer This document and its contents are to be treated as confidential and are published in accordance with, and subject to an agreement between Botanica Consulting (BC) and the client for whom it has been prepared, and is restricted to those issues that have been raised by the client in its engagement of BC. Neither this document nor its contents may be referred to or quoted in any manner (report or other document) nor reproduced in part or whole by electronic, mechanical or chemical means, including photocopying, recording or any information storage system, without the express written approval of the client and/or BC.

This document and its contents have been prepared utilising the standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by Environmental Scientists in the preparation of such documents. All material presented in this document is published in good faith and is believed to be accurate at the time of writing. Any person or organisation who relies on or uses the document and its contents for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by BC and the client without primarily obtaining the prior written consent of BC, does so entirely at their own risk. BC denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be endured as a consequence of relying on this document and its contents for any purpose other than that agreed with the client.

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

Document Job Number: 2015/42

Prepared by: Pat Harton Environmental Scientist Botanica Consulting

Reviewed by: Andrea Williams Director Botanica Consulting

Approved by: Jim Williams Director Botanica Consulting

Table of Contents Page #

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Survey Objectives ...... 1 2 Regional Biophysical Environment ...... 3 2.1 Regional Environment ...... 3 2.2 Topography & Soils ...... 5 2.3 Remnant Vegetation ...... 5 2.4 Lake Disappointment (Savory Creek system) ...... 6 2.5 Climate ...... 6 2.6 Land Use ...... 7 3 Survey Methodology ...... 8 3.1 Sampling and Analysis Methods ...... 8 3.2 Personnel Involved...... 10 3.3 Scientific licences ...... 10 4 Results ...... 11 4.1 Species Diversity ...... 14 4.2 Species Density ...... 14 4.3 Total Vegetation Cover ...... 14 4.4 Health Condition ...... 14 4.5 Flora of Conservation Significance ...... 17 4.6 Introduced Species ...... 17 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 18 6 References ...... 20

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

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

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

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

Executive summary Reward Minerals Limited Lake Disappointment Potash Project is located within the Little Sandy Desert, approximately 138km south of Telfer and 285km east of Newman, in the Pilbara of Western Australia. The Lake Disappointment Potash Project initially comprised of two stages of activities:  Stage 1-track development, exploration camp construction and infill drilling; and  Stage 2-development of pilot ponds/trenches on Lake Disappointment.

Development of the access track and exploration camp were completed in 2014. Infill drilling on the lake commenced in 2015 and is ongoing. Approvals for development of the pilot ponds/trenches (Stage 2 activities) are currently being processed and are expected to commence end of 2015/start of 2016 (prior to the 2016 monitoring period). Detailed plans and environmental procedures for the current and proposed activities within the Lake Disappointment Potash Project have been provided in the current version of the conservation management plan, “Reward Minerals - Lake Disappointment Potash Project, Conservation Management Plan, July 2015, Version 2, Revision 1”.

In order to assess any potential impacts of vehicle use in the Lake Disappointment Potash Project on sand dune vegetation, a sand dune vegetation monitoring programme was developed. The objective of the monitoring programme is to assess the biodiversity and health of native vegetation immediately surrounding the site access track (within 250m of track) to determine whether use of the site access track is having an impact on the surrounding vegetation. In April 2013 ten monitoring sites (quadrats) and ten control sites were established on the ridges of sand dunes along the Lake Disappointment site access track. This is the third year of monitoring.

One vegetation association was recorded within the monitoring programme area; Open low woodland of Corymbia opaca over low scrub of Acacia ligulata/Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia and mid-dense hummock grass of Triodia basedowii on sand dunes.

Mean species diversity (10m2), species density (10m2) and vegetation cover (%) of the control sites have all increased since 2013. The impact sites have shown a varied trend, recording a decrease in species density since 2013. Despite the decrease since 2013, species density has increased since the previous monitoring period and the impact sites have maintained a constant level of species diversity. Mean vegetation cover of the impact sites is currently equal to levels recorded in 2013, recording an increase from 2014 to 2015. Mean health rating of both the impact and control sites has maintained a constant level since monitoring began in 2013.

Fire has affected both the impact and control sites, with vegetation in various stages of regrowth. One impact site (Q1) and four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q14 and Q19) were effected by fire in 2012, impact sites (Q2 and Q6) and control site (Q16) were effected by a fire event in 2014.

The 2015 monitoring period is the second year of analysis since the baseline survey was completed in 2013. As monitoring is still in early stages it is difficult to make any assumptions as to the long term effect that Lake Disappointment Potash Project may have upon the sand dune vegetation of Lake Disappointment. The 2015 results show there has been no detrimental reduction in species diversity, species density, vegetation cover or heath rating recorded in the impact sites. The slight variation in biodiversity parameters over the monitoring period appears to be attributed to climatic factors rather than potential impacts.

It is important to note that vegetation destruction caused by fire events and camels is also prevalent within the Lake Disappointment Potash Project area; the impacts from such natural occurrences outside of Reward’s control (i.e. Camels and fire) are recorded during monitoring to distinguish the impacts of these events from the potential impacts of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project.

It is recommended that monitoring be conducted annually in autumn to document and track any future changes in vegetation condition and recommendations made, if there are any signs of adverse effects on the vegetation of the sand dunes adjacent to the access track.

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

1 Introduction Reward Minerals Limited (Reward) Lake Disappointment Potash Project (LDP Project) is located within the Little Sandy Desert, approximately 138km south of Telfer and 285km east of Newman, in the Pilbara of Western Australia (Figure 1).

The southern region of the LDP Project occurs within the proposed Lake Disappointment Nature Reserve (listed under the Environmental Protection Authority Red Book recommendations for Conservation Reserves 1975-1993) (Appendix 1), which covers an area of 366,700ha and is proposed to be managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW). To date this proposed reserve has not been approved. Lake Disappointment is a Nationally Important Wetland of Western Australia as listed by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA).

The LDP Project initially comprised of two stages of activities:  Stage 1-track development, exploration camp construction and infill drilling;  Stage 2-development of pilot ponds/trenches on Lake Disappointment;

Development of the access track and exploration camp was completed in 2014. Infill drilling on the lake commenced in 2015 and is ongoing. Approvals for development of the pilot ponds/trenches (Stage 2 activities) are currently being processed and are expected to commence end of 2015/start of 2016 (prior to the 2016 monitoring period). Detailed plans and environmental procedures for the current and proposed activities within the Lake Disappointment Potash Project have been provided in the current version of the conservation management plan, “Reward Minerals - Lake Disappointment Potash Project, Conservation Management Plan, July 2015, Version 2, Revision 1”.

At the request of the DPaW and Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Reward commissioned Botanica Consulting (BC) to establish a sand dune vegetation monitoring programme along the site access track leading to Lake Disappointment in order to assess any potential impacts of vehicle use on sand dune vegetation within the LDP Project area. From the 23rd to 25th April 2013 ten impact sites (quadrats) and ten control sites were established on ridges of sand dunes within 250m of the site access track and >1km from the site access track respectively. Each site will be monitored annually in autumn with a report submitted annually to the DPaW. Findings of this monitoring will be used to enhance the DPaW’s knowledge of the area, and more effectively assess the potential environmental impacts the Project may have on the various conservation values of the Lake Disappointment area. This is the third year of monitoring.

1.1 Survey Objectives

In order to assess any potential impacts of vehicle use in the LDP Project area on sand dune vegetation, a sand dune vegetation monitoring programme was established. The objective of the monitoring programme was to assess the biodiversity and health of the native vegetation immediately surrounding the site access track (within 250m of track) and compare this against control sites >1km from the site access track to determine whether use of the site access track is having an impact on the surrounding vegetation.

Botanica Consulting 1 Sand dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

Figure 1: Regional Map of the Lake Disappointment Potash Project

Botanica Consulting 2 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

2 Regional Biophysical Environment 2.1 Regional Environment

The LDP Project lies within the Keartland Botanical District of the Little Sandy Desert Region in the Eremaean Province of WA (Figure 2). The Keartland Botanical District consists predominantly of shrub steppes of Acacia and Grevillea, and Triodia spp. on dunes and swales. Patches of desert oak and mulga also occur within the area (Beard, 1990). Based on the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) the Little Sandy Desert Region is further divided into subregions, with the LDP Project located within both the Rudall (LSD1) and Trainor (LSD2) subregions as shown in Figure 3. Lake based operational activities are located only within the Trainor subregion.

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

Botanica Consulting 3

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

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

Botanica Consulting 4

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

2.2 Topography & Soils The Rudall subregion (LSD1) of the Little Sandy Desert region lies on the Rudall Complex, Throssell Group and Lamil Group of the Patterson Orogen. It consists of the Proterozoic hill country of Throssell Mount Sears, Broadhurst and Harbutt Ranges. It includes the headwaters and course of Rudall River. The Trainor subregion (LSD2) of the Little Sandy Desert lies in the red centre desert on the Neoproterozoic sedimentary basement (Officer Basin). It consists of red quaternary dune fields with abrupt Proterozoic sandstones ranges of the Bangemall Basin (Cowan & Kendrick, 2001). Beard (1990) describes the topography of the Little Sandy Desert region as a sandplain with numerous low hills and small ranges. The hills and ranges mainly consist of bare rock and shallow stony soils, while the plains consist of red earthy sands. Beard (1990) also describes the underlying geology as a quaternary sandplain with longitudinal dunes that have developed over locally exposed Proterzoic siliceous rocks.

2.3 Remnant Vegetation The DAFWA GIS file (2011) indicates that the Sand Dune monitoring program of the LDP Project is located within Pre-European Beard vegetation association Little Sandy Desert 134 in the Trainor (LSD2) subregion. The extent of this vegetation association as described by the DAFWA is provided in Table 1.

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

% of Pre- Current Pre- European extent Vegetation IBRA Vegetation Current European extent within Description (Beard, subregion association Extent (ha) Extent (ha) remaining DPaW 1990) (%) managed lands Mosaic: Hummock grasslands, open low tree steppe; desert bloodwood and feathertop spinifex Little Sandy LSD2 7,363,935.09 7,363,935.09 100 1.64 (on) sandhills / Desert 134* Hummock grasslands, shrub steppe; mixed shrubs over spinifex between sandhills **Medium Reservation Priority according the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Areas retaining less than 30% of their pre-European vegetation extent generally experience exponentially accelerated species loss, while areas with less than 10% are considered “endangered”.

Botanica Consulting 5

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

2.4 Lake Disappointment (Savory Creek system) The southern extremity of the LDP Project occurs within Lake Disappointment (often referred to as the Savory Creek system) which is described as a megascale irregular sumpland with numerous microscale to macroscale islands and is a major feature of the Little Sandy Desert bioregion. Savory Creek is an extensive creek over 280 km long and approximately 150m wide at its maximum, occasionally flooding to 2 km width. It is one of only two significant river systems that flow into the Little Sandy Desert. Savory Creek originates in the Bangemall Basin, flows across the Savory Basin and into Lake Disappointment in the Paterson Orogen (DotE, 2012a).

Lake Disappointment lies at the lowest point of the Little Sandy Desert. The lake bed consists of poorly consolidated saline lacustrine sediments (clay, silt, sand and gypsum). The surrounding area is composed of mixed aeolian-lacustrine silt, sand and kopi forming longitudinal dunes trending east-west, interspersed with minor salt lakes and claypans. Dunes on the lake form islands rising 5 to 18 m above the bed (DotE, 2012a).

Savory Creek enters Lake Disappointment from the north-west, but flow is impeded by a substantial sand bar to form a large permanent pool. The lake is also fed by smaller ephemeral creeks and direct precipitation. Lake Disappointment may be fresh immediately after substantial rain, but becomes more saline as it dries (DotE, 2012a).

The margins of Lake Disappointment and lower reaches of Savory Creek support samphire communities, but there is no vegetation on the salt-encrusted lake bed. Principle species on islands and dunes surrounding the lake are spinifex Plectrachne schinzii and Triodia pungens with scattered shrubs, mainly Acacia and Grevillea. The eastern side of the lake is characterised by scattered shrubs of Acacia coriacea and Hakea over an open-hummock grassland of another Spinifex Triodia basedowii. There are large areas of Desert Oak Casuarina decaisneana on the western side (DotE, 2012a).

2.5 Climate The climate of both the Rudall and Trainor subregions is characterised arid with summer rainfall in the Rudall subregion and episodic summer rainfall in the Trainor subregion (Kendrick, 2001) Monthly rainfall data for the Telfer Aero weather station (#13030) located approximately 133km north-west of the LDP Project is provided in Figure 4 and annual rainfall information is provided in Figure 5 (Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, 2015). Annual rainfall in 2014 recorded above average results; 416mm compared to a mean annual rainfall of 369.8mm. Monthly rainfall data to date in 2015 has been above average in three months (January, April and May) and below average in the remaining months (February, March, June and July).

Botanica Consulting 6

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

350

300

250

200

150 Rainfall Rainfall (mm) 100

50

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

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Mean

Figure 4: Monthly rainfall from January 2011 to April 2015 and mean monthly rainfall (January 1974 to April 2015) for the Telfer Aero weather station (#13030) (BOM, 2015)1

700

600

500

400

300 Rainfall Rainfall (mm) 200

100

0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Annual Mean

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

2.6 Land Use The dominant land uses of the Trainor subregion are UCL and Crown reserves (95.87%), grazing- native pastures (1.93%), conservation reserves (1.41%), and Aboriginal Reserves (0.75%) (Kendrick, 2001). The dominant land uses of the Rudall subregion are conservation, UCL, mining leases and urban (Kendrick, 2001).

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

Botanica Consulting 7

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

3 Survey Methodology 3.1 Sampling and Analysis Methods

A total of 20 monitoring sites were established; 10 potential impact sites and 10 control sites (analogues) located ~2.5km apart along the edge of the site access track (avoiding Aboriginal Heritage exclusion zones) in 2013. In the 2015 monitoring period, one of the control sites (Q13), was unable to be located and was therefore not monitored, the data analysis has been updated accordingly to exclude this site from the control sites. Figure 6 provides a map of the monitoring site locations.

At each site a 10m² quadrat was established. Within each quadrat the following parameters were measured:  Species diversity (10m²);  Species density (10m²);  Percentage vegetation cover (10m²); and  Health condition (1-5 rating).

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

The health condition will be rated on a 1 to 5 scale, adapted from the Keighery (1994) health rating scale2 (Appendix 3): 1-Dead/no live vegetation 2-Poor/Declining vegetation health 3-Good/Improving vegetation health 4-Very Good vegetation health/no change from previous monitoring if relevant 5-Excellent health, new germinants

This is the third year of monitoring of the sand dune vegetation programme, providing the second dataset that will be compared to baseline data collected in 2013, to determine whether sand dune vegetation surrounding the site access track has been affected by vehicle use in the LDP Project. Each site is monitored annually in autumn with a report submitted annually to the DPaW.

2 Trudgen (1991) Vegetation Condition Scale more commonly used in the Pilbara Region, however Clearing Permit specifically stated that Keighery Health Rating (1994) be used for vegetation assessments.

Botanica Consulting 8 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

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

Botanica Consulting 9 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

Table 2: Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Locations (GDA94, Zone 51K) Vegetation Quadrat Easting Northing Monitoring Q1 484430 7448510 Q2 484370 7446314 Q3 483966 7443923 Q4 482886 7441336

Impact Q5 482259 7438981 Sites Q6 481617 7436505 Q7 480939 7433493 Q8 480810 7431938 Q9 481136 7427099 Q10 481182 7429774

Q11 482647 7448853 Q12 486429 7446265 Q133 482287 7444271 Q14 486278 7440747

Control Q15 480354 7438740 Sites Q16 482827 7435666 Q17 478876 7433598 Q18 477761 7430655 Q19 484950 7428685 Q20 478664 7427329

3.2 Personnel Involved  Jim Williams - Environmental Consultant (Diploma of Horticulture)

3.3 Scientific licences Table 3: Scientific Licences of Botanica Staff coordinating the survey

Licensed staff Permit Number Valid Until

Jim Williams SL011451 21-05-2016

3 Location of Quadrat not found during 2015 monitoring period Botanica Consulting 10

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

4 Results Table 4 provides a summary of the monitoring results recorded at each Quadrat from 2013 to 2015. The raw data for 2015 is provided in Appendix 4. Photographs taken at both the impact and control sites from 2013 to 2015 are provided in Appendix 5. One vegetation community was identified in the sand dune monitoring program; Open low woodland of Corymbia opaca over low scrub of Acacia ligulata/Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia and mid-dense hummock grass of Triodia basedowii on sand dunes.

Botanica Consulting 11

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

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

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

Vegetation Quadrat 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Monitoring Q1 7 7 7 50 32 32 20 20 20 2 3 3

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

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

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

Q5 4 3 3 41 40 40 30 30 35 3 3 3 Impact Sites Q6 6 4 6 51 23 23 25 15 17 3 2 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q13 3 3 N/A 8 8 N/A 25 25 N/A 3 3 N/A Control Sites Q14 3 4 4 11 12 12 10 12 12 2 3 3

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

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

Botanica Consulting 12 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

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

Vegetation Quadrat 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Monitoring Q17 6 7 7 22 24 24 40 41 41 4 4 4

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

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

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

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

Botanica Consulting 13 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

4.1 Species Diversity Mean species diversity for the impact sites has remained constant throughout the monitoring period at five species per 10m2. Mean species diversity for the control sites increased from four to five species per 10m2 in 2015. Four impact sites (Q2, Q3, Q6 and Q9) recorded an increase in species diversity from 2014 to 2015, while the remaining quadrats maintaining a constant level of species diversity in 2015. Four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q16, and Q19) recorded an increase in species diversity from 2014 to 2015, while the remaining quadrats maintained a constant level of species diversity in 2015. Species diversity for the impact sites ranged from three to nine species per 10m2, whereas species diversity for the control sites ranged from three to seven species per 10m2. A list of all species recorded during monitoring is provided in Appendix 3.

4.2 Species Density Mean species density for the impact sites has decreased over the monitoring period, reducing from 31 plants per 10m² in 2013 to 28 plants per 10m² in 2015. Mean species density however did increase from 26 to 27 plants per 10m² in 2015. Mean species density of the control sites has increased over the monitoring period, increasing from 13 to 16 plants per 10m2 in 2015. Three impact sites (Q2, Q3 and Q9) recorded an increase in species density between 2014 and 2015, while the remaining quadrats maintained a constant level of species density. Four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q16 and Q19) recorded an increase in species density since 2014, while the remaining quadrats maintained a constant level of species density in 2015. Species density for the impact sites ranged from 6 to 47 plants per 10m2, whilst species density for the control sites ranged from 5 to 29 plants per 10m2.

4.3 Total Vegetation Cover Mean total vegetation cover for the impact sites has fluctuated over the monitoring period initially decreasing in 2014 before increasing in 2015 to equal the baseline survey result of 35%. The control sites have shown a gradual increase in mean vegetation cover (1% per year) over the monitoring period, increasing from 29% in 2013 to 31% in 2015. Six of the impact sites (Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7 and Q9) have recorded an increase in total vegetation cover from 2014 to 2015; with the remaining quadrats maintaining a constant vegetation cover in 2015. Four of the control sites (Q11, Q12, Q16 and Q19) have also recorded an increase in total vegetation cover from 2014 to 2015, with the remaining sites maintaining a constant level of total vegetation cover in 2015. Total vegetation cover for the impact sites ranged from 17% to 64%, whereas total vegetation cover for the control sites ranged from 9% to 65%.

4.4 Health Condition Mean health rating for both the impact and control sites has maintained a ‘Good’ health rating across the monitoring period. There has been no variation in the health rating of any of the control or impact quadrats in the 2015 monitoring period. Since monitoring began three of the impact sites (Q1, Q2 and Q8) have shown an increase in health rating, two sites (Q4 and Q6) have decreased and the remaining sites have maintained a constant health rating. Since monitoring began, four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q14 and Q19) have shown an increase, one site (Q16) has decreased and the remaining sites have maintained a constant health rating. A description of the current health condition for each monitoring site is provided below in Table 5.

Fire is a natural and common occurrence within the Little Sandy Desert and the greater LDP Project area; both the impact and control sites have been affected by fire with vegetation in various stages of regrowth. One impact site (Q1) and four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q14 and Q19) were effected by fire in 2012; Impact sites (Q2 and Q6) and control site (Q16) were effected by a fire event in 2014 (Figure 7).

Botanica Consulting 14 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

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

Vegetation Quadrat Health condition description (2015) Monitoring Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition. Affected by fire Q1 disturbance in 2012. No signs of grazing

Very good vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition. No signs of grazing Q2 present. Site was affected by fire in 2014

Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in Q3 flower. No disturbance or grazing present.

Poor/Declining vegetation health. No plants were in flower. No disturbance or grazing Q4 present, but sand erosion present

Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in Q5 Impact flower. No disturbance or grazing present. Sites Poor/Declining vegetation health. No plants were in flower. No signs of grazing present. Q6 Site was affected by fire in 2014

Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in Q7 flower. No disturbance or grazing present.

Very good vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition. One species was in Q8 flower. No disturbance or grazing present.

Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition no plants were in Q9 flower. No disturbance or grazing present.

Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in Q10 flower. No disturbance or grazing present.

Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition. Affected by fire Q11 disturbance in 2012. No signs of grazing Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition. Affected by fire Q12 disturbance in 2012. No signs of grazing Q13 Site was not monitored in the 2015 monitoring period

Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in Q14 flower. Affected by fire disturbance in 2012. No signs of grazing

Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good, no plants were in flower. No Q15 Control disturbance or grazing present. Sites Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in Q16 flower. No signs of grazing present. Site was affected by fire in 2014 Very good vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in flower. Q17 No disturbance or grazing present. Q18 Very good vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in flower. No disturbance or grazing present. Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in Q19 flower. Affected by fire disturbance in 2012. No signs of grazing Good/Improving vegetation health. Vegetation was in good condition, no plants were in Q20 flower. No disturbance or grazing present.

Botanica Consulting 15 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

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

Botanica Consulting 16 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

4.5 Flora of Conservation Significance No Threatened Flora taxa pursuant to subsection (2) of section 23F of the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, the EPBC Act 1999 and as listed by the DPaW were identified within the Open low woodland of Corymbia opaca over low scrub of Acacia ligulata/Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia and mid-dense hummock grass of Triodia basedowii on sand dunes vegetation community.

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

Botanica Consulting 17 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

5 Conclusions and Recommendations Mean species diversity, species density and vegetation cover of the control sites have all increased since 2013. The impact sites have shown a varied trend, recording a decrease in species density since 2013. Despite the decrease since 2013, species density has increased since the previous monitoring period and the impact sites have maintained a constant level of species diversity. Mean vegetation cover of the impact sites is currently equal to levels recorded in 2013, recording an increase from 2014 to 2015. Mean health rating of both the impact and control sites has maintained a constant level since monitoring began in 2013.

Fire has affected both the impact and control sites, with vegetation in various stages of regrowth. One impact site (Q1) and four control sites (Q11, Q12, Q14 and Q19) were effected by fire in 2012, impact sites (Q2 and Q6) and control site (Q16) were effected by a fire event in 2014.

Large numbers of camels and donkeys have been identified throughout the LDP Project by BC staff during the 2015 monitoring survey and by Reward staff throughout the year (Plate 1). Grazing and creation of beds by camels is prevalent throughout the area. This disturbance has not appeared to directly affect the monitoring sites in 2015; however it has resulted in damage to the access track. Evidence of camels (e.g. tracks and scats) was identified in two of the monitoring quadrats during the previous monitoring period (2014), however there was no evidence of camels within any of the monitoring sites within the current monitoring period.

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

The 2015 monitoring period is the second year of analysis since the baseline survey was completed in 2013. As monitoring is still in early stages it is difficult to make any assumptions as to the long term effect that LDP Project may have upon the sand dune vegetation of Lake Disappointment. The 2015 results show there has been no detrimental reduction in species diversity, species density, vegetation cover or heath rating recorded in the impact sites. The slight variation in biodiversity parameters over the monitoring period appears to be attributed to climatic factors rather than potential impacts.

Botanica Consulting 18 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

It is important to note that vegetation destruction caused by fire events and camels is also prevalent within the LDP Project area; the impacts from such natural occurrences outside of Reward’s control (i.e. Camels and fire) are recorded during monitoring to distinguish the impacts of these events from the potential impacts of the LDP Project.

It is recommended that monitoring be conducted annually in autumn to document and track any future changes in vegetation condition and recommendations made if there are any signs of adverse effects on the vegetation of the sand dunes adjacent to the access track.

Botanica Consulting 19 Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring for Lake Disappointment: 2015 Reward Minerals Limited

6 References Beard, J.S., (1990), Plant Life of Western Australia, Kangaroo Press Pty Ltd, NSW BOM, (2009), Kambalda 2007 - 2009, Bureau of Meteorology

BOM, (2015), Telfer Aero rainfall station (#13030) 1974-2015, Bureau of Meteorology http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFil e&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=13030

DAFWA, (2011), Pre-European Vegetation - Western Australia (NVIS Compliant Version GIS file), Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia

DotE, (2012a), Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia - Information sheet Lake Disappointment (Savory Creek) System - WA052. Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/wetlands/report.pl?smode=DOIW;doiw_refcodelist=WA052 Accessed: 04/12/12

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

IBRA, (2015), Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA), Version 6.1, Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp Accessed: 12/04/15

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

Keighery, B.J. (1994) Bushland plant survey. A guide to plant community survey for the community. Wildflower Society of WA (Inc.), Nedlands, Western Australia

Kendrick, P., (2001), A Biodiversity Audit of Western Australia’s 53 Biogeographical Region in 2001- Little Sandy Desert 1 (LSD1 –Rudall subregion), Department of Conservation and Land Management

Landgate, (2015), Landgate fire watch database. Landgate Western Australian Government http://firewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/landgate_firewatch_public.asp Accessed: 27/08/2015

WAHERB, (2015), Florabase – Information on the Western Australian Flora, Department of Parks and Wildlife http://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au Accessed 27/08/2015

Botanica Consulting 20

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

Appendix 2: Keighery 1994 Health Rating Scale

Health Health Description Definition Rating

6 Pristine No obvious signs of disturbance

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

4 Very Good Vegetation altered due to obvious signs of disturbance

Structure affected multiple disturbances. Retains basic structure, 3 Good has ability to regenerate

Structure severely disturbed. Can regenerate to good condition, 2 Degraded but requires intensive management

Completely 1 Completely bare no native species Degraded

Appendix 3: List of all species identified in Sand Dune vegetation monitoring program 2015 (A) Denotes annual species Family Genus Taxon Amaranthaceae Gomphrena cunninghamii (A) Amaranthaceae Ptilotus arthrolasius Asteraceae Chrysocephalum eremaeum Boraginaceae Trichodesma zeylanicum (A) Cleomaceae Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla Cucurbitaceae Cucumis argenteus Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia drummondii (A) Fabaceae Acacia bivenosa Fabaceae Acacia prainii Fabaceae Acacia sabulosa Fabaceae Petalostylis cassioides Fabaceae Thinicola incana Goodeniaceae Dampiera cinerea Goodeniaceae Scaevola collaris Goodeniaceae Scaevola parvifolia subsp. parvifolia Goodeniaceae Scaevola sericophylla Goodeniaceae Scaevola sp. (sterile) Hemerocallidaceae Corynotheca micrantha var. micrantha Lamiaceae Dicrastylis beveridgei Lamiaceae Quoya loxocarpa Malvaceae Abutilon sp. (sterile) Malvaceae Corchorus walcottii Malvaceae Hibiscus ?burtonii Malvaceae Hibiscus sturtii var. platychlamys Malvaceae Sida calyxhymenia Myrtaceae Aluta maisonneuvei subsp. maisonneuvei Myrtaceae Calytrix sp. (sterile) Myrtaceae Corymbia opaca Poaceae Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) Poaceae Eragrostis cumingii (A) Poaceae Eragrostis eriopoda Poaceae Eragrostis sp. (sterile) (A) Poaceae Eriachne aristidea (A) Poaceae Paractaenum refractum (A) Poaceae Triodia basedowii Poaceae Yakirra australiensis (A) Proteaceae Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia Rubiaceae Oldenlandia pterospora Solanaceae Anthotroche pannosa Solanaceae Solanum chippendalei

Appendix 4: Raw Results of the Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring 2015 (A) and blue text denotes an annual species which were not included in the calculations

Quadrat 1

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

Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 38 10 GC - 20 Dicrastylis beveridgei 1 4 5 MC - 6 Eragrostis cumingii (A) 0 0 0 CC - 0 Euphorbia drummondii (A) 0 0 0 Petalostylis cassioides 1 2 2 Scaevola parvifolia subsp. 1 1 1 parvifolia Scaevola sericophylla 1 7 1 Solanum chippendalei 1 7 1 Thinicola incana 1 2 5 Trichodesma zeylanicum (A) 0 0 0 Triodia basedowii 1 9 5 Yakirra australiensis (A) 0 0 0 Total (Perennial Species) 7 32 20 20 3

Quadrat 2 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Acacia bivenosa 1 1 1 GC - 30 Aluta maisonneuvei subsp. 1 13 10 MC - 35 maisonneuvei Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 4 2 CC - 0 Dampiera cinerea 1 5 5 Dicrastylis beveridgei 1 3 1 Eragrostis eriopoda 1 4 1 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 2 10 Petalostylis cassioides 1 2 2 Scaevola parvifolia subsp. parvifolia 1 3 1 Triodia basedowii 1 18 30 Total (Perennial Species) 9 51 64 64 4

Quadrat 3 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Acacia sabulosa 1 3 20 GC - 4 Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 2 4 MC - 20

Corynotheca micrantha var. 1 2 1 CC - 0 micrantha Eragrostis cumingii (A) 1 7 2 Quoya loxocarpa 1 2 1 Triodia basedowii 1 4 2 Total (Perennial Species) 4 11 24 24 3

Quadrat 4 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Acacia sabulosa 1 3 20 GC - <1 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 1 <1 MC - 20 Dampiera cinerea 1 2 <1 CC - 0 Total (Perennial Species) 3 6 20 20 2

Quadrat 5 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Acacia sabulosa 1 6 5 GC - 35 Corchorus walcottii 0 0 0 MC - 0 Dampiera cinerea 1 21 20 CC - 0 Triodia basedowii 1 13 10 Total (Perennial Species) 3 40 35 35 3

Quadrat 6 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Acacia sabulosa 1 0 1 GC - 10 Aluta maisonneuvei subsp. 1 0 1 MC - 10 maisonneuvei

Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 4 4 CC - 5

Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 Dampiera cinerea 1 17 10 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 1 2 Triodia basedowii 1 4 2 Total (Perennial Species) 6 23 17 17 2

Quadrat 7 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Acacia sabulosa 1 1 15 GC - 20 Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla 1 1 1 MC -5 Cucumis maderaspatanus 1 1 1 CC -9 Dampiera cinerea 1 4 8 Euphorbia drummondii (A) 0 0 0 Thinicola incana 1 6 9 Total (Perennial Species) 5 13 34 34 3

Quadrat 8 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Aluta maisonneuvei subsp. 1 4 2 GC - 40 maisonneuvei Dampiera cinerea 1 8 5 MC - 15 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 1 1 CC - 2 Scaevola sericophylla 1 3 2 Triodia basedowii 1 31 40 Total (Perennial Species) 5 47 50 50 4

Quadrat 9 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Aluta maisonneuvei subsp. 1 15 5 GC - 45 maisonneuvei

Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 12 2 MC - 5 Dicrastylis beveridgei 1 12 5 CC - 0 Eragrostis cumingii (A) 1 4 2 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 3 5 Oldenlandia pterospora 1 1 1 Scaevola sp. (sterile) 1 2 1 Triodia basedowii 1 8 30 Total (Perennial Species) 6 41 47 47 3

Quadrat 10 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%)

Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 GC - 40 Dicrastylis beveridgei 1 2 2 MC - 5 Eragrostis cumingii (A) 1 7 5 CC - 0 Eragrostis eriopoda 1 1 1 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 2 5 Oldenlandia pterospora 1 1 1 Triodia basedowii 1 8 30 Total (Perennial Species) 6 15 40 40 3

Quadrat 11 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%)

Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 1 3 GC - 4 Calytrix sp. (sterile) 1 1 1 MC - 8 Dampiera cinerea 1 5 5 CC-0 Eragrostis eriopoda 1 6 2 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 3 1 Total (Perennial Species) 4 15 9 9 3

Quadrat 12 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Anthotroche pannosa 1 2 5 GC - 22 Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 15 5 MC - 0

Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla 1 4 10 CC - 0 Dampiera cinerea 1 1 2 Eragrostis sp. (sterile) (A) 1 1 1 Eriachne aristidea (A) 1 17 5 Euphorbia drummondii sens. lat.(A) 1 12 6 Hibiscus ?burtonii 1 2 3 Sida calyxhymenia 1 2 1 Triodia basedowii 1 2 1 Total (Perennial Species) 6 13 22 22 3

Quadrat 14 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 8 8 GC - 10 Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 MC - 5 Corchorus walcottii 1 1 2 CC - 0 Dampiera cinerea 1 8 8 Eragrostis eriopoda 1 2 1 Total (Perennial Species) 4 12 12 12 3

Quadrat 15 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 2 1 GC - 2 Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 MC - 20 Corchorus walcottii 1 1 1 CC - 0 Gomphrena cunninghamii (A) 1 2 2 Hibiscus sturtii var. platychlamys 1 3 20 Total (Perennial Species) 3 5 22 22 3

Quadrat 16 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Anthotroche pannosa 1 4 4 GC - 8 Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 0 0 0 MC - 5 Dampiera cinerea 1 3 4 CC - 10 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 2 5 Triodia basedowii 1 1 5 Total (Perennial Species) 4 10 18 18 2

Quadrat 17 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Abutilon sp. (sterile) 1 10 10 GC - 40 Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 31 15 MC - 30 Cleome uncifera subsp. microphylla 1 2 5 CC - 10 Dampiera cinerea 1 2 1 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 1 5 Ptilotus arthrolasius 1 3 5 Scaevola sericophylla 1 2 5 Triodia basedowii 1 4 10 Total (Perennial Species) 7 24 41 41 4

Quadrat 18 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Chrysocephalum eremaeum 1 1 1 GC - 55 Cleome uncifera subsp. 1 1 1 microphylla MC - 10 Corymbia opaca 1 2 20 CC - 40 Corynotheca micrantha var. 1 1 1 micrantha Cucumis argenteus 1 1 1 Eragrostis cumingii (A) 1 1 1 Euphorbia drummondii (A) 1 10 1 Gomphrena cunninghamii (A) 1 2 2 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 2 10 Paractaenum refractum (A) 1 10 5 Triodia basedowii 1 10 40 Total (Perennial Species) 7 18 74 74 4

Quadrat 19 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Anthotroche pannosa 1 7 5 GC - 20 Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 22 10 MC - 0 Euphorbia drummondii (A) 1 3 5 CC - 0 Gomphrena cunninghamii (A) 1 3 5 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 3 5 Scaevola collaris 1 18 10 Triodia basedowii 1 1 <1 Total (Perennial Species) 4 29 20 20 3

Quadrat 20 Species Species Total Species Health Species Diversity Density Vegetation cover (%) Rating (10m²) (10m²) Cover (%) Acacia ligulata 0 0 0 GC - 65 Aluta maisonneuvei subsp. 1 1 2 maisonneuvei MC - 5 Aristida holathera var. holathera (A) 1 4 1 CC - 10 Corchorus walcottii 1 1 1 Corymbia opaca 1 1 10 Eragrostis eriopoda 1 2 2 Grevillea juncifolia subsp. juncifolia 1 1 5

Triodia basedowii 1 10 45 Total (Perennial Species) 6 16 65 65 3

Appendix 5: Photographic Records of Sand Dune Vegetation Monitoring Quadrats

Quadrat 1 2013 Quadrat 1 2014 Quadrat 1 2015

Quadrat 2 2013 Quadrat 2 2014 Quadrat 2 2015

Quadrat 3 2013 Quadrat 3 2014 Quadrat 3 2015

Quadrat 4 2013 Quadrat 4 2014 Quadrat 4 2015

Quadrat 5 2013 Quadrat 5 2014 Quadrat 5 2015

Quadrat 6 2013 Quadrat 6 2014 Quadrat 6 2015

Quadrat 7 2013 Quadrat 7 2014 Quadrat 7 2015

Quadrat 8 2013 Quadrat 8 2014 Quadrat 8 2015

Quadrat 9 2013 Quadrat 9 2014 Quadrat 9 2015

Quadrat 10 2013 Quadrat 10 2014 Quadrat 10 2015

Quadrat 11 2013 Quadrat 11 2014 Quadrat 11 2015

Quadrat 12 2013 Quadrat 12 2014 Quadrat 12 2015

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

Quadrat 14 2013 Quadrat 14 2014 Quadrat 14 2015

Quadrat 15 2013 Quadrat 15 2014 Quadrat 15 2015

Quadrat 16 2013 Quadrat 16 2014 Quadrat 16 2015

Quadrat 17 2013 Quadrat 17 2014 Quadrat 17 2015

Quadrat 18 2013 Quadrat 18 2014 Quadrat 18 2015

Quadrat 19 2013 Quadrat 19 2014 Quadrat 19 2015

Quadrat 20 2013 Quadrat 20 2014 Quadrat 20 2015