section 38 referral supporting documentation - epa wa · section 38 referral supporting...

Prepared for Peet Limited September 2017

Section 38 Referral Supporting Documentation Lot 102 Farrall Road, Midvale Project No: EP16-009

Section 38 Referral Supporting Documentation Lot 102 Farrall Road, Midvale

Prepared for Peet Limited Doc No.: EP16-009(14)--038 CKK| Version: B

Project number: EP16-009|September 2017 Page i

Document Control

Doc name: Section 38 Referral Supporting Documentation Lot 102 Farrall Road, Midvale

Doc no.: EP16-009(14)--038 CKK

Version Date Author Reviewer

1 June 2017 Jessica Lisle JHL Chrystal King CKK

A September 2017 Chrystal King CKK Anna Welker ACW

Updated prior to submission to EPA.

B September 2017 Chrystal King CKK Anna Welker ACW

Updated to include EPBC Act referral timing.

© 2017 Emerge Associates All Rights Reserved. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Emerge Associates and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person without the prior written consent of Emerge Associates.



Project number: EP16-009|September 2017 Page ii

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Purpose and scope ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Proponent ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Environmental impact assessment process ...................................................................................... 2 1.4 Other approvals and regulation ........................................................................................................ 2

2 The Proposal ..........................................................................................................................................4

2.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Justification of development ............................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Proposal description ......................................................................................................................... 5

3 Existing Environment .............................................................................................................................6

3.1 Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Flora and Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2.1 Remnant FCT 20c vegetation ............................................................................................ 6 3.2.2 Threatened and priority flora ............................................................................................ 7 3.2.3 Disturbed areas with little or no native species present................................................... 7 3.2.4 Bush Forever ..................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Terrestrial Fauna ............................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.4.1 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 9 3.4.2 Surface Water ................................................................................................................... 9 3.4.3 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 9 3.4.4 Public Drinking Water Sources ........................................................................................ 10

3.5 Heritage .......................................................................................................................................... 10 3.5.1 Indigenous Heritage ........................................................................................................ 10 3.5.2 Non-Indigenous Heritage ................................................................................................ 10

4 Stakeholder engagement ..................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Key stakeholders ............................................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Stakeholder consultation ................................................................................................................ 11

5 Potential Key Environmental Factors and Impact Assessment ............................................................. 12

5.1 Key environmental factor - Flora and Vegetation ........................................................................... 12 5.1.1 EPA objective ................................................................................................................... 12 5.1.2 Policy and guidance ......................................................................................................... 12 5.1.3 Receiving environment ................................................................................................... 12 5.1.4 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................ 13 5.1.5 Assessment of impacts .................................................................................................... 13 5.1.6 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 14 5.1.7 Predicted outcome .......................................................................................................... 16

6 Other environmental factors or matters .............................................................................................. 18

7 Matters of National Environmental Significance .................................................................................. 19

8 Holistic impact assessment .................................................................................................................. 20

9 References ........................................................................................................................................... 22

9.1 General references ......................................................................................................................... 22



Project number: EP16-009|September 2017 Page iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Proponent details ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Table 2: Other approval and regulations ................................................................................................................. 3 Table 3 Aboriginal Heritage Sites within the site................................................................................................... 10 Table 4: Mitigation measures to minimise impacts to significant flora and vegetation ....................................... 16 Table 5: Assessment of other environmental factors. .......................................................................................... 18 Table 6: Significance test ....................................................................................................................................... 20

Figures

Figure 1: Site Locality Figure 2: Plant Communities Figure 3: Vegetation Condition Figure 4: Significant Environmental Values Figure 5: Management Areas and Zones

Appendices

Appendix A

Movida Local Structure Plan

Appendix B

Subdivision Plan

Appendix C

Technical Memorandum, Emerge Associates 2017

Appendix D

Rehabilitation and Vegetation Management Plan

Appendix E

Section 18 Consent

Appendix F

DBCA approval of RVMP



Project number: EP16-009|September 2017 Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and scope

The purpose of this document is to support a Section 38 referral pursuant to the Environmental

Protection Act 1986 (EP Act), associated with an application for subdivision of Lot 102 Farrall Road,

Midvale, Western Australia (herein referred to as ‘the site’ and shown Figure 1). Peet Stratton Pty

Ltd propose to develop the site for urban uses as part of the wider Movida residential development.

The Local Structure Plan (LSP) inclusive of the wider Estate and Lot 102 was approved by the Western

Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on 15 September 2016. The LSP is provided as Appendix A.

The site was zoned ‘Urban’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) prior to 1996. At that

time, there were no provisions in the EP Act for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to

review scheme amendments. This document has been prepared to provide succinct information for

the EPA in support of the subdivision application of the site. The proposed subdivision layout has

been provided in Appendix B.

1.2 Proponent

Table 1 provides the details of the proponent, Peet Stratton Pty Ltd.

Table 1: Proponent details

Proponent Details

Name Peet Stratton Pty Ltd

ACN/ABN 31 169 385 139 (ABN)

Postal Address PO Box 7224, Cloisters Square WA 6850

Proponent contact Paul Morgan Development Director, Operations Peet Limited [email protected]

Project Manager (Peet)

Julia Griffiths Development Manager Peet Limited 9420 1111 [email protected]

Consultant contact (Emerge Associates)

Chrystal King Suite 4, 26 Railway Road, Subiaco WA (08) 9380 4988 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]






1.3 Environmental impact assessment process

As part of the LSP approval process for the wider Movida residential development, a range of

environmental investigations were completed including specific fauna, flora and vegetation surveys.

The site-specific investigations for the site included:

• Geotechnical Investigation Report (MPA Williams & Associates 2005).

• Geotechnical Investigation (GHD 2008).

• Transport Assessment (Shawmac 2010).

• Road and Rail Acoustics Assessment (Herring Storer Acoustics 2010).

• Environmental Assessment Report (Coffey Environments 2010).

• Local Water Management Strategy (GHD 2010).

• Servicing Strategy Report (GHD 2010).

• Road and Rail Acoustic Assessment (Herring Storer Acoustics 2015).

• Geotechnical and Preliminary Acid Sulphate Soil Investigation (Douglas Partners 2014).

• Fire Management Plan (Natural Area Consulting Management Services 2015).

• Open Space Master Plan (Place Laboratory 2015).

• Local Water Management Strategy (Emerge Associates 2015d)

• Flora, Vegetation and Wetland Assessment (Emerge Associates 2015c).

• Fauna and Fauna Habitat Assessment (Greg Harewood 2014).

• Biophysical Assessment of Blackadder Creek and Woodbridge Creek (Emerge Associates 2015a).

The results of these surveys have been summarised in the Environmental Assessment and

Management Strategy (EAMS) (Emerge Associates 2015b) that was submitted as part of the LSP

documentation. During the LSP process consideration was given to the retention and management

of significant environmental features on the site.

Subsequent to the flora and vegetation investigations undertaken as part of the LSP process (Coffey

Environments 2010; Emerge Associates 2015c), a winter flora and vegetation assessment was

undertaken by Tauss & Associates (2016) and additional vegetation survey and mapping by Emerge

Associates (also in 2016). Whilst plant community and vegetation condition mapping is generally

consistent between these investigations, there are some minor differences.

For the purposes of this referral, a technical memorandum has been prepared to update the flora

and vegetation information from Emerge Associates (2015c) with information obtained by Emerge

Associates in February and June 2016 and by Tauss & Associates in June 2016. This technical

memorandum (Emerge Associates 2017b) has been provided in Appendix C.

1.4 Other approvals and regulation

Lot 102 is zoned ‘urban’ and ‘residential development’ under the MRS and the City of Swan Local

Planning Scheme (LPS) No. 17 respectively. The LSP for the wider Movida residential development

(inclusive of the site) was approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on 15

September 2016 and is provided as Appendix A.




Table 2 provides a summary of the key environmental approval and regulations relevant to the site.

Table 2: Other approval and regulations

Proposal activities Legislation Regulatory body Date of approval

EPBC Act referral Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Department of Environment and Energy

Referral to be submitted in September 2017

Section 18 consent Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 Department of Aboriginal Affairs

18 September 2015

LSP approval Planning and Development Act 2005

WAPC 15 September 2016




2 The Proposal

2.1 Background

Peet Stratton Pty Ltd proposes to develop the site for urban uses as part of the wider Movida

residential development (Figure 1).

The site was rezoned under the MRS from ‘Rural’ to ‘Urban’ prior to 1996, before the statutory

referral of scheme amendments to the EPA under Section 48 of the EP Act. As such, proposed

development within the site has not previously been assessed by the EPA.

As discussed in Section 1.3, a range of environmental investigations have been completed across the

wider Movida residential development which are summarised in Section 3.2. The significant

environmental values identified on the site include (see Figure 4):

• Bush Forever Site 309 (also referred to as the Farrall Road Bushland), and

• 0.5 ha the native vegetation ‘floristic community type’ (FCT) 20c ‘shrublands and woodlands of

eastern Swan Coastal Plain’1 in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition.

The FCT 20c vegetation in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition is considered representative of the Eastern

Shrublands and Woodlands Threatened Ecological Community (TEC). This TEC is listed as

‘endangered’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

and ‘critically endangered’ by the WA Minister for the Environment. For the purposes of this referral

this vegetation is herein referred to as ‘FCT 20c TEC’. The FCT 20c TEC vegetation includes one large

patch (totalling approximately 0.3 ha) and two small, scattered patches (totalling approximately 0.2

ha) as described further in Section 3.2.

The LSP specifically responded to these significant values present within the site and proposes to

retain Bush Forever Site 309 and 0.3 ha of FCT 20c TEC within Public Open Space (POS) within Lot

102.

2.2 Justification of development

The Western Australian Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DoPLH) and WAPC are

responsible for urban, rural and regional land use planning and the coordination of urban

development within Western Australia. Statutory planning documents such as the MRS as well as

regional and strategic guidance documents, are prepared and updated to outline the location and

nature of necessary urban growth, commercial/activity centres, transport systems and infrastructure

throughout Western Australia. This planning framework considers environment, health, transport,

infrastructure, economy and community within an integrated and holistic framework. State

government agencies, local government and utilities use the MRS and the planning framework to

make decisions regarding infrastructure needs, commercial centres and community facilities within

specific areas.

1 This FCT is also referred to as ‘eastern shrublands and woodlands’ and ‘shrublands and woodlands of the eastern side of the Swan Coastal Plain’.




In accordance with the above, the proposal is within an established broader land use planning

context, in which the Government of Western Australia has considered the extent of urban growth

required throughout Western Australia in order to accommodate the projected population growth.

The Midvale/Stratton area incorporating the site, was identified by the Government of Western

Australia for ‘Urban’ land use as part of the ‘north-east sub-region’ in Directions 2031 and beyond –

Metropolitan Planning Beyond the Horizon (WAPC 2010) as well as in the Draft North-East Sub-

regional Planning Framework (WAPC 2015), which once approved will ultimately become the sub-

regional structure plan for the area. The design of the LSP and the proposed subdivision

incorporating the site were informed and guided by these planning documents and strategies and

align with the permitted uses of the ‘Urban’ and ‘Residential Development’ zones under the MRS and

LPS No. 17 respectively.

2.3 Proposal description

The proposed subdivision will include the development of the site for residential development

(Appendix B) and will include the following future land uses:

• Residential land use

• Road reserves

• Public open space (POS)

• Bush Forever reserve and wetland buffer area

• Utilities/infrastructure

The subdivision of the site will result in the clearing of 2.68 ha remnant vegetation in ‘degraded’ or

‘good’ condition including approximately 0.2 ha of FCT 20c TEC. The residential development of the

site will also facilitate the retention, rehabilitation and management of the Bush Forever Site and 0.3

ha of adjacent FCT 20c TEC vegetation as discussed further in Section 0 and the Rehabilitation and

Vegetation Management Plan (RVMP) (Emerge Associates 2017a) (Appendix D).




3 Existing Environment

The following section provides a summary of the existing environment of the site. This is provided in

more detail in the EAMS which was prepared by Emerge Associates (2015b) to support the LSP.

3.1 Soils

Environmental geology (surface soils) across the site has been mapped by the Geological Survey of

Western Australia (Gozzard 1986). The site comprises of pebbly silty sand overlying clay consistent

with the Guildford Formation and medium-grained yellow sands of the Yoganup Formation. The

underlay of clay soils is indicative of the Multiple Use wetlands present across a portion of the site.

The Geotechnical and Preliminary Acid Sulphate Soil Investigation (Douglas Partners 2014)

undertaken for the northern portion of the wider Movida site indicates that Acid Sulphate Soils are

unlikely to occur within the site to depths of two metres. This is generally consistent with the

published Department of Environment and Conservation mapping.

3.2 Flora and Vegetation

Detailed site-specific flora and vegetation investigations have been undertaken over the site by a

number of parties, including Coffey Environments (2010), Emerge Associates (2015c), Tauss &

Associates (2016) and additional vegetation survey and mapping by Emerge Associates (also in 2016).

While the information obtained through these investigations is generally consistent, the

understanding of plant community type and vegetation condition within the site has evolved over

time. In particular the presence of the FCT 20c TEC which was not confirmed until the surveys by

Tauss & Associates and Emerge Associates in February and June 2016.

For the purposes of this referral, a technical memorandum has been prepared to update the flora

and vegetation information from Emerge Associates (2015c) with information obtained by Emerge

Associates in February and June 2016 and by Tauss & Associates in June 2016. This has been

provided in Appendix C.

The plant communities and vegetation condition over the site has been provided in Figure 2 and

Figure 3 respectively.

3.2.1 Remnant FCT 20c vegetation

The vegetation determined to represent FCT 20c was mapped as a ‘sparse to open woodland of

Banksia attenuata, Banksia menziesii and Eucalyptus todtiana over open shrubland to shrubland of

Adenanthos cygnorum and Allocasuarina humilis over low sparse shrubland to shrubland of

Conostephium pendulum, Stirlingia latifolia and Hibbertia spp. over forb and sedgeland of Lyginia

spp., Dasypogon bromeliifolius, Conostylis aculeata, Podotheca gnaphalioides and forb/grassland of

pasture weeds’ (Emerge Associates 2015c). This is listed as community BaBm within Figure 2. This

community is known to occur 700 m east of the site within the Talbot Nature Reserve and represents

the Commonwealth and State listed TEC ‘shrublands and woodlands of the eastern Swan Coastal

Plain.’




Floristic quadrats sampled by both (Tauss & Associates 2016) and Emerge (2016) were used to

determine the more intact parts of the vegetation community to represent FCT 20c. The vegetation

community associated with the remnant FCT 20c vegetation within the Lot 102 ranges from ‘very-

good’ to ‘completely degraded’ with the better condition vegetation located adjacent to the Bush

Forever site. The remaining areas of the FCT 20c vegetation to the south and north of the site are in

‘degraded’ and intermediate ‘good to degraded’ condition and include *Ehrharta calycina (perennial

veldt grass) at varying densities and cover (Figure 2).

Conservation advice was recently released by the Federal Government for the ‘shrublands and

woodlands of the eastern Swan Coastal Plain’ (DoEE 2017) noting that ‘because the ecological

community has a very restricted distribution and is listed as Critically Endangered in Western

Australia, no condition thresholds have been applied to the nationally-listed ecological community

and hence it is considered that all areas meeting the description of the ecological community are

critical to its survival’. Based on the extensive survey effort over the site which involved multiple site

visits by multiple parties, it is considered that the areas in ‘Degraded’ condition within the site do not

meet the description of the ecological community (with regards to the structural layers present and

the species composition) and are therefore not representative of the TEC. The extent of the TEC as

mapped in this referral was also agreed to by DPaW (now DBCA) Species and Communities Branch.

This is further summarised in the technical memorandum provided in Appendix C.

The site therefore contains a total of 0.5 ha of the FCT 20c TEC (shown in Figure 4), including:

• 0.3 ha located adjacent to the Bush Forever site in ‘very good’ (725 m2) and ‘good’ (2,225 m2)

condition which is proposed to be retained as part of this proposal.

• 0.2 ha located on the eastern boundary of the site in ‘good’ condition located in two patches of

500 m2 and 1,500 m2 which is proposed to be removed as part of this proposal.

3.2.2 Threatened and priority flora

A total of 14 individuals of one priority ‘3’ species, Isopogon drummondii, was recorded within the

eastern side of the site (Emerge Associates 2015c; Tauss & Associates 2016). The locations of these

individuals are shown on Figure 2. No other threatened or priority flora species are considered to

occur in the site.

3.2.3 Disturbed areas with little or no native species present

Parts of the site have been historically disturbed from past land uses and now contain areas of

vegetation in ‘completely degraded’ condition. Some of these areas include completely cleared

tracks which have been historically used for access across the site. Few native flora species remain in

these areas, although the native annual herb Podotheca gnaphalioides may be present. Perennial

veldt grass is dominant in most degraded and completely degraded locations.

3.2.4 Bush Forever

Bush Forever Site 309 (Farrall Road Bushland, Stratton) is located in the southern portion of Lot 102

(Figure 4). The attributes contributing to the regional significance of Bush Forever Site No. 309

include the representation of ecological communities and general criteria for the protection of




wetland, streamline and estuarine fringing and coastal vegetation (Government of Western Australia

2000a).

Bush Forever Site 309 contains a seasonal wetland community that was mapped as ‘woodland to low

open forest of Melaleuca preissiana, with emergent Corymbia calophylla over sparse shrubland of

Astartea scoparia, Marianthus sp., Xanthorrhoea preissii and Acacia pulchella over sedgeland to

closed sedgeland of Dielsia stenostachya and Cyperaceae sp. and open forbland of Corynotheca

micrantha subsp. micrantha, Drosera spp. and Burchardia congesta (Emerge Associates 2015c). No

floristics quadrats were sampled within this vegetation, but based on its structure and composition it

is inferred to represent FCT 11 ‘Wet forests and woodlands’ (Gibson et al. 1994). FCT 11 is a relatively

well reserved wetland plant community across the Swan Coastal Plain (Gibson et al. 1994).

The remnant native vegetation in the Bush Forever site is mostly intact and was mapped as being in

‘excellent’ condition in accordance with the Keighery (1994) vegetation condition scale (Emerge

Associates 2015c). However, some degraded areas occur around the margins where understorey

layers are replaced by a closed grassland of *Ehrharta calycina (perennial; veldt grass), Ehrharta

longifolia (annual veldt grass), Eragrostis curvula (African love grass) with localised occurrence of the

bulb *Watsonia meriana var. bulbillifera (bugle lily).

Part of the site the Bush Forever Site 309 is mapped as a ‘multiple use’ wetland but due to the

generally excellent condition of vegetation present it is considered to be more representative of a

‘conservation category’ wetland (Emerge Associates 2015c).

3.3 Terrestrial Fauna

A level 1 fauna assessment undertaken for the majority of the site (Greg Harewood 2014) found that,

overall, fauna habitat values have been severely compromised by the total or partial clearing of

native vegetation. Most areas lack any natural attributes and are now only utilised by generally

common and widespread fauna species with non-specific requirements which allow them to persist

in highly disturbed habitats (Greg Harewood 2014). Various areas of remnant vegetation (particularly

within Bush Forever Site No. 309) provide the best value fauna habitat; however, these areas are

generally degraded and lack native groundcover/shrubs and microhabitats such as hollow logs (Greg

Harewood 2014).

Despite the area’s historical disturbance, the site contains some areas of suitable habitat for a range

of species including some species of conservation significance such as the:

• Baudin’s black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus baudinii)

• Carnaby’s black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris

• Forest red-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksia naso)

• Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)

• Southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus fusciventer) (Greg Harewood 2014).




3.4 Hydrology

A summary of the hydrological processes on the site is provided below and further detail can be

found in the LWMS (Emerge Associates 2015d).

3.4.1 Groundwater

Information on groundwater from the Water Register (DoW 2014) indicates that groundwater

beneath the site is a multi-layered system comprised of the following:

• Perth – Superficial Swan unconfined aquifer (‘Shire of Swan South’ groundwater subarea)

• Perth – Leederville semi-confined aquifer (‘Perth south confined’ groundwater subarea)

• Perth – Yarragadee confined aquifer (‘Perth south confined’ groundwater subarea).

Groundwater data from the Perth Groundwater Atlas (DoW 2014) shows minimum groundwater

levels across the site are at approximately 11 m AHD with groundwater flowing in a westerly

direction. Historic groundwater monitoring undertaken by GHD in 2007 and 2008 (GHD 2010) for the

wider Movida residential development (LSP area) indicates that Maximum Groundwater Level (MGL)

ranges between 14 m AHD in the west of the site to 22 m AHD in the east.

3.4.2 Surface Water

A DoW mapped tributary drain to the Blackadder Creek begins within the Bush Forever site and runs

through the wider Movida development. This tributary is referred to as the ‘Blackadder tributary’.

A biophysical assessment was undertaken by Emerge Associates in order to understand the remnant

hydrological and ecological values associated with the mapped waterways and to determine the level

of consideration required (if any) within the LSP. Based on a detailed site-specific assessment of the

Blackadder tributary, it was determined that there are no ecological or hydrological values present at

the location of the mapped waterway (other than those associated with the wetland values of the

Bush Forever Site as discussed in Section 3.4 below), and no defined channel that would indicate a

seasonal flow through the site in this area. This assessment was approved by the (former)

Department of Water in January 2015.

3.4.3 Wetlands

Based on DPaW’s Geomorphic Wetland series mapping, a Multiple Use (MU) wetland (UFI 115136) is

located in the south-western corner of the site contained within Bush Forever site 309 (DPaW, 2013).

MU wetland areas are recognised as having few wetland attributes, but still provide some

hydrological functions. The management objective for these wetlands is to ‘use, develop and manage

in the context of water, town and environmental planning’ (WAPC 2005).

While this wetland while currently mapped as MU wetland, the vegetation within Bush Forever site

309 has been found to be representative of a Conservation Category (CC) wetland. CC wetlands

support a high level of environmental values, and are the highest priority wetlands. In accordance

with State Planning Policy 2.9 Water Resources, the management objective for CC wetlands is the

preservation, conservation and protection of wetlands environmental attributes functions and

values.




3.4.4 Public Drinking Water Sources

The site is not located within any proclaimed or proposed Public Drinking Water Source Areas.

3.5 Heritage

3.5.1 Indigenous Heritage

Based on a review of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) ‘Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System’

online database, there are multiple registered Indigenous heritage sites within or immediately

adjacent to the site. These Aboriginal Heritage sites within the site are detailed in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Aboriginal Heritage Sites within the site

Site ID Site Name Site Type

DAA 3492 Green Bullfrog Dreaming Artefacts/Scatter, Mythological, Skeletal Material/Burial

DAA 3720 Blackadder and Woodbridge Creek Mythological

Both these sites cover a large area (beyond the proposal site) and these indigenous heritage sites

were investigated as part of the LSP process. Ethnographic consultation was completed in 2014 to

support a Section 18 application lodged in 2015. Section 18 consent for the proposed development

was received from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs on 18 September 2015. This Section 18

consent is attached as Appendix E.

3.5.2 Non-Indigenous Heritage

A desktop search of the Australian Heritage Database (Department of Environment 2013), the State

Heritage Office database (Heritage Council 2012) and the City of Swan’s local municipal heritage list

indicated there are no registered heritage sites within or in close proximity to the site. Middle Swan

Primary School, a listed local heritage site, is located approximately 400 m east of the site.

No further consideration was required for non-Indigenous heritage within the LSP.




4 Stakeholder engagement

4.1 Key stakeholders

The following stakeholders have been identified as key stakeholders in regards to the proposal for

the site.

• Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW, now DBCA)

• Department of Planning (DoP, now DoPLH)

• Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA)

• City of Swan (CoS)

• Federal Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE).

4.2 Stakeholder consultation

Stakeholder consultation is undertaken through the LSP public advertising process. The advertising

process requires the landowner to respond to any concerns raised by government agencies or the

local community through public submissions.

Stakeholder consultation was also conducted during the preparation of the RVMP document

including an onsite meeting with DPaW (now DBCA), DoP and the OEPA at Lot 102 to discuss the

RVMP on the 22 November 2016. A separate meeting with held on the 16 February 2017 with the

City of Swan to discuss the RVMP and the LSP amendment. These meetings did not reveal any areas

of concern from stakeholders and all parties were generally supportive of the content and intent of

the RVMP. The RVMP for the site (Revision F, Appendix D) was approved by DBCA on the 16th August

2017 (Appendix F).

A pre-referral meeting was held with the OEPA on 6th of April 2017 at the OEPA offices. This was

attended by Teresa Byrant from the OEPA as well as representatives from Peet and Emerge

Associates. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Section 38 referral associated with this

proposal.

Consultation was undertaken via teleconference with assessment officers within the DoEE on the

16th August 2017 for this proposal. This was completed by Strategen Environmental Consultants who

are preparing the EPBC Act referral for this proposal. The EPBC Act referral is expected to be lodged

with the DoEE in September 2017.




5 Potential Key Environmental Factors and Impact Assessment

Based on the analysis of the proposal and site investigations the proposal has the potential to impact

on one environmental factor: Flora and Vegetation. The potential impacts as well as mitigation and

management measures are described further in Section 5.1 below.

5.1 Key environmental factor - Flora and Vegetation

5.1.1 EPA objective

The EPA’s Environmental Factor Guidelines for Flora and Vegetation (EPA 2016) states that the broad

objective for flora and vegetation biodiversity conservation is: ‘To protect flora and vegetation so

that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained.’

5.1.2 Policy and guidance

The flora and vegetation investigations that have informed the planning of the site have been

conducted in accordance with the Technical Guidance - Flora and Vegetation Surveys for

Environmental Impact Assessment (Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2016) and the

Environmental Factor Guideline: Flora and Vegetation (EPA 2016).

5.1.3 Receiving environment

As stated in Section 3.2, the site contains the following vegetation (Figure 2):

• Woodland to low open forest of Melaleuca preissiana currently in ‘excellent’ Condition

associated with Bush Forever Site 309 (also referred to as the Farrall Road Bushland).

• Sparse open woodland of Banksia attenuata, Banksia menziesii and Eucalyptus todtiana mostly

in ‘degraded’ condition but with small areas identified as ‘good’ condition.

• Sparse native and planted exotic trees over closed forb/grassland of pasture weeds currently in

‘completely degraded’ condition.

Vegetation condition mapping in accordance with the Keighery (1994) vegetation condition scale is

shown over the site in Figure 3.

As shown in Figure 4,approximately 0.5ha of vegetation representative of the FCT 20c TEC is

contained within the site, including:

• 0.3 ha of vegetation located adjacent to the Bush Forever site in ‘very good’ (725 m2) and ‘good’

(2225 m2) condition

• 0.2 ha of vegetation located on the eastern boundary of the site in ‘good’ condition located in

two patches of 500 m2 and 1,500 m2.




5.1.4 Potential impacts

The potential impacts to flora and vegetation as a result of the proposal include:

• Clearing of 2.68 ha native vegetation within the site in ‘degraded’ or ‘good’ condition

• Clearing of 0.2 ha of FCT 20c TEC vegetation on the eastern boundary of the site in ‘good’

condition located in two patches of 500 m2 and 1,500 m2

• Clearing of eight Priority 3 Isopogon drummondii individuals

5.1.5 Assessment of impacts

The subdivision has been designed in order to maximize the retention of native vegetation through

the position of Public Open Space. The Public Open Space will create a consolidated area of native

vegetation which incorporates FCT 20c TEC vegetation, Isopogon drummondii individuals, a wetland

and a Bush Forever site. This area of vegetation will be managed as a consolidated unit, providing

effective and efficient native vegetation management.

Significant survey work has been undertaken within the site to define the extent of the TEC, as well

as locate vegetated areas with the greatest value for retention. Based on this analysis,

approximately 2.68 ha of native vegetation, including 0.2 ha of the FCT 20c TEC vegetation and eight

Priority 3 Isopogon drummondii individuals is proposed to be cleared, and 2.3 ha of native

vegetation, including 0.3 ha of FCT 20c TEC vegetation and 6 Priority 3 Isopogon drummondii

individuals, is proposed to be retained.

The FCT 20c TEC vegetation that is proposed to be cleared includes two small parcels of FCT 20c TEC

vegetation which are isolated from other areas of intact vegetation (refer to Figure 4). The

vegetation immediately surrounding these patches is in ‘degraded’ or ‘completely degraded’

condition (refer to Figure 3). The retention of these two patches was determined to be

unsustainable due to:

• the small size of the community

• the surrounding heavily degraded vegetation

• isolation of the FCT 20c TEC vegetation from other non-degraded areas.

The patch of FCT 20c TEC that is proposed to be retained is considered more suitable for retention

given that it is:

• located adjacent to high quality vegetation within the Bush Forever reserve

• a larger patch of FCT 20c TEC vegetation and therefore less subject to edge effects (refer to

Figure 4)

• recorded as being in ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition (refer to Figure 3).

The proposal will also result in the rehabilitation and management of 0.4 ha of vegetation adjacent

to the FCT 20c TEC vegetation proposed to be retained (refer to Figure 5). The implementation of the

proposal will see these areas management by the proponent for three years, as well as transferred to

the Crown as part of subdivision and managed for conservation purposes within Public Open Space.




5.1.6 Mitigation

The proposal has endeavored to mitigate the impact of the future urban development on the site

through retention of the most significant and intact vegetation on the site. Approximately 2.3 ha of

vegetation will be retained in future POS within the site. The vegetation proposed for retention and

conservation management includes:

• Approximately 1.6 ha of vegetation associated with the Bush Forever reserve and wetland.

• Approximately 0.3 ha of vegetation representative of the FCT 20c TEC. This vegetation has been

recorded as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ condition and its location adjacent to the Bush Forever reserve

suggests that it is a suitable area for retention.

• Approximately 0.4 ha of vegetation that is in ‘degraded’ to ‘completely degraded’ condition,

which is proposed to be rehabilitated.

An RVMP has been prepared as a condition of the LSP and will be implemented as a condition of

subdivision. The RVMP aims to manage and improve the condition of vegetation within the Public

Open Space area associated with Bush forever Site 309. This includes improving the condition of

degraded areas of FCT 20c vegetation to ‘very good’ condition, and to manage the condition of other

‘degraded’ and ‘completely degraded’ areas similar in composition to FCT 20c and FCT 11 wetland

vegetation to at least ‘good’ condition. Where vegetation is already in ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’

condition, rehabilitation may only require careful weed control.

In summary, the rehabilitation that is proposed within the RVMP (Appendix D) will result in:

• Management of 2,949 m2 of FCT 20c TEC vegetation and 1,616 m2 of the vegetation immediately

surrounding the FCT 20c TEC vegetation. It was determined that the best management

approach was to manage the FCT 20c TEC vegetation and the immediate surrounding vegetation

as one management cell (4,565 m2) to minimise disturbance. It is the intention that ‘degraded’

and ‘good’ portions of this vegetation are managed to achieve a vegetation condition rating of

‘very good’ or better.

• Infill revegetation of an area of approximately 1,250 m2 that is in ‘degraded’ condition with

species associated with the FCT 20c, using locally sourced genetic material where possible and

undertake management to achieve a vegetation condition rating of ‘good’ or better.

• Intensive revegetation of an area of approximately 1,245 m2 that is in ‘degraded’ condition with

species associated with the FCT 20c, using locally sourced genetic material where possible and

undertake management to achieve a vegetation condition rating of ‘good’ or better

• Management of 15,780 m2 FCT 11 vegetation within Bush Forever Site No. 309 to improve the

condition of ‘degraded’ portions to ‘good’ or better

Based on the above, the completion of the objectives outlined in the RVMP will result in the

restoration of approximately 0.4 ha of FCT 20c vegetation in addition to the retained 0.3 ha FCT 20c

TEC vegetation. A copy of the RVMP has been provided in Appendix D.

A summary of the above mitigation measures used to minimise the impact to significant flora and

vegetation is provided in




Table 4.




Table 4: Mitigation measures to minimise impacts to significant flora and vegetation

Environmental Factor

Mitigation Measures

Avoidance Minimisation Rehabilitation

Flora and Vegetation

The POS has been located to avoid disturbance to 0.3 ha of significant vegetation, a wetland Bush Forever Site and 6 Isopogon drummondii individuals.

The following minimisation measures will be undertaken: • Pathways within the POS will

be located on existing tracks minimising areas required to be cleared for access.

• Identified Priority flora within the Management zone will be clearly demarcated during construction and included in management of the reserve

• Revegetation and management areas will be fenced to restrict access.

• Standard construction measures will be undertaken to minimise the spread of weeds during clearing and minimise the generation of dust.

In accordance with the RVMP, the following rehabilitation measures will be undertaken: • Management of the 0.3 ha of

significant vegetation and surrounding 1,616 m2 of vegetation will be undertaken to minimise weeds.

• Infill revegetation will be undertaken for approximately 1,250 m2 with species associated with the FCT 20c

• Intensive revegetation will be undertaken for approximately 1,250 m2 with species associated with the FCT 20c

• Management of FCT 11 vegetation within Bush Forever Site No. 309

5.1.7 Predicted outcome

Taking into consideration the small size of the proposed clearing of significant vegetation, it’s

isolated location relevant to other areas of vegetation and the proposed rehabilitation commitments

for the site, the proposed subdivision is not expected to represent a significant impact to flora and

vegetation and meets the EPA objective.

The majority of the significant flora and vegetation values within the site will be retained and

managed, assisting in the EPA’s objective of retaining biological diversity and ecological integrity. In

accordance with the RVMP, the mitigation measures described in




Table 4 will be undertaken to adequately offset the loss of the 0.2 ha of FCT 20c TEC vegetation,

specifically through the restoration of approximately 0.4 ha of FCT 20c vegetation in addition to the

retention of 0.3 ha FCT 20c TEC vegetation.

The RVMP will guide the rehabilitation and vegetation management of these areas and has been

prepared in accordance with the WA Environmental Offsets Policy and Guidelines (Government of

WA 2011, 2014) and with consideration of the Interim Recovery Plan for the FCT 20c community

from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC 2006). The implementation of the

RVMP will occur as a condition of subdivision. The proponent will implement, manage and monitor

the revegetation area for 3 years in accordance with the RVMP. Following the completion of the

monitoring and management by the proponent, the reserve will be transferred to the Crown and

managed for conservation purposes.

The RVMP for the site was also approved by the DBCA in August 2017 (Appendix F).




6 Other environmental factors or matters

No other environmental factors or matters identified on site were considered significant as discussed

in Table 5.

Table 5: Assessment of other environmental factors.

Environmental factor

Significance of impact

Benthic Communities and Habitat

No benthic communities and/or habitat are located on or adjacent to the site

Coastal Processes The site is not located adjacent to or nearby coastal areas

Marine Environmental Quality

The site is not located adjacent to or nearby marine areas

Marine Fauna The site is not located adjacent to or nearby marine areas

Landforms There are no impacts on landform as a result of the proposed subdivision.

Subterranean Fauna

There are no impacts on subterranean fauna as a result of the proposed subdivision.

Terrestrial Environmental Quality

The impact of the proposed subdivision on the terrestrial environmental quality is not deemed significant. The site contains no soil contamination. Subdivision and development construction will occur using standard construction techniques and management practices.

Terrestrial Fauna There are no significant impacts on terrestrial fauna as a result of the proposed subdivision. Fauna use of the site will continue in the proposed Public Open Space area.

Hydrological Processes

There are no significant impacts on hydrological processes as a result of the proposed subdivision. Management of the hydrological processes associated with the proposed subdivision has been addressed the Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) prepared as part of the LSP. This document has been prepared in accordance with State policy and guidelines including State Planning Policy 2.9: Water Resources and Better Urban Water Management (WAPC 2006, 2008). Further information regarding the management of the hydrological processes will be addressed in an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) which will be prepared as part of the subdivision.

Inland Waters Environmental Quality

Future rehabilitation of the POS area will ensure the wetland area associated with the Bush Forever site is appropriately managed. Management of the wetlands and groundwater quality has been addressed as part of the LWMS prepared during the LSP process and will be detailed further within the proposed UWMP prepared for the subdivision.

Air Quality The proposed subdivision will result in minimal air quality (dust) emissions as a result of earthworks however this will be appropriately managed and no significant impacts are expected to occur.

Social Surroundings The proposed subdivision will not significantly impact on the social surroundings of the site. The site is degraded and has been used for various rural land practices over a number of years. The site is not accessed by the public and is surrounded by urban development. While the site contains some Aboriginal Heritage sites, a Section 18 consent has been obtained as part of the LSP approval process and relevant Aboriginal groups have been consulted as part of this process.

Human Health The proposed subdivision will not impact significantly on the human health of the site. The provision of public space within the proposed subdivision will help contribute to healthy and active lifestyles.




7 Matters of National Environmental Significance

A number of potential Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) have the potential to

occur within the site, however only one MNES is considered to have the potential to be impacted by

the proposal which is Floristic Community Type 20c ‘shrublands and woodlands of the eastern Swan

Coastal Plain’.

Floristic Community Type 20c ‘shrublands and woodlands of the eastern Swan Coastal Plain’ is a TEC

that is listed as ‘endangered’ under the EPBC Act and ‘critically endangered’ by the WA Minister for

the Environment. As discussed, the subdivision will result in the clearing of approximately 0.2 ha of

significant vegetation representative of FCT 20c TEC vegetation, identified as being in ‘good’

condition. A RVMP has been prepared to offset the clearing of this vegetation and will result in the

retention of 0.3 ha of FCT 20c TEC vegetation within the site, and the revegetation and management

of approximately 0.4 ha that is in ‘degraded’ or ‘completely degraded’ condition with species

associated with the FCT 20c vegetation.

In accordance with the EPBC Act, the project will be referred to the Department of Environment and

Energy for consideration in September 2017.




8 Holistic impact assessment

The EPA may have regard to various factors in reaching a decision as to whether a proposal is likely

to have a significant effect on the environment, whether it is likely to meet its objectives for

environmental factors and consequently, whether a referred Proposal should be assessed. Those

factors include:

• Values, sensitivity and quality of the environment which is likely to be impacted

• Extent (intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic footprint) of the likely impacts

• Consequence of the likely impacts (or change)

• Resilience of the environment to cope with the impacts or change

• Cumulative impact with other projects

• Connections and interactions between parts of the environment to inform a holistic view of

impacts to the whole environment

• Level of confidence in the prediction of impacts and the success of proposed mitigation

• Public interest about the likely effect of the proposal, if implemented, on the environment, and

public information that informs the EPA’s assessment.

A significance test has been conducted to determine whether the Proposal is likely to:

• have a significant effect on the environment

• meet its objectives for environmental factors

• require formal assessment.

The outcomes of the significant test are outlined in Table 6.

Table 6: Significance test

Criteria Assessment

Values, sensitivity and quality of the environment which is likely to be impacted

The site contains approximately 0.5 ha of FCT 20c ‘shrublands and woodlands of the eastern Swan Coastal Plain’ TEC vegetation. The vegetation is in three separate patches including a large patch of ‘good’ and ‘very good’ condition vegetation and two small patches of ‘good’ condition vegetation. The large patch is located adjacent to the proposed reserve associated with the Bush Forever site. The two small patches are located on the eastern boundary of the site, isolated from surrounding vegetation. The remainder of vegetation is ‘degraded’ or ‘completely degraded’ and contains no environmental significance.

Extent (intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic footprint) of the likely impacts

A maximum of 0.2 ha of significant vegetation will be cleared as a result of the proposal. This area contains two small patches (approximately 500 m2 and 1500 m2 in size) that are isolated from surrounding vegetation. The impacts associated with the Proposal are considered to be minimal. The overall effects of the Proposal are not expected to be significant at a local or regional level.

Consequence of the likely impacts (or change)

The proposed action will result in the removal of 0.2 ha of the FCT 20c TEC vegetation, retention of 0.3 ha of FCT 20c TEC vegetation and rehabilitation of 0.4 ha of FCT 20c vegetation. Rehabilitation will be undertaken by the proponent for 3 years. The retained and rehabilitated vegetation will be transferred to the Crown for conservation purposes.




Criteria Assessment

Resilience of the environment to cope with the impacts or change

The proposed action will improve the resilience of the vegetation through appropriate rehabilitation, fencing and management of the retained FCT 20c vegetation. The FCT 20c TEC vegetation proposed to be removed is isolated from surrounding vegetation, and smaller in size, and therefore it would be reasonable to assume that this vegetation is likely to degrade over time without ongoing management.

Cumulative impact with other projects

Given the very small area of significant vegetation affected by the proposal, the overall cumulative impacts to key environmental factors are considered to be low. Rehabilitation of areas adjacent to the retained vegetation will be undertaken to overall increase the area of FCT 20c TEC vegetation within the site. The proposal will not affect other areas of vegetation outside of the site.

Connections and interactions between parts of the environment to inform a holistic view of impacts to the whole environment

Development of the site will aim to minimise environmental impacts through standard construction techniques used to mitigate dust and emissions. Water management will occur in accordance with the Better Urban Water Management Guidelines. The protection of wetland and retained FCT 20c TEC vegetation will occur through revegetation, rehabilitation and management by the proponent for a period of 3 years and subsequently will be transferred to the Crown for conservation purposes.

Level of confidence in the prediction of impacts and the success of proposed mitigation

The environmental impacts of this proposal will be addressed through the management measures identified in the RVMP that has been approved by DBCA providing a high level of confidence in the anticipated impacts of the proposal. The RVMP addresses a number of factors, including (but not limited to) rehabilitation and vegetation management relating to the FCT 20c vegetation. Rehabilitation and revegetation areas will be managed for 3 years by the proponent.

Public interest about the likely effect of the proposal, if implemented, on the environment, and public information that informs the EPA’s assessment.

Peet have undertaken extensive consultation during the LSP process with relevant government and community stakeholders. Peet will continue to consult with relevant stakeholders throughout the life of the development. The list of stakeholders will continue to be developed and revised as required.

The outcome of the significance test as outlined above suggests that the proposal is unlikely to be

significant, meets the EPA objectives and therefore is unlikely to warrant formal environmental

assessment.




9 References

9.1 General references

Coffey Environments 2010, Environmental Report West Stratton Structure Plan, report prepared for

the Department of Housing.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) 2006, Interim Recovery Plan 2006-2011 for the

shrublands and woodlands on the eastern side of the Swan Coastal Plain (community type 20c),

Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth.

Deparment of Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2017, Approved Conservation Advice for Shrublands

and Woodlands of the eastern Swan Coastal Plain, Canberra.

Emerge Associates 2015a, Biophysical Assessment of Blackadder Creek and Woodbridge Creek, report

prepared for Peet Stratton Pty Ltd, Subiaco.

Emerge Associates 2015b, Environmental Assessment and Management Strategy Midvale Local

Structure Plan report prepared for Peet Stratton Pty Ltd, Subiaco.

Emerge Associates 2015c, Flora, Vegetation and Wetland Assessment Various Allottments, Midvale

and Stratton, report prepared for Peet Stratton Pty Ltd, Subiaco.

Emerge Associates 2015d, Local Water Management Strategy Midvale Local Structure Plan, report

prepared on behalf of Peet Stratton Pty Ltd, Subiaco.

Emerge Associates 2017a, Rehabilitation and Vegetation Management Plan, report prepared for Peet

Stratton Pty Ltd, Subiaco.

Emerge Associates 2017b, Technical Memorandum: Lot 102 Farrall Road, Midvale, report prepared

for Peet Stratton Pty Ltd, Subiaco.

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2016, Technical Guidance - Flora and Vegetation Surveys

for Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Protection Authority, Perth.

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2016, Environmental Factor Guideline: Flora and

Vegetation, Perth.

Gibson, N., Keighery, B., Keighery, G., Burbidge, A. and Lyons, M. 1994, A Floristic survey of the

southern Swan Coastal Plain, Department of Conservation and Land Management and the

Conservation Council of Western Australia, Perth.

Government of WA 2014, WA Environmental Offets Guidelines, Perth.

Keighery, B. 1994, Bushland Plant Survey: A guide to plant community survey for the community,

Wildflower Society of WA (Inc), Nedlands.

Tauss & Associates 2016, Winter Flora & Vegetation Survey: Lot 102 Farrell Rd Stratton, WA.




Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) 2005, Guidelines for the Determination of Wetland

Buffer Requirements, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth.

Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) 2006, State Planning Policy 2.9: Water Resources,

Gazetted in December 2006. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth.

Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) 2008, Better Urban Water Management, Western

Australian Planning Commission, Perth.

Figure 1: Site Locality

Figure 2: Plant Communities

Figure 3: Vegetation Condition

Figure 4: Significant Environmental Values

Figure 5: Management Areas and Zones

Figures

rachel.omodei

Morrison Road

Orchar

d Aven

ue

Balfo

ur Ro

ad

Pursuit C lose

Blanchard Road

Swan

Avenu

e

Myles

Road

MockeridgeCct

Toodyay Road

O'connor Road

Lewis Jones C rescent

Farral

l Road

Roe H

ighwa

y

Blacka

dder

Road

408000

408000

409000

409000

6472

000

6472

000

6473

000

6473

000

6474

000

6474

000

While Emerge Associates makes every attempt to ensure the accuracy and completeness of data, Emerge accepts no responsibility for externally sourced data used

Site boundaryLSP boundaryCadastral boundary

Peet Stratton Pty LtdEPA Section 38 ReferralLot 102 Farrall Road Midvale

Site LocationFigure 1:

Project:Client:

Site Location

± GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Scale: 1:10,000@A4

0 100 200

Metres

Plan Number:EP16-009(14)--F58Drawn:Date:Checked: Approved:Date:

KNM31/05/2017RAOTAA07/06/2017

rachel.omodei

"6

$1

$1

"6

!.!.

!. !."6

!.

!.

$1

$1

&(

&(&(&(&(

&(&(

&(

&(

&(

&(&(&(

&(

WilgieGardens

Blackadder Road

Farral

l Road

Q3

R7

R6

Q2

POI6POI5POI4

POI3Q1

POI2

POI1

R2

R1

408500

408500

408750

408750

6472

500

6472

500

6472

750

6472

750

6473

000

6473

000

6473

250

6473

250



&(Isopogon drummondii locations(Emerge 2016)

Vegetation communitiesBaBmBimaCcMpParkland cleared

Survey locations!. Point of interest"6 Quadrat$1 Releve


Plant CommunitiesFigure 2:

Project:Client: ± GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50

Scale: 1:3,500@A4

0 50 100

Metres


KNM31/05/2017RAOTAA07/06/2017

rachel.omodei

WilgieGardens

Blackadder Road

Farral

l Road

408500

408500

408750

408750

6472

500

6472

500

6472

750

6472

750

6473

000

6473

000

6473

250

6473

250



Vegetation conditionPristineExcellentVery goodGoodDegradedCompletely degraded


Vegetation ConditionFigure 3:


Scale: 1:3,500@A4

0 50 100

Metres


KNM31/05/2017RAOTAA07/06/2017

kyle.middleton

WilgieGardens

Blackadder Road

Farral

l Road

BF 309

UFI 15136

408500

408500

408750

408750

6472

500

6472

500

6472

750

6472

750

6473

000

6473

000

6473

250

6473

250



! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bush ForeverGeomorphic wetlands

Multiple UseThreatened Ecological Communities

Shrublands and woodlands of theeastern Swan Coastal Plain


Significant Environmental ValuesFigure 4:


Scale: 1:3,500@A4

0 50 100

Metres


KNM14/06/2017CKKCKK06/07/2017

kyle.middletonBlackadder Road

Farral

l Road

408600

408600

408700

408700

6472

500

6472

500

6472

600

6472

600

6472

700

6472

700


Site boundaryLSP boundaryManagement area boundary

Threatened Ecological CommunityShrublands and woodlands of the easternSwan Coastal Plain (FCT20c TEC)

Management zonesManagement - upland ~ 4565 m2

Management - wetland ~ 15780 m2

Management - wetland - Farrall Road reserve ~ 1500 m2

Revegetation - infill ~ 1250 m2

Revegetation - intensive ~ 1245 m2

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! Formal and active POS ~ 6440 m2

N/A ~ 2160 m2


Management Areas and ZonesFigure 5:


Scale: 1:1,250@A4

0 10 20

Metres


KNM27/06/2017JHLCKK27/06/2017

section 38 referral supporting documentation - epa wa · section 38 referral supporting...

Documents