Referral of proposed action What is a referral? The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) provides for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance (NES). Under the EPBC Act, a person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on any of the matters of NES without approval from the Australian Government Environment Minister or the Minister’s delegate. (Further references to ‘the Minister’ in this form include references to the Minister’s delegate.) To obtain approval from the Environment Minister, a proposed action should be referred. The purpose of a referral is to obtain a decision on whether your proposed action will need formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. Your referral will be the principal basis for the Minister’s decision as to whether approval is necessary and, if so, the type of assessment that will be undertaken. These decisions are made within 20 business days, provided sufficient information is provided in the referral.
Who can make a referral? Referrals may be made by or on behalf of a person proposing to take an action, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency, a state or territory government, or agency, provided that the relevant government or agency has administrative responsibilities relating to the action.
When do I need to make a referral? A referral must be made for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the following matters protected by Part 3 of the EPBC Act: • World Heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A) • National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C) • Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B) • Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A) • Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A) • Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A) • Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A) • Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) • A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E) • The environment, if the action involves Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A), including: o actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment of Commonwealth land (even if taken outside Commonwealth land); o actions taken on Commonwealth land that may have a significant impact on the environment generally; • The environment, if the action is taken by the Commonwealth (section 28) • Commonwealth Heritage places outside the Australian jurisdiction (sections 27B and 27C) You may still make a referral if you believe your action is not going to have a significant impact, or if you are unsure. This will provide a greater level of certainty that Commonwealth assessment requirements have been met. To help you decide whether or not your proposed action requires approval (and therefore, if you should make a referral), the following guidance is available from the Department’s website: • the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance. Additional sectoral guidelines are also available.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 1 of 16 • the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies. • the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments—Impacts on water resources. • the interactive map tool (enter a location to obtain a report on what matters of NES may occur in that location). Can I refer part of a larger action? In certain circumstances, the Minister may not accept a referral for an action that is a component of a larger action and may request the person proposing to take the action to refer the larger action for consideration under the EPBC Act (Section 74A, EPBC Act). If you wish to make a referral for a staged or component referral, read ‘Fact Sheet 6 Staged Developments/Split Referrals’ and contact the Referrals Gateway (1800 803 772). Do I need a permit? Some activities may also require a permit under other sections of the EPBC Act or another law of the Commonwealth. Information is available on the Department’s web site. Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? If your action is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park it may require permission under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If a permission is required, referral of the action under the EPBC Act is deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act (see section 37AB, GBRMP Act). This referral will be forwarded to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) for the Authority to commence its permit processes as required under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. If a permission is not required under the GBRMP Act, no approval under the EPBC Act is required (see section 43, EPBC Act). The Authority can provide advice on relevant permission requirements applying to activities in the Marine Park. The Authority is responsible for assessing applications for permissions under the GBRMP Act, GBRMP Regulations and Zoning Plan. Where assessment and approval is also required under the EPBC Act, a single integrated assessment for the purposes of both Acts will apply in most cases. Further information on environmental approval requirements applying to actions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is available from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ or by contacting GBRMPA's Environmental Assessment and Management Section on (07) 4750 0700. The Authority may require a permit application assessment fee to be paid in relation to the assessment of applications for permissions required under the GBRMP Act, even if the permission is made as a referral under the EPBC Act. Further information on this is available from the Authority: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2-68 Flinders Street PO Box 1379 Townsville QLD 4810 AUSTRALIA Phone: + 61 7 4750 0700 Fax: + 61 7 4772 6093 www.gbrmpa.gov.au
What information do I need to provide? Completing all parts of this form will ensure that you submit the required information and will also assist the Department to process your referral efficiently. If a section of the referral document is not applicable to your proposal enter N/A. You can complete your referral by entering your information into this Word file. Instructions Instructions are provided in blue text throughout the form. Attachments/supporting information The referral form should contain sufficient information to provide an adequate basis for a decision on the likely impacts of the proposed action. You should also provide supporting documentation, such as environmental reports or surveys, as attachments.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 2 of 16 Coloured maps, figures or photographs to help explain the project and its location should also be submitted with your referral. Aerial photographs, in particular, can provide a useful perspective and context. Figures should be good quality as they may be scanned and viewed electronically as black and white documents. Maps should be of a scale that clearly shows the location of the proposed action and any environmental aspects of interest. Please ensure any attachments are below three megabytes (3mb) as they will be published on the Department’s website for public comment. To minimise file size, enclose maps and figures as separate files if necessary. If unsure, contact the Referrals Gateway (email address below) for advice. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay processing of your referral. Note: the Minister may decide not to publish information that the Minister is satisfied is commercial-in-confidence. How do I pay for my referral? From 1 October 2014 the Australian Government commenced cost recovery arrangements for environmental assessments and some strategic assessments under the EPBC Act. If an action is referred on or after 1 October 2014, then cost recovery will apply to both the referral and any assessment activities undertaken. Further information regarding cost recovery can be found on the Department’s website.
Payment of the referral fee can be made using one of the following methods: • EFT Payments can be made to:
BSB: 092-009 Bank Account No. 115859 Amount: $7352 Account Name: Department of the Environment. Bank: Reserve Bank of Australia Bank Address: 20-22 London Circuit Canberra ACT 2601 Description: The reference number provided (see note below)
• Cheque - Payable to “Department of the Environment”. Include the reference number provided (see note below), and if posted, address:
The Referrals Gateway Environment Assessment Branch Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601
• Credit Card
Please contact the Collector of Public Money (CPM) directly (call (02) 6274 2930 or 6274 20260 and provide the reference number (see note below).
Note: in order to receive a reference number, submit your referral and the Referrals Gateway will email you the reference number.
How do I submit a referral? Referrals may be submitted by mail or email. Mail to: Referrals Gateway Environment Assessment Branch Department of Environment GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601
• If submitting via mail, electronic copies of documentation (on CD/DVD or by email) are required.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 3 of 16 Email to: [email protected] • Clearly mark the email as a ‘Referral under the EPBC Act’. • Attach the referral as a Microsoft Word file and, if possible, a PDF file. • Follow up with a mailed hardcopy including copies of any attachments or supporting reports.
What happens next? Following receipt of a valid referral (containing all required information) you will be advised of the next steps in the process, and the referral and attachments will be published on the Department’s web site for public comment. The Department will write to you within 20 business days to advise you of the outcome of your referral and whether or not formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is required. There are a number of possible decisions regarding your referral: The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NOT NEED approval No further consideration is required under the environmental assessment provisions of the EPBC Act and the action can proceed (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements). The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact IF undertaken in a particular manner The action can proceed if undertaken in a particular manner (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements). The particular manner in which you must carry out the action will be identified as part of the final decision. You must report your compliance with the particular manner to the Department. The proposed action is LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NEED approval If the action is likely to have a significant impact a decision will be made that it is a controlled action. The particular matters upon which the action may have a significant impact (such as World Heritage values or threatened species) are known as the controlling provisions. The controlled action is subject to a public assessment process before a final decision can be made about whether to approve it. The assessment approach will usually be decided at the same time as the controlled action decision. (Further information about the levels of assessment and basis for deciding the approach are available on the Department’s web site.) The proposed action would have UNACCEPTABLE impacts and CANNOT proceed The Minister may decide, on the basis of the information in the referral, that a referred action would have clearly unacceptable impacts on a protected matter and cannot proceed. Compliance audits If a decision is made to approve a project, the Department may audit it at any time to ensure that it is completed in accordance with the approval decision or the information provided in the referral. If the project changes, such that the likelihood of significant impacts could vary, you should write to the Department to advise of the changes. If your project is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a decision is made to approve it, the Authority may also audit it. (See “Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,” p.2, for more details).
For more information • call the Department of the Environment Community Information Unit on 1800 803 772 or • visit the web site http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/about-us/legislation/environment-protection-and- biodiversity-conservation-act-1999 All the information you need to make a referral, including documents referenced in this form, can be accessed from the above web site.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 4 of 16 Referral of proposed action
Project title: Dwellingup Community Village
1 Summary of proposed action
1.1 Short description Proposed development of an aged persons’ village within Lots 556 and 251 Del Park Road, Dwellingup.
1.2 Latitude and longitude Latitude Longitude location point degrees minutes seconds degrees minutes seconds Central point 32˚ 42’ 43” 116˚ 03’ 30”
See GIS file attached (Attachment A).
1.3 Locality and property description Lots 556 and 251 Del Park Road, Dwellingup.
1.4 Size of the development footprint or work area (hectares) 2.6 ha of vegetation (within a 3.3 ha project area).
1.5 Street address of the site Lots 556 and 251 Del Park Road, Dwellingup.
1.6 Lot description Lot 556 on Deposited Plan 404071 Lot 251 on Deposited Plan 173128 (Reserve 29374)
1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known) Shire of Murray (Cherryll Oldham)
1.8 Time frame July to October 2016.
1.9 Alternatives to proposed action X No Were any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action (including not taking the action) considered but are not proposed? Yes, you must also complete section 2.2
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 5 of 16 1.10 Alternative time frames etc X No Does the proposed action include alternative time frames, locations or Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each activities? alternative, location, time frame, or activity identified, you must also complete details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7 and 3.3 (where relevant). 1.11 State assessment X No Is the action subject to a state or territory environmental impact assessment? Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5
1.12 Component of larger action X No Is the proposed action a component of a larger action? Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7 1.13 Related actions/proposals X No Is the proposed action related to other actions or proposals in the region (if Yes, provide details: known)? 1.14 Australian Government funding X No Has the person proposing to take the action received any Australian Government grant Yes, provide details: funding to undertake this project? 1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park X No Is the proposed action inside the Great Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e) Barrier Reef Marine Park?
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 6 of 16 2 Detailed description of proposed action
2.1 Description of proposed action
Lots 556 and 251 Del Park Road, Dwellingup (“the project area”) is located within the Dwellingup township, approximately 100 km south of Perth and approximately 40 km south-east of Mandurah, within the Shire of Murray (site location shown in Attachment B: Figure 1). An aerial photograph indicating the site boundary is provided in Attachment B: Figure 2. The project area is proposed to be developed as a retirement / aged persons village (the Dwellingup Community Village). The Dwellingup Community Village Inc. is a not-for-profit organisation created to promote and facilitate the proposed development. A Project Steering Group (PSG) has also been nominated to act as an advisory and management body for the project.
The development layout and staging plan is provided in Attachment B: Figure 3. It is intended that the initial stage of development (Stage 2) will allow for the construction of seven dwellings, with additional dwellings to be constructed in future stages.
2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action Not applicable (N/A).
2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action N/A.
2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements An Outline Development Plan (ODP) was prepared for the subject area and submitted to the Shire of Murray for approval in 2011. Approval was granted at that time subject to several conditions, however the previous concept plan for the development has since been revised. The Shire of Murray have agreed to the submission of a development application rather than continue the structure plan / ODP process, with support from the Department of Planning. As such, a development application has been submitted for the approval of the Shire of Murray.
The development design for the Dwellingup Community Village (DCV) has been revised in order to focus on providing greater social and recreational amenity for residents. Given the forested nature of the majority of the site, the PSG has determined that planning should be based primarily on the location of trees that are prioritised for retention due to their environmental, structural and aesthetic / landscape value.
2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation N/A.
2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) The Dwellingup Community Village Inc. appointed a Project Steering Group (PSG), formed by members of the community and Shire representatives, who meet regularly to discuss the particulars of the project. An open community workshop was hosted by the PSG on 15 January 2016 at the Old Nursing Post (located within the project area) to provide an opportunity to the local community and potential future residents to have input to the various aspects of the project planning, with a focus on site layout and design.
The Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) (now Department of Aboriginal Affairs) were consulted through the ODP approval process in 2011, whereby they were given the opportunity to comment. The DIA indicated that there were no registered Aboriginal heritage sites of significance within the proposed development area. The South West Land and Sea Council (SWLSC) were also consulted and had no comment on the proposed development.
2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project N/A.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 7 of 16 3 Description of environment & likely impacts
3.1 Matters of national environmental significance
The proposed development requires the clearing of understorey vegetation and various individual trees within approximately 2.6 ha of low density jarrah-marri forest located within the project area.
A search of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Protected Matters database (Attachment C) found the following Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) to potentially occur within or be impacted by the proposed development of the project area.
3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties
Description N/A.
Nature and extent of likely impact N/A.
3.1 (b) National Heritage Places
Description N/A.
Nature and extent of likely impact N/A.
3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)
Description
The EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) identified the project area as occurring within the vicinity of one Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar wetland), described as:
• Peel-Yalgorup system – 20-30 km upstream (wetland system located approximately 30 km from the project area)
Nature and extent of likely impact Given the considerable distance between the Peel-Yalgorup system and the project area, and the small size of the project area no detrimental impacts on the ecological character of this wetland are expected to result as a consequence of the proposed development. The project area does not occur within the Peel-Harvey Coastal Plain Catchment, within which land use is controlled under the State Planning Policy 2.1 – The Peel-Harvey Coastal Plain Catchment (WAPC, 2003) to ensure detrimental impacts to the Peel-Yalgorup System (Peel-Harvey Estuary) are managed effectively.
3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 8 of 16 Description
The EPBC Act PMST identified 10 threatened species (Table 1) potentially occurring at the project area, protected by the Department of the Environment (DotE). These results are applicable to the entire project area plus a 2 km radius. No threatened ecological communities were identified by the PMST.
Table 1: EPBC Act-listed Threatened Species
EPBC Act Species Conservation Type of Presence Status Birds Calyptorhynchus banksii subsp. naso Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area (Forest Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo) Calyptorhynchus baudinii Vulnerable Roosting known to occur within area (Baudin’s Black Cockatoo) Calyptorhynchus latirostris Endangered Breeding likely to occur within area (Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo) Leipoa ocellata Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area (Malleefowl) Rostrulata australis Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area (Australian Painted Snipe) Mammals Dasyurus geoffroii Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area (Chuditch) Pseudocheirus occidentalis Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area (Western Ringtail Possum) Setonix brachyurus Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area (Quokka) Plants Diuris micrantha Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area (Dwarf Bee-orchid) Diuris purdiei Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area (Purdie’s Donkey-orchid)
The EPBC Act PMST report is provided within Attachment C.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 9 of 16 Nature and extent of likely impact Based on the list of threatened species generated by the PMST (Table 1), the likelihood of occurrence for each of the identified fauna and flora species is provided in Table 2. The likelihood of occurrence for each species has been determined by a number of on-site surveys, species habitat requirements, regional distribution and known local extent.
Table 2: Likelihood of occurrence for listed conservation significant species
Species Habitat Description and Distribution Likelihood Likelihood Justification of Occurrence Birds Calyptorhynchus banksii Habitat Known to This species is known to utilise the naso (Forest red-tailed Eucalypt forests. Feeds on seeding Corymbia calophylla occur project area for foraging and whilst Black-Cockatoo) (Marri), Eucalyptus marginata (Jarrah), Eucalyptus todtiana evidence of breeding was not observed (Blackbutt), Eucalyptus diversicolor (Karri), Allocasuarina during site surveys, the project area fraseriana (Sheoak) and Persoonia micranthera contains potential breeding tree (Snottygobble) (Johnstone & Storr, 1998). species of large size. Foraging evidence on marri and jarrah trees was Distribution observed during the fauna survey This subspecies occurs in the humid and subhumid south (Stokes and Finn, 2008) and significant west, mainly in hilly interior, north to Gingin (formerly to tree survey, and this species was Dandaragan) and east to Mt Helena (formerly to Toodyay), observed within and overflying the Christmas Tree Well, North Bannister (formerly to project area (Coterra Environment, Wandering), Mt Saddleback (formerly to Kojonup), Rocky 2016). Gully and the upper King River. It is endemic to Western Australia (Johnstone & Storr, 1998).
Calyptorhynchus baudinii Habitat Known to Baudin’s black cockatoo may utilise the (Baudin’s Black-Cockatoo, Occurs in heavily forested areas, generally associated with occur project area for foraging, however it is Long-billed Black- large gums such as marri, karri and jarrah trees, also unlikely that this species would breed Cockatoo) occurring in woodlands characterised by other Eucalyptus within the project area given it is species. Nesting is generally confined to areas containing outside of the known breeding extent karri trees, although research has confirmed that breeding (DSEWPaC, 2012). Some foraging also occurs in southern jarrah-marri forests, with some evidence on jarrah nuts and Banksia birds nesting as far north as Perth (DotE, 2016). cones was observed (although the majority of foraging evidence on marri Distribution nuts was attributed to This species is only known to occur in the south-west Calyptorhynchus banksii naso). This corner of Western Australia. Its range extends from Albany species was observed within and in the south to Mundaring east of Perth. It is not known to overflying the project area (Coterra breed further north than Harvey on the Swan Coastal Plain Environment, 2016). (DotE, 2016).
Calyptorhynchus Habitat Likely to Carnaby’s black cockatoo may forage latirostris (Carnaby’s Woodlands and scrubs of semiarid interior of Western occur. and perhaps breed within the project Black-Cockatoo, Short- Australia, in non-breeding season wandering in flocks to area. A number of eucalypts were billed Black-Cockatoo) coastal areas, especially pine plantations (Johnstone & large enough to potentially support Storr 1998). Food includes seeds of Banksia species, nesting hollows for these species but Dryandra species, Hakea species, Eucalyptus species, no hollows of a suitable size or any Grevillea species and Pinus species; also fruiting almonds evidence of breeding was recorded (Johnstone & Storr, 1998). during the fauna habitat survey of the project area (Coterra Environment, Distribution 2016). Some foraging evidence on Occurs in south-west north to lower Murchison and east to jarrah nuts and Banksia cones was Nabawa, Wilroy, Waddi Forest, Manmanning, Durokoppin, observed (although the majority of Lake Cronin and just east of Condingup. Endemic to foraging evidence on marri nuts was Western Australia (Johnstone & Storr 1998). Occurs in attributed to Calyptorhynchus banksii subpopulations across the south-west. Residential in high- naso). rainfall areas, but where it occurs in eastern areas, it migrates to coastal areas where rainfall is higher after the breeding season (winter to spring) (DotE, 2016).
Habitat Unlikely. There is a lack of suitable habitat The malleefowl inhabits shrublands and low woodlands that within project area. No mounds are dominated by mallee vegetation and/or low-growing observed during fauna habitat survey. Leipoa ocellata multi-stemmed Eucalyptus species. Occasionally inhabit (Malleefowl) Acacia shrublands (DotE, 2015).
Distribution
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 10 of 16 The malleefowl is scattered in remnant Wheatbelt vegetation and south to the coast, including Roe Plain to the south of the Nullarbor Plain (Burbidge, 2004). Recorded from Cape Farquhar (north of Carnarvon) to the Eyre Bird Observatory (DotE, 2015).
Habitat Highly There is a lack of suitable habitat Occupies shallow wetlands (generally freshwater or unlikely. within project area. brackish) and flooded plains, usually requiring areas of bare, wet mud and dense undergrowth and canopy cover. Rostrulata australis Also known to inhabit flooded grasslands, paddocks or (Australian Painted crops as a secondary habitat (DotE, 2015). Snipe) Distribution This species is dispersive / part-migratory, dependent on local conditions. It has a patchy distribution in the south- west of WA (DotE, 2015). Mammals
Dasyurus geoffroii Habitat Unlikely. Whilst the chuditch is known to occur (Chuditch, Western in the vicinity of Dwellingup, the Quoll) Chuditch are known to have occupied a wide range of degraded nature of the remnant habitats from woodlands, dry sclerophyll (leafy) forests, vegetation indicates that it is unlikely riparian vegetation, beaches and deserts. In Jarrah forest, to inhabit the project area. No chuditch populations occur in both moist, densely evidence of inhabitation or critical vegetated, steeply sloping forest and drier, open, gently habitat was observed during the fauna sloping forest (DotE, 2015). survey (Stokes and Finn, 2008).
Distribution The chuditch now has a patchy distribution through the Eucalyptus marginata (Jarrah) forest and mixed Eucalyptus diversicolor (Karri)/Corymbia calophylla (Marri)/Jarrah forest of south-west Western Australia (DotE, 2016).
Habitat Highly The project area is outside of the unlikely. known range of this species (DPaW, Inhabits coastal woodlands and forests, particularly those 2014). There is a lack of suitable characterised by peppermint trees, and often with an habitat within project area. Pseudocheirus overstorey of tuart, jarrah and/or marri. It is usually found occidentalis (Western near water bodies (DotE, 2015). Ringtail Possum) Distribution Restricted to the south-western corner of WA, with a distribution from Collie to Two People’s Bay. The most inland population occurs at Perup (DotE, 2015).
Habitat Unlikely. Whilst the quokka is known to occur in isolated populations in the vicinity of Mainland populations inhabit dense, streamside vegetation, Dwellingup (DEC, 2013), the degraded heaths, shrublands, swamps and jarrah / karri forest nature of the remnant vegetation regrowth areas. Prefers vegetation communities that have indicates that it is unlikely to inhabit been burnt in the previous ten years, and also requires low, the project area. No evidence of Setonix brachyurus dense vegetation for coverage and food. (Quokka) inhabitation was noted during the fauna survey (Stokes and Finn, 2008). Distribution Located on Rottnest Island, Bald Island and at a few sites in the south-west of WA, including the northern and southern jarrah forests, karri forests, south coast and Stirling Ranges. Plants
Habitat Unlikely. Not recorded (Freeman, 2008).
Grows in sandy brown loamy clay soil in winter wet swamps There is a lack of suitable habitat amongst sedges, scattered shrubs and Melaleuca sp.; in (soils) within project area. Diuris micrantha (Dwarf shallow water (DPaW, 2016; DEWHA, 2008). Bee Orchid) Distribution Found from east of Kwinana south to Collie (DEWHA, 2008). Habitat Unlikely. Not recorded (Freeman, 2008).
Diuris purdiei (Purdie's Grows in grey-black sand, moist; winter-wet swamps There is a lack of suitable habitat Donkey Orchid) (DPaW, 2015). (soils) within project area.
Distribution
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 11 of 16 Occurs in the Jarrah Forest and Swan Coastal Plain regions (DPaW, 2016).
Based on assessment of the remnant flora and fauna habitats within the project area, and the preferred habitats of conservation significant species, only three of the species listed in Tables 1 and 2 are considered to potentially be impacted through the implementation of the proposed action. These species are:
§ Calyptorhynchus banksii naso (Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo) § Calyptorhynchus baudinii (Baudin’s Black Cockatoo) § Calyptorhynchus latirostris (Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo)
Given that each of these three species occupies a similar niche, with very similar breeding, feeding and roosting habitat requirements in this location, impacts will be determined as they apply to the collective group, herein referred to as “the black cockatoos”, except where individual species are specifically referenced.
The DotE’s ‘Referral guidelines for three species of Western Australian Black Cockatoos’ (DSEWPC, 2012) guide the assessment of a significant impact which has been undertaken based on general advice to date. These guidelines apply to Carnaby’s black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris), Baudin’s black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus baudinii) and the forest red-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso).
Carnaby’s black cockatoo mapping prepared by the Department of Planning (2011) indicates the subject area to contain potential foraging habitat, and a known roosting site is mapped occurring approximately 6 km to the south of the subject area. The Local Biodiversity Program (2016) mapping shows the subject area as occurring within a known buffer area for roosting habitat, likely to be associated with the known roosting site to the south.
A fauna and habitat assessment has been undertaken across the project area to determine the extent and significance of potential black cockatoo habitat, as well as a flora and vegetation survey and two significant tree surveys. The most recent significant tree survey (Coterra Environment, 2016) took into consideration the preferred roosting, breeding and foraging plant species outlined in the guidelines. These reports are summarised below and provided in the referenced attachments.
Flora and Vegetation Survey (Freeman, 2008) (Attachment D) A Flora and Vegetation Survey was undertaken across the subject area in August to September 2008 (Freeman, 2008). The vegetation across the subject area was found to be “TS” type, based on mapping of Havel (1975) and Bell and Heddle (1989). “T” is defined as ridge top and upper slope forest of Eucalyptus marginata and Corymbia calophylla with the understorey rich in Pteridium esculentum and Leucopogon verticillatus, while “S” is mid-slope to upland forest of E. marginata and C. calophylla with Banksia grandis in the mid storey (Freeman, 2008). The majority of the vegetation across the subject area is rated as Good condition, however weed invasion is widespread around the perimeter (Freeman, 2008). There were no Declared Rare Flora or priority flora identified within the subject area, despite thorough searching during the appropriate flowering season for the species potentially present (Freeman, 2008).
Fauna Survey and Habitat Assessment (Stokes and Finn, 2008) (Attachment E) A Level 1 Fauna Survey and Habitat Assessment was undertaken in October 2008 (Stokes and Finn, 2008). The survey comprised a desktop review of fauna likely to occur in the area and a reconnaissance habitat assessment / field survey.
The survey identified areas of low to no fauna habitat value, as well as areas of high habitat value. Areas of low habitat value included the cleared area surrounding the Old Nursing Post, the disturbed edges of the vegetated portion of the subject area and a small area of Banksia forest dominated by Banksia grandis, which is highly disturbed by the spread of introduced acacias and showing signs of Phytophthora dieback (Stokes and Finn, 2008).
The open forest that dominates the majority of the subject area is characterised by jarrah and marri, with the understorey dominated by the shrub Mirbelia dilitata and bracken fern (Pteridium esculentum), with moderate to high litter layers. There are large hollow logs throughout that may provide habitat to native mammal and reptile species, including possibly chuditch and carpet python. Trees with hollows were observed however the entry holes were generally quite small. The presence of dieback was observed in this area, providing reasoning as to the absence of Banksia species and the death of some young jarrah trees. This area likely provides foraging habitat for insectivorous birds, reptiles and mammals (a lack of native flowering shrubs likely precludes nectivorous species), though the general lack of logs and understorey growth likely limits the presence of ground-dwelling fauna. The habitat onsite is not considered to provide critical habitat for threatened species that may occur in the area, such as the chuditch, carpet python, and Baudin’s cockatoo (Stokes and Finn, 2008).
An additional site reconnaissance survey was undertaken in November 2008 to determine the habitat suitability for the three black cockatoos that may potentially occur. A lack of sufficiently large hollows in jarrah and marri trees indicated that the site is not appropriate for breeding habitat, however foraging evidence (chewed marri husks) from forest red-tailed black cockatoos was observed (though husks were a few months old). No chewed jarrah fruit residues were located, although this does not preclude the possibility of foraging on jarrah. The subject area is considered relatively small particularly given the extensive potential foraging habitat in the surrounding State Forest (Stokes and Finn, 2008).
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 12 of 16 Significant Tree Survey (Rakai, 2012) A Significant Tree Survey (Rakai, 2012) was undertaken in April 2012 to record and classify all of the trees of a medium to large size across the subject area. A total of 153 trees were recorded that had a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 300 mm or greater, with 105 trees having a DBH of 500 mm or greater. All species recorded were jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) or marri (Corymbia calophylla). A focus of the significant tree survey was to determine the value of the trees onsite in terms of fauna habitat, specifically for black cockatoos. The site presents both potential breeding habitat (with a number of trees over 500 mm DBH) and foraging habitat, seen through evidence of feeding by forest red-tailed black cockatoos in particular. The information collected for each tree record included: § Location § Accuracy of location record § Species § Diameter at breast height § Tree Health § Life Expectancy § Visual Amenity § Institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturists (IACA) Significance § IACA Retention Value § Notes (including any evidence of foraging or nesting by black cockatoos)
Significant Tree Review and Prioritisation Report (Coterra Environment, 2016) (Attachment F) A technical review of the previous ecological surveys was undertaken by Coterra Environment, followed by a field reconnaissance survey. The main objective of the Significant Tree Review and Prioritisation Report (Attachment F) was to confirm the accuracy of the existing tree mapping data and identify significant trees for retention.
The review of previous surveys found that:
§ The Flora and Vegetation Survey (Freeman, 2008) described the vegetation type and condition of the subject area, and was found to provide a valuable species list indicating species presence. § The Fauna Survey (Stokes and Finn, 2008) only provided locations of a small number of trees considered to be significant (presumed to contain small hollows), with coordinates provided that were not accurate / reliable. Attempts to contact the authors were unsuccessful. § The Significant Tree Survey (Rakai, 2012) was used as a basis on which to prioritise the trees present across the subject area. The field survey undertaken by Coterra Environment in January 2016 found that there was a large gap in the data recorded. As such, the Rakai dataset was used to cross reference the 2016 data where possible.
The field survey undertaken in January 2016 recorded all large trees within the subject area, considered to be those trees greater than 300 mm DBH. The results of the survey found 233 large trees occurring within the site boundaries, of which 151 were jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata), 81 were marri (Corymbia calophylla) and one tree was an introduced eastern states gum (Eucalyptus sp.). 112 trees were between 300 and 500 mm DBH, whilst the remainder (121 trees) were greater than 500 mm DBH. Five of the larger trees were found to contain small hollows or were indicative that hollows could potentially form, due to the presence of suitable knots or burls. Foraging evidence was recorded onsite, with 28 trees showing evidence of new foraging residues (chewed marri nuts) and five trees indicating evidence of old foraging residues (chewed jarrah and marri nuts). The majority of the foraging evidence was attributed to forest red-tailed black cockatoos (Coterra Environment, 2016).
Trees onsite were prioritised based on the following priority criteria described in Table 3.
Table 3: Tree Priority Group Descriptions
Priority Description Priority 1 Large trees mapped as potential habitat trees (with small hollows or knots) Priority 2 Large potential breeding trees indicating new foraging evidence Priority 3 Large potential breeding trees indicating old foraging evidence Priority 4 Marris over 500 mm DBH and jarrahs over 800 mm DBH Priority 5 Jarrahs between 500 - 800 mm DBH Priority 6 Marris <500 mm DBH Priority 7 Jarrahs <500 mm DBH Priority 8 Trees identified as having poor structure and / or health; hazardous or introduced
It is recognised by the DotE within their “EPBC Act referral guidelines for three threatened black cockatoo species” (DSEWPaC, 2012) that any tree of a known breeding habitat species (which includes jarrah and marri) over 500 mm DBH is considered to be a potential breeding habitat tree for the three black cockatoo species. Given also the observed foraging evidence onsite, potential breeding and / or foraging habitat status were given priority during the tree review process (these criteria were used to determine Priority 1 to 5 trees).
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 13 of 16 Proposed Development
The objective of the proposed development is to create a living space for ageing local and distant citizens that retains the character and environmental setting of Dwellingup, whilst minimising impacts to environmental features and minimising the risk to safety for future residents (with a focus on bushfire risk). In order to enable the development of an aged persons village, consisting of 15 single cottages and 2 duplexes (forming a total of 19 dwellings), and to comply with State Planning Policy (SPP) 3.7 (WAPC, 2015) and associated Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (WAPC et al., 2015), approximately half of the large trees and the understorey growth are required to be cleared. The trees proposed to be cleared were identified by employing the prioritisation methodology provided above as far as possible, as well as ensuring compliance with bushfire risk guidelines and building requirements.
Of the mature native trees onsite, 122 are proposed to be cleared (see Tree Removal Plan in Attachment B: Figure 4), whilst the remainder (111) will be retained within the proposed development. Trees to be cleared are provided below: § 26 marri >500 mm DBH § 35 jarrah >500 mm DBH § 24 marri 300 – 500 mm DBH § 36 jarrah 300 – 500 mm DBH § 1 other gum species (native to Australia but not to the site area)
Of the trees proposed to be cleared, 10 are considered to have foraging value (of which 5 are greater than 500 mm DBH).
Therefore, the proposed development will result in the clearing of the following potential black cockatoo habitat trees (i.e. trees of appropriate species greater than 500 mm DBH or showing signs of foraging): § 26 marri trees >500 mm DBH § 35 jarrah trees >500 mm DBH § 5 marri trees 300 - 500 mm DBH that are currently or have previously been used for foraging § (Total: 66 potential habitat trees)
It should also be noted that there are five large dead trees onsite that will be removed as a component of the site works due to safety implications for future residents. These trees were not observed to have any evidence of black cockatoo use.
3.1 (e) Listed migratory species
Description
The PMST identified eight migratory and / or marine species potentially occurring at the project area (Table 4). These results are applicable to the entire project area plus a 2 km radius.
Table 4: EPBC Act-listed Migratory and Marine Species
EPBC Act Conservation Type of Presence Species Status Birds Apus pacificus (Fork-tailed Swift) Migratory, Marine Species or species habitat may occur within area Ardea alba (Great Egret) Migratory, Marine Species or species habitat may occur within area Ardea ibis (Cattle Egret) Migratory, Marine Species or species habitat may occur within area Haliaeetus leucogaster (White-bellied Sea Eagle) Migratory, Marine Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater) Migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area Motacilla cinerea (Grey Wagtail) Migratory, Marine Species or species habitat may occur within area Pandion cristatus (Eastern Osprey) Migratory, Marine Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Endangered, Migratory, Rostrulata australis (Painted Snipe) Species or species habitat may occur within area Marine
Nature and extent of likely impact
The likelihood of occurrence for each of the identified migratory and marine fauna species and associated habitat is provided in Table 5, based on habitat requirements and known distribution.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 14 of 16 Table 5: Likelihood of occurrence of migratory and marine species
Likelihood of Species Habitat Description Likelihood Justification Occurrence Migratory Terrestrial Birds Merops ornatus The Rainbow Bee-eater is most often found in open Unlikely. Lack of suitable habitat; no evidence (Rainbow Bee-eater) forests, woodlands and shrublands, and cleared areas, of nesting onsite. usually near water (DotE, 2016). It can be found on farmland with remnant vegetation and in orchards and vineyards. It will use disturbed sites such as quarries, cuttings and mines to build its nesting tunnels (DotE, 2016).
Migratory Wetland and Marine Birds
Apus pacificus (Fork- Fork-tailed Swifts are vagrant, aerial species that Unlikely. May occur in a transitory capacity, tailed Swift) migrate to Australia in winter months (DotE, 2016). The unlikely to utilise project area. species breeds in the Himalayas, Siberia and Japan. In Australia, this species is widespread across coastal and subcoastal areas, scattered distribution on southern coast and inland areas. Scattered across Pilbara and Kimberley, sparse records inland (Goldfields). Preferred habitats include rock caves or cliffs, but they do not breed in Australia. Almost exclusively aerial over almost all habitat types. Could potentially occur in a transitory capacity on most sites. Occur mostly over inland plains but sometimes above coastal cliffs (DotE, 2016).
Ardea alba (Great Prefer shallow water, particularly when foraging, but Unlikely. Lack of suitable habitat onsite or in Egret, White Egret) may be seen on any watered area, including damp immediate area. grasslands (DotE, 2016). The Great Egret usually feeds on molluscs, amphibians, aquatic insects, small reptiles, crustaceans and occasionally other small animals, but fish make up the bulk of its diet (DotE, 2016).
Ardea ibis (Cattle Found in grasslands, woodlands and wetlands, and is Unlikely. Lack of suitable habitat onsite or in Egret) not common in arid areas. It also uses pastures and immediate area. croplands, especially where drainage is poor. Prefers grasshoppers, especially during breeding season, but eats many other invertebrates (DotE, 2016). Cattle Egret pairs are monogamous for the breeding season, and they breed in colonies, usually with other water birds. Breeding occurs in the north-eastern portion of WA, NT and in the south-eastern portion of Australia. During the non-breeding season, the Cattle Egret may be a migratory visitor to the south-west of WA (DotE, 2016).
Haliaeetus This species is normally seen perched high in a tree, or Unlikely. Some suitable habitat, may utilise leucogaster (White- soaring over waterways and adjacent land. Birds form project area in a transitory capacity. bellied Sea-Eagle) permanent pairs that inhabit territories throughout the No nests observed (Coterra year. The White-bellied Sea-Eagle feeds mainly off Environment, 2016). aquatic animals, such as fish, turtles and sea snakes, but it takes birds and mammals as well (DotE, 2016).
Motacilla cinerea Scarce but regular visitor to northern Australia, Unlikely. Lack of suitable habitat onsite or in (Grey Wagtail) generally arriving during the last 10 days of October and immediate area, outside of known departing around March. Grey Wagtails are found range. across a variety of wetlands, especially water courses, but also on the banks of lakes and marshes, as well as artificial wetlands such as sewage farms, reservoirs and fishponds. This association with water extends into non- breeding habitats with all confirmed Australian records being associated with water; especially creeks, rivers and waterfalls (DotE, 2016).
Pandion cristatus The Eastern Osprey occurs in coastal habitats and Unlikely. Some suitable habitat, may utilise (Eastern Osprey) terrestrial wetlands, occasionally travelling inland along project area in a transitory capacity. major rivers. It breeds from April to February in No nests observed (Coterra Australia. The Osprey forages on a diet of mostly fish Environment, 2016). (DotE, 2016). The breeding range extends around the northern coast of Australia from Albany to Lake Macquarie in NSW with
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 15 of 16 a second isolated breeding population on the coast of South Australia. Non-breeding range extends east to Esperance (DotE, 2016).
Rostratula australis The Australian Painted Snipe occupies shallow wetlands Highly unlikely. Lack of suitable habitat onsite or in (Australian Painted (generally freshwater or brackish) and flooded plains, immediate area. Snipe) usually requiring areas of bare, wet mud and dense undergrowth and canopy cover. Also known to inhabit flooded grasslands, paddocks or crops as a secondary habitat (DotE, 2016). This species is dispersive / part- migratory, dependent on local conditions. It has a patchy distribution in the south-west of WA (DotE, 2016).
Given the lack of suitable wetland or marine habitat within or near the project area, it is not expected that there will be any significant impacts to migratory or marine species that may occur near the project area.
3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area (If the action is in the Commonwealth marine area, complete 3.2(c) instead. This section is for actions taken outside the Commonwealth marine area that may have impacts on that area.) Description N/A.
Nature and extent of likely impact N/A.
3.1 (g) Commonwealth land (If the action is on Commonwealth land, complete 3.2(d) instead. This section is for actions taken outside Commonwealth land that may have impacts on that land.) Description N/A.
Nature and extent of likely impact N/A.
3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Description N/A.
Nature and extent of likely impact N/A.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 16 of 16 3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development
Description N/A.
Nature and extent of likely impact N/A.
3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action? X No Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the X No Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a X No Commonwealth marine area? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))
3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on X No Commonwealth land? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))
3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the X No Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))
3.3 Other important features of the environment
3.3 (a) Flora and fauna
Regional vegetation mapping undertaken by Heddle et al. (1980) indicates that two vegetation complexes as occurring across the proposed clearing area. The majority of the area is mapped as Guildford 1 Complex, whilst the original extent of the Yarragil 1 Complex is mapped only in the northern corner of the proposed clearing area (Figure 3). These complexes are described as: § Dwellingup (D1): Open forest of Eucalyptus marginata subsp. marginata – Corymbia calophylla on lateritic uplands in mainly humid and sub-humid zones.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 17 of 16 § Yarragil 1 (Yg1): Open forest of Eucalyptus marginata subsp. marginata – Corymbia calophylla on slopes with mixtures of Eucalyptus patens and Eucalyptus megacarpa on the valley floors in humid and sub-humid zones.
The project area is adjacent to Marrinup State Forest (#23) which is managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW).
Details and results of the flora, fauna and significant tree surveys undertaken across the project area are described in Section 3.1.
3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows
The topography of the project area ranges from approximately 265 m AHD at the eastern boundary of the subject area to approximately 268 m AHD along the western boundary. There are no wetlands, water courses, drains or other defined surface water expressions within the project area. All surface water runoff currently occurs as diffuse overland flow during storm events. The site is separated into two catchments: Catchment A is 1.82 ha in size and flows to the north and Catchment B is 1.29 ha in size and flows to the south. An external campsite catchment (0.7 ha) also drains into the site (Hyd2o, 2012).
No groundwater was encountered during a geotechnical investigation in which 12 test pits were drilled to a depth of 3 m below ground level (mbgl) on 4 November 2011 (Douglas Partners, 2011). Given this is a period within which groundwater is expected to be close to the seasonal maximum level, it is concluded that there is likely to be suitable separation between proposed levels and groundwater throughout the project area to minimise landform modification and maximum tree retention (Hyd2o, 2012).
3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics
The 1:250 000 Geological Survey of WA indicates that shallow sub-surface conditions at the project area consist of a lateritic duricrust, which was confirmed by geotechnical survey (Douglas Partners, 2011). Ground conditions (described as a result of investigating 12 test pits across the project area) generally consisted of sandy topsoil overlying sandy gravel and / or sandy clay over conglomeratic lateritic duricrust (Douglas Partners, 2011).
3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features
The project area is not considered to have any outstanding natural features that have not been previously described.
3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation
Refer to Section 3.1 and 3.3(a).
3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area)
The topography of the project area ranges from approximately 265 m AHD at the eastern boundary of the subject area to approximately 268 m AHD along the western boundary.
3.3 (g) Current state of the environment
The project area is approximately 3.3 ha, of which approximately 2.6 is vegetated with open jarrah-marri forest. There is a cleared portion in the southern end of the project area surrounding the Old Nursing Post building, which is remnant from the old hospital which was largely burnt down in the bushfire that occurred across Dwellingup in 1961. The majority of the vegetation across the subject area is rated as Good condition, however weed invasion is widespread around the perimeter (Freeman, 2008). Whilst there was some understorey present (described as mostly Pteridium esculentum, Mirbelia dilitata and Leucopogon verticillatus), this was noted to be fairly limited in ecological value (Stokes and Finn, 2008; Coterra Environment, 2016).
3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values
No Commonwealth heritage places are found within or near the project area.
The Old Dwellingup Nursing Post building (built in 1923) and the Old Nursing Post Memorial Gate (erected in 1947) are sites of local heritage significance located in the southern portion of the project area. The Nursing Post was originally the nurses’ quarters within the larger hospital, however the hospital was burnt beyond repair in the 1961 Dwellingup bushfire. The Memorial Gate was originally constructed by the Returned Services League (RSL) after World War II to commemorate the local citizens who served in both World War I and World War II (State Heritage Office, 2016).
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 18 of 16 Both the Old Nursing Post and the Old Nursing Post Memorial Gates are listed on the State Heritage Register by the Shire of Murray (State Heritage Office, 2016).
Stage 1 of the development (Attachment B: Figure 3) was to upgrade the existing Old Nursing Post building, which was completed in 2011. The proposed future development of the project area intends to preserve these heritage places for community use and enjoyment.
3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values
The Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) (now Department of Aboriginal Affairs) were consulted through the ODP approval process for the proposed development in 2011, whereby they were given the opportunity to comment. The DIA indicated that there were no registered Aboriginal heritage sites of significance within the project area.
A recent search of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS) database confirms that there are no registered Aboriginal heritage sites of significance within the project area (DAA, 2016).
3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment
The proposed development of the project area is not considered likely to impact any other important or unique values of the environment that have not been previously described.
3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (e.g. freehold, leasehold)
Lot 556 is freehold title land.
Lot 251 (on Deposited Plan 173128, being Reserve 29374) is currently vested in favour of the Water Corporation for the designated purpose of ‘Water Supply’. On 12 June 2009, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure registered a Revocation of Management Order document which removed the Water Corporation as the management body to Lot 251, which has since remained as an unmanaged reserve. The Department of Lands is currently arranging a management order to enable DCV Inc. to utilise Lot 251 for access purposes (Attachment G).
3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area
The project area is currently used for community activities and meetings within the Old Nursing Post building. The remainder of the project area is currently unused.
3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area
The proposed land use for the project area is to develop an aged persons’ residential village. The village is proposed to consist of 19 dwellings, however the initial stage (Stage 2) of development accounts for the construction of seven dwellings and associated infrastructure.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 19 of 16 4 Environmental outcomes
Habitat Tree Retention and Removal Outcomes
The proposed development of the project area will result in the removal of 66 trees that may provide foraging and / or breeding habitat to three species of black cockatoo (Carnaby’s black cockatoo, Baudin’s black cockatoo and forest red-tailed black cockatoo). The trees are specifically:
§ 26 marri trees >500 mm DBH § 35 jarrah trees >500 mm DBH § 5 marri trees <500 mm DBH that are currently or have previously been used for foraging § (Total: 66 potential habitat trees)
It should also be noted that there are five large dead trees onsite that will be removed as a component of the site works due to safety implications. These trees were not observed to have any evidence of black cockatoo use.
The Significant Tree Survey and Prioritisation survey undertaken in January 2016 (Coterra Environment, 2016) found 233 large trees occurring within the site boundaries, of which 111 will be retained, including:
§ 60 jarrah and marri trees >500 mm DBH § 51 jarrah and marri trees 300 - 500 mm DBH
Of the total trees onsite, 122 (52%) are proposed to be cleared (111 - 48% retained).
Of the potential habitat trees onsite (potential breeding and known foraging trees), 66 (48%) are proposed to be cleared (71 - 52% retained). All trees with any signs of hollows were proposed for retention as a priority.
Large jarrah and marri trees retained onsite may theoretically provide future breeding opportunities for black cockatoos, however there was no evidence of current breeding or the presence of sufficiently large hollows to enable breeding onsite (Stokes and Finn, 2008; Coterra Environment, 2016). Foraging evidence was recorded onsite in January 2016, with 28 trees showing evidence of new foraging residues (chewed marri nuts) and five trees indicating evidence of old foraging residues (chewed jarrah and marri nuts). The majority of the foraging evidence was attributed to forest red-tailed black cockatoos (Coterra Environment, 2016). Trees indicating signs of hollows or burls that may form hollows in the future were given the highest priority throughout the development concept planning phase.
The major focus of the habitat tree survey and prioritisation process documented by Coterra Environment (2016) was on environmental values, particularly with emphasis on habitat value of the vegetation within the project area for black cockatoo species known to occur in the area. Other values, such as landscape / aesthetic significance, structural complexity and health were taken into account throughout the prioritisation process. As such, the project team were encouraged to apply the prioritisation methodology to the development layout to maximise the number of higher priority trees retained, and in doing so, preserve the greatest number of potential black cockatoo habitat trees as possible. Whilst environmental value was a high priority, other constraints were placed on the number of trees that could be retained, as a result of the Bushfire Risk Assessment and Bushfire Management Plan (Bushfire Ready, 2016) prepared for the project area in accordance with SPP 3.7 and associated Guidelines (WAPC, 2105; WAPC et al., 2015).
Minimal Impact as a Result of Wider Environmental / Spatial Context
Whilst some clearing of potential black cockatoo habitat is proposed, the resultant impact to this species is considered to be low on the basis of the greater environmental context of the 3.3 ha project area. The Marrinup State Forest surrounds the project area (and Dwellingup township) and occupies an area of approximately 1,500 ha. It is bordered by the larger Dwellingup State Forest and Lane Poole Conservation Reserve, which occupy areas of 180,000 ha and 140,000 ha respectively (Attachment B: Figure 5). These State forests consist largely of jarrah-marri forests at a greater density than is present within the project area. As such, the clearing of selected trees within the 2.6 ha vegetated area is considered to have low to no impact on black cockatoo species.
5 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts
Mitigation of Impacts in Development Design
The Significant Tree Review and Prioritisation Report (Coterra Environment, 2016) (Attachment F) as described in Section 3.1(d) was prepared with the objective to provide technical advice regarding the retention of trees within the project area from an environmental perspective, prioritising the trees to be retained based on environmental and landscape values. The
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 20 of 16 process of prioritising the trees on the basis of habitat value to black cockatoos was to ensure that the minimum number of potential habitat trees were proposed to be cleared in the final development layout. As such:
§ Trees mapped in Attachment B: Figure 4 in the Tree Removal Plan are only those that must be removed for the following: o Building envelopes o Building access o Vehicular tracks o Walking tracks o To meet Building Protection Zone standards as set by SPP 3.7 and by the Shire of Murray Bushfire Notice (Shire of Murray, 2015) § Building envelopes, roads and pathways have been strategically placed (after site survey was undertaken) to ensure that minimal clearing is required. This has also involved changes to building orientation and layout. § 52% of potential habitat trees have been indicated for retention (Attachment B: Figure 3) as a result of these investigations and application of priorities / development design parameters.
Management Commitments
In order to preserve the health and structure of the vegetation proposed for retention, the following management plans have been prepared:
§ Phytophthora Dieback Interpretation Report and Management Plan (NPC Consulting, 2010) Identifies the presence of Phytophthora cinnamomi (Phytophthora dieback) within the project area and provides management measures relating to ensuring that all access to and from the site is undertaken in an appropriately hygienic manner. This will potentially limit the spread of the disease within and external to the site, and will assist in maintaining the health and structure of retained trees (in particular, jarrah which is known to be susceptible to this disease).
§ Weed Management Plan (Shipp, 2011) Provides a comprehensive list of weed species present within the project area and identifies the necessary management measures to apply. It is recommended that steps 1 and 2 of the four-step process to weed control are undertaken at the project area to protect areas of retained vegetation. These are “1. Prevention of trade, sale or movement” and “2. Eradicate serious weeds that are not yet widely established in WA”. Control of the understorey weeds within the project area will improve the general condition of retained vegetation.
§ Fauna Assessment (Stokes and Finn, 2008) The fauna assessment report provides management measures to reduce impacts to fauna as a result of development, including: - retain trees identified as containing hollows, as well as hollow logs that potentially provide fauna habitat - retain established marris on the south-eastern boundary - retain established jarrahs that occur behind the Ambulance Centre and Bushfire Brigade Centre - apply dieback management techniques (limit the movement of soil around the project area) - after tree felling, ensure hollows are checked for wildlife which should then be relocated These management techniques will be applied to the project area except where bushfire and engineering requirements disallow.
§ Arboricultural Survey and Management Plan (to be completed) An arboricultural survey will be undertaken prior to clearing to determine the structural condition, health and longevity of trees to be retained within the development. The resultant report will identify management measures, including pruning requirements and appropriate tree protection zones to ensure the safety of future residents and the longevity and health of retained trees (Attachment B: Figure 3).
Revegetation
Revegetation is proposed to be undertaken within a lot to the south of the project area, north of Banksiadale Road, subject to agreement with the landowner (Shire of Murray). It is proposed that jarrah and marri seedlings will be planted in this lot, to mitigate the clearing of 66 potential habitat trees. However, as this is an offsite proposal, it is understood that it will not be taken into account during the review of this referral in terms of environmental impact.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 21 of 16 6 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts Identify whether or not you believe the action is a controlled action (i.e. whether you think that significant impacts on the matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act are likely) and the reasons why.
6.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?
X No, complete section 5.2 Yes, complete section 5.3
6.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action.
A significant effort has been made by the project team to retain as many potential black cockatoo habitat trees as possible (52%) within the proposed development, by undertaking detailed site specific surveys and developing a comprehensive prioritisation methodology. Additional mitigation measures (mitigation in development design, management commitments, future revegetation) have been proposed to minimise the impact of the proposed clearing, as outlined in Section 5.
The project area is not considered to be significant habitat as a vegetated area of 2.6 ha within the greater context of the surrounding environment. The Marrinup State Forest surrounds the project area (and Dwellingup township) and occupies an area of approximately 1,500 ha. It is bordered by the larger Dwellingup State Forest and Lane Poole Conservation Reserve, which occupy areas of 180,000 ha and 140,000 ha respectively (Attachment B: Figure 5). As such, the clearing of selected trees within the 2.6 ha vegetated area is considered to have low to no impact on black cockatoo species.
6.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action
Matters likely to be impacted World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A) National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C) Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B) Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A) Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A) Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A) Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E) Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A) Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28) Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 22 of 16 7 Environmental record of the responsible party NOTE: If a decision is made that a proposal needs approval under the EPBC Act, the Environment Minister will also decide the assessment approach. The EPBC Regulations provide for the environmental history of the party proposing to take the action to be taken into account when deciding the assessment approach.
Yes No 7.1 Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible X environmental management?
Provide details
All development undertaken to date by the Dwellingup Community Village has been undertaken in an environmentally responsible manner.
7.2 Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been X applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources?
If yes, provide details
7.3 If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance N/A with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?
If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework
7.4 Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or X been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?
Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 23 of 16 8 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above)
8.1 References
*Bell, D. T. and E. M. Heddle (1989). Floristic, morphologic and vegetational diversity. Pages 203-215 in B. Dell, J. J. Havel, and N. Malajczuk, editors. The Jarrah forest: a complex Mediterranean ecosystem. Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Bushfire Ready (2016). Bushfire Management Plan. Dwellingup Community Seniors Village. Draft V2. Prepared for Dwellingup Community Village Inc.
Coterra Environment (2016). Significant Tree Review and Prioritisation Report – Dwellingup Community Village. Rev 0, February 2016. Prepared for Dwellingup Community Village Incorporated.
*Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) (2016). Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System (AHIS). http://maps.dia.wa.gov.au/AHIS2/ (accessed May 2016).
*Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2013). Quokka (Setonix brachyurus). Western Australian Wildlife Management Program No. 56. DEC, Perth WA.
*Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008). Approved Conservation Advice for Diuris micrantha (Dwarf Bee-orchid). http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/55082-conservation- advice.pdf (accessed May 2016). DEWHA, Canberra, ACT.
*Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) (Western Australian Herbarium) (2016). Florabase – Descriptions of Western Australian Flora. https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/ (accessed May 2016). Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth, WA.
*Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) (2014). Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) Recovery Plan. Western Australian Wildlife Management Program No. 58. DPaW, Perth WA.
*Department of Planning (DoP) and Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) (2011). Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) South East - potential habitat for the Carnaby's Black Cockatoo which may require further assessment. Produced by Mapping & GeoSpatial Data Branch, Department of Planning on behalf of WAPC.
*Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC) (2012). EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for Three Threatened Black Cockatoo Species. DSEWPC, Canberra, ACT.
*Department of the Environment (DotE) (2016). Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT). http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl. Accessed June 2015. Department of the Environment, Canberra, ACT.
Douglas Partners (2011). Report on Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed Retirement Village lots 300 and 301 Del Park Road, Dwellingup. Report prepared for Dwellingup Community Village Inc.
Freeman, B. (2008). Flora Survey, August – September 2008. Prepared for Dwellingup Community Village Inc.
*Havel, J. J. (1975). Site-vegetation mapping in the northern Jarrah forest. I. Definition of site-vegetation types. Forests Department WA Bulletin Number 86. Perth, Western Australia.
*Heddle, E.M. Loneragan, O.W, Havel, J.J (1980). Vegetation Complexes of the Darling System Western Australia, In. Atlas of Natural Resources, Darling System, Western Australia. Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth WA.
Hyd2o (2012). Water Management Plan- Dwellingup Community Village Lots 300 – 301 Del Park Road, June 2012. Prepared for Geof Whyte Project Management.
Hyd2o (2016). Water Management Plan Addendum, 8 March 2016. Prepared for Geof Whyte Project Management.
*Johnstone, R.E. and Storr, G.M. (1998). Handbook of Western Australian Birds: Volume 1 - Non-passerines (Emu to Dollarbird), Western Australian Museum pp. 275 -280.
*Local Biodiversity Program (2016). Environmental Planning Tool. Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA), Perth, WA.
NPC Consulting (2010). Phytophthora Dieback Interpretation Report. Dwellingup Community Village.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 24 of 16 Rakai, L. (2012). Significant Tree Survey Lots 300 and 301 Banksiadale Rd, Dwellingup. Prepared for Dwellingup Community Village.
Shipp, F. (2011). Weed Management Plan. Prepared for Dwellingup Community Village Inc.
*State Heritage Office (2016). Heritage Council InHerit Database. http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/public (accessed May 2016).
Stokes, V. and Finn, H. (2008). Dwellingup Community Village (Nursing Post) Fauna Assessment, November 2008. Alcoa and Murdoch University.
*Western Australian Planning Commission, Department of Planning and Department of Fire and Emergency Services (WAPC et al.) (2015). Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. WAPC, Perth WA.
*Western Australian Planning Commission (2015). State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. WAPC, Perth WA.
*Western Australian Planning Commission (2003). Statement of Planning Policy No. 2.1. The Peel-Harvey Coastal Plain Catchment. WAPC, Perth WA.
* = available to the public
8.2 Reliability and date of information
The information provided in Section 3 is appropriately referenced where necessary, and the source is provided in the reference list (Section 8.1). The date of the information is also included in the associated reference.
It is considered that each of the reference sources is reliable and accurate for the purposes of this referral. Any uncertainties are described in Section 3.
8.3 Attachments Indicate the documents you have attached. All attachments must be less than three megabytes (3mb) so they can be published on the Department’s website. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay the processing of your referral.
ü attached Title of attachment(s) You must attach figures, maps or aerial photographs Attachment A: GIS Point File
showing the project locality (section 1) ü Attachment B: Figures (Figure 1 – 2) GIS file delineating the boundary of the ü referral area (section 1)
figures, maps or aerial photographs Attachment B: Figures showing the location of the project in ü (Figure 1 – 5) respect to any matters of national environmental significance or important features of the environments (section 3) If relevant, attach copies of any state or local government approvals and consent conditions (section 2.5) copies of any completed assessments to meet state or local government approvals and outcomes of public consultations, if available (section 2.6) copies of any flora and fauna investigations Attachment C: Protected and surveys (section 3) ü Matters Search Tool Results (May 2016)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 25 of 16 Attachment D: Flora and Vegetation Survey (Freeman, 2008)
Attachment E: Fauna and Habitat Assessment (Stokes and Finn, 2008)
Attachment F: Significant Tree Review and Prioritisation Report (Coterra Environment, 2016) technical reports relevant to the assessment of impacts on protected matters that support the arguments and conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4) report(s) on any public consultations undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders (section 3) other ü Attachment G: Evidence of Pending Management Order for Access for Lot 251 on DP 173128 (Reserve 29374) (Department of Lands)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 26 of 16
REFERRAL CHECKLIST NOTE: This checklist is to help ensure that all the relevant referral information has been provided. It is not a part of the referral form and does not need to be sent to the Department.
HAVE YOU: þ Completed all required sections of the referral form? þ Included accurate coordinates (to allow the location of the proposed action to be mapped)? þ Provided a map showing the location and approximate boundaries of the project area? þ Provided a map/plan showing the location of the action in relation to any matters of NES? þ Provided a digital file (preferably ArcGIS shapefile, refer to guidelines at Attachment A) delineating the boundaries of the referral area? þ Provided complete contact details and signed the form? þ Provided copies of any documents referenced in the referral form? þ Ensured that all attachments are less than three megabytes (3mb)? þ Sent the referral to the Department (electronic and hard copy preferred)?
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 29 of 16 Attachment A
Geographic Information System (GIS) data supply guidelines
If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a point layer. If the area greater than 5 hectares, please provide as a polygon layer. If the proposed action is linear (e.g. a road or pipeline) please provide a polyline layer.
GIS data needs to be provided to the Department in the following manner: • Point, Line or Polygon data types: ESRI file geodatabase feature class (preferred) or as an ESRI shapefile (.shp) zipped and attached with appropriate title • Raster data types: Raw satellite imagery should be supplied in the vendor specific format. • Projection as GDA94 coordinate system.
Processed products should be provided as follows: • For data, uncompressed or lossless compressed formats is required - GeoTIFF or Imagine IMG is the first preference, then JPEG2000 lossless and other simple binary+header formats (ERS, ENVI or BIL). • For natural/false/pseudo colour RGB imagery: o If the imagery is already mosaiced and is ready for display then lossy compression is suitable (JPEG2000 lossy/ECW/MrSID). Prefer 10% compression, up to 20% is acceptable. o If the imagery requires any sort of processing prior to display (i.e. mosaicing/colour balancing/etc) then an uncompressed or lossless compressed format is required.
Metadata or ‘information about data’ will be produced for all spatial data and will be compliant with ANZLIC Metadata Profile. (http://www.anzlic.org.au/policies_guidelines#guidelines).
The Department’s preferred method is using ANZMet Lite, however the Department’s Service Provider may use any compliant system to generate metadata.
All data will be provide under a Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2016 Page 30 of 16