RIZ) (Formerly Known As the East Rockingham Industrial Park (IP14) Area) (Figure 1)

RECORD OF DISTRIBUTION

No. of Report File Name Report Date Prepared for: Initials copies Status

1 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic V10 27 November LandCorp JH Environmental 2009 Asssessment_002-pvdm

1 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic V10 27 November EPA JH Environmental 2009 Asssessment_002-pvdm

1 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic V10 27 November Coffey Environments Pty JH Environmental 2009 Ltd Asssessment_002-pvdm

Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

AN INVITATION TO COMMENT ON THIS STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) invites people to make a submission on this proposal. The environmental impact assessment process is designed to be transparent and accountable, and includes specific points for public involvement, including opportunities for public review of environmental review documents. In releasing this document for public comment, the EPA advises that no decisions have been made to allow this proposal to be implemented.

LandCorp proposes development of the Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ) (formerly known as the East Rockingham Industrial Park (IP14) area) (Figure 1). This proposal was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) by the Western Australian Government through LandCorp requesting that the redevelopment of the nominated area be assessed as a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

The area of the RIZ being considered for assessment (Figure 5) contains ecological values that are of conservation significance. The EPA resolved to set the level of assessment for the project as a SEA (Assessment No. 1534) under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 .

In accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act), a Strategic Environmental Assessment has been prepared which describes this proposal and its likely effects on the environment. The SEA is available for a public review period of 12 weeks from 7 December 2009 closing on 2 March 2010.

Comments from government agencies and from the public will help the EPA to prepare an assessment report in which it will make recommendations to government.

Where to get copies of this document

Printed and CD copies of this document may be obtained from Ben McCarthy at:

LandCorp

Level 3, Wesfarmers House 40 The Esplanade Perth 6000 WA

Ph: 08 9482 7475 Fax: 08 9481 3315

Copies of the SEA will be available for $5 for a CD or $10 for the SEA main document (inc. postage) and $10 for a copy of the appendices (inc. postage). A summary document is available free of charge.

The document/s may also be accessed through the proponent’s website at www.landcorp.com.au/rockinghamindustryzone

I Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

Why write a submission?

A submission is a way to provide information, express your opinion and put forward your suggested course of action - including any alternative approach. It is useful if you indicate any suggestions you have to improve the proposal.

All submissions received by the EPA will be acknowledged. Electronic submissions will be acknowledged electronically. The proponent will be required to provide adequate responses to points raised in submissions. In preparing its assessment report for the Minister for the Environment, the EPA will consider the information in submissions, the proponent’s responses and other relevant information. Submissions will be treated as public documents unless provided and received in confidence, subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 , and may be quoted in full or in part in each report.

Why not join a group?

If you prefer not to write your own comments, it may be worthwhile joining with a group or other groups interested in making a submission on similar issues. Joint submissions may help to reduce the workload for an individual or group, as well as increase the pool of ideas and information. If you form a small group (up to 10 people) please indicate all the names of the participants. If your group is larger, please indicate how many people your submission represents.

Developing a submission

You may agree or disagree with, or comment on, the general issues discussed in the SEA or the specific proposals. It helps if you give reasons for your conclusions, supported by relevant data. You may make an important contribution by suggesting ways to make the proposal environmentally more acceptable.

When making comments on specific proposals in the SEA: • clearly state your point of view;

• indicate the source of your information or argument if this is applicable; and

• suggest recommendations, safeguards or alternatives.

Points to keep in mind

By keeping the following points in mind, you will make it easier for your submission to be analysed: • attempt to list points so that issues raised are clear. A summary of your submission is helpful;

• refer each point to the appropriate section, chapter or recommendation in the SEA;

• if you discuss different sections of the SEA, keep them distinct and separate, so there is no confusion as to which section you are considering; and

• attach any factual information you may wish to provide and give details of the source. Make sure your information is accurate.

II Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

Remember to include: • your name,

• address,

• date; and

• whether you want your submission to be confidential.

The closing date for submissions is: 2 March 2010.

The EPA prefers submissions to be made electronically using one of the following: • the submission form on the EPA’s website: www.epa.wa.gov.au/submissions.asp ;

• by email to [email protected] .

Alternatively submissions can be:

• posted to: Chairman, Environmental Protection Authority, Locked Bag 33, CLOISTERS SQUARE WA 6850, Attention: Shandell Raddock; or

• delivered to the Environmental Protection Authority, Level 4, The Atrium, 168 St Georges Terrace, Perth, Attention: Shandell Raddock; or

• faxed to (08) 6467 5562.

If you have any questions on how to make a submission, please ring the EPA assessment officer, Shandell Raddock 6467 5497.

III Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Strategic Environmental Assessment

This Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been undertaken for 339 hectares (the SEA Area) within the Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ), previously known as the Improvement Plan 14 (IP14) Area. The SEA Area of 339 hectares is part of a greater strategic Structure Plan for the RIZ that is zoned Industrial under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The SEA Area excludes most of the land within the RIZ that is completely degraded and does not have any environmentally significant features. The SEA boundary also excludes areas that for various reasons are required to be developed urgently. These areas will be subject to separate environmental assessments.

A strategic proposal can be a plan, program, or conceptual development that will lead to future specific proposals with likely environmental impacts. The objective of the RIZ SEA is to determine an appropriate development footprint in which future industry can be located. The SEA will also identify the parts of the SEA Area that have environmental values considered worthy of protection from future development and which need ongoing management.

The SEA is seeking approval for development in the SEA Area which includes:

• Clearing of vegetation in the Development Area;

• Earthworks in the Development Area;

• Installation of services in the Development Area;

• Construction of roads in the Development Area; and

• Construction of stormwater drainage infrastructure in the Development Area.

When a future proposal is referred to the EPA, which is consistent with the outcomes of this strategic assessment, the EPA may declare that this proposal is a ‘derived proposal’. These are proposals that have been identified in the Structure Plan and do not have significant environmental issues that have not already been addressed in the SEA. Conditions from the strategic assessment, if any, could then be applied by the Minister for Environment to this ‘derived proposal’ and no further assessment by the EPA would be required. The desired objective of the SEA is to provide environmental approval for those activities and infrastructure associated with establishing future land uses in the development area and for them to be considered derived proposals.

If the proposal raises other significant environmental issues not addressed in the SEA, then the proposal is deemed not to be a derived proposal and the EPA can formally assess the proposal separately on the basis of these additional issues. Any future development not considered a derived proposal may be subject to separate approvals under Part IV of the EP Act, 1986 or as a Works Approval under Part V of the EP Act, 1986 .

RIZ Industrial Development

The RIZ is located in the City of Rockingham approximately 40km south of the Perth Central Business District, adjacent to the Cockburn Sound coastal area. The RIZ consists of a total of 1160ha and has been developed progressively for many years however a significant area of land remains undeveloped.

A Structure Plan prepared for the RIZ in 1999 proposed development over most of the RIZ and recommended retention of some areas in their natural state. These areas were considered to be buffers to surrounding land uses including the Leda Reserve to the east and residential areas to the south-west and the coastal area to the north-west. Since 1999, some environmental features of the RIZ

IV Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

have increased in importance to such an extent that the 1999 Structure Plan was revised in 2008 to incorporate these features.

The Proposed Structure Plan and this SEA proposes to retain an area of 78ha in the south-central part of the RIZ and expects that the remainder of the area assessed in the SEA will not be constrained for development by any of the terrestrial or biophysical environmental factors discussed in this report.

LandCorp recognises the opportunity for innovation to integrate an environmentally significant area within an industrial development. As such, the Structure Plan has proposed a heavy industrial development with a focus on sustainability and an integrated interface between retained natural features and the industrial environment.

RIZ Development Justification and Alternatives

The RIZ is zoned as Industrial in the MRS. The undeveloped portion of the RIZ has been identified as one of the last significant landholdings in the Perth Metropolitan Region that is designated for Heavy Industrial purposes. It is well situated with access to deep-water port facilities, road, rail and energy resources and the community resources of Kwinana and Rockingham.

The value of the development of the RIZ to the Western Australian economy is outlined below: • $4.51m per hectare per year of direct output;

• $4.53m per hectare per year of indirect output per hectare;

• 4 direct jobs created per hectare;

• 22 indirect jobs per hectare;

• $0.41 million per hectare in investments in construction;

• $0.24 million per hectare in annual government taxes; and

• $0.15 million per hectare in annual dividends.

Developments such as Kemerton, Oakajee and Burrup are not considered to be viable alternative options to meet current demands due to the lack of existing development on the sites and their remote location.

Relevant Environmental Factors

The strategic proposal for the development of a portion of the RIZ was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) by LandCorp in 2004 and the EPA resolved to assess the strategic project as an SEA (Assessment No. 1534) in 2004 under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 . An Environmental Scoping Document was endorsed by the EPA in April 2005 as an appropriate basis for the development of the SEA.

The Environmental Scoping Document identified the following relevant environmental factors to be considered within the SEA Area: • Vegetation;

• Flora;

• Fauna;

• Groundwater Surface Water Quality and Quantity;

V Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Wetlands; and

• Geomorphology.

A summary of the existing environment with respect to each of these environmental factors is given below.

Vegetation

The SEA Area contains native vegetation in a range of condition from Completely Degraded to Very Good. The vegetation is part of the Quindalup Vegetation Complex (Heddle et al ., 1980) and contains a total of 21 vegetation associations from four Floristic Community Types:

• Floristic Community Type 17 – Melaleuca rhaphiophylla – Gahnia trifida seasonal wetlands (also recorded with E. gomphocephala );

• Floristic Community Type 29b – Acacia shrublands on taller dunes; and

• Floristic Community Type 30c2 – Quindalup Eucalyptus gomphocephala and/or Agonis flexuosa woodlands.

FCT19b is a Threatened Ecological Community at the State and Commonwealth level. The other three FCTs are not listed as Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs). FCT19b is associated with the groundwater dependant wetlands on the site. FCT 29b is on the Priority Ecological Communities list (DEC, 2008).

All of the FCTs and most of the vegetation associations are represented in nearby Bush Forever sites: • Bush Forever Site 341 Woodman Point;

• Bush Forever Site 377 Port Kennedy;

• Bush Forever Site 355 Point Peron and Adjacent Bushland, Peron/Shoalwater Bay;

• Bush Forever Site 349 Leda and Adjacent Bushland, Leda;

• Bush Forever Site 356 Lake Cooloongup, Lake Walyungup and Adjacent Bushland Hillman to Port Kennedy; and

• Bush Forever Site 358 Lake Richmond, Rockingham.

Two unusual or uncommon vegetation associations occur on the site. These are the Melaleuca huegelii dominated vegetation occurring on wetland soils with a limestone substrate and the Tuart/ Melaleuca rhaphiophylla wetland vegetation both of which are located to the west of the woolscouring plant.

Flora

A total of 166 plant species has been recorded from the RIZ, of which 98 are native and 68 introduced. No Declared Rare or Priority Flora has been recorded from the RIZ or SEA Area.

Fauna

Three, and possibly four species of fauna listed under Commonwealth and State government legislation requiring special protection due to their vulnerability are predicted or were recorded on site. The

VI Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Southern Brown Bandicoot, Rainbow Bee-eater, Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo and possibly the Carpet Python are either present or likely to be present. The survey of potential breeding hollows on the site identified some hollows but the likelihood of these being utilised by Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos is very low. The frequency of fires and general growth habit of the Tuart trees indicates the future development of breeding hollows in the next fifty years is extremely unlikely.

The Peregrine Falcon, Southern Brush-tailed Phascogale and Western False Pipistrelle may utilise the SEA area, but this is considered unlikely given the disturbed nature of the habitat, its closeness to light illuminated industry and its size. The reptile assemblage is similar to that found in other areas of the Swan Coastal Plain with similar habitat, although the assemblage structure indicates it is a highly disturbed site. The small mammal assemblage is dissimilar to what is found elsewhere on the Swan Coastal Plain and is dominated by House Mice. The bird assemblage is consistent with similar habitats on the Swan Coastal Plain.

The unusual spider species Teyl ‘waldockae’ occurs in the area in dune swales. This species is not listed by Western Australian or Commonwealth legislation.

Groundwater and Surface Water Quality and Quantity

The groundwater is alkaline with pH ranging from 8.30-8.77. The shallow groundwater is predominantly fresh (<1,000mg/L) apart from one bore located on the southern boundary which has a salinity of 4900mg/L, influenced possibly by saline water from Lake Cooloongup.

The groundwater beneath the RIZ SEA Area has a general movement towards the coast. Monitoring of the groundwater levels in 2005 showed a seasonal range in groundwater levels between 0.9m in April up to 1.7m AHD in September. The wetlands did not contain any surface water from perching and water levels were never closer than 1.1m from the surface in this period. The dry condition of the wetlands could be the result of a drying climate which has seen a local drop in water levels of approximately one metre since 1992.

Wetlands

A survey of the wetlands in the RIZ identified that the area contains a larger number of wetlands than is currently mapped on the DEC wetland database. The survey identified a total of 38 wetlands in the RIZ (compared to the 11 mapped wetlands), of which 34 were wholly or partially within the SEA boundary.

The wetlands were predominantly located in linear swales and ranged in length from 60m – 1.05km long. The vegetation within the wetlands is a mix of dampland and sumpland type vegetation, with the most common tree species being Melaleuca rhaphiophylla and Banksia littoralis . Melaleuca huegelii was also present in many wetlands indicating the limestone substrate of some swales. Five wetlands were identified with Tuart ( Eucalyptus gomphocephala ) as a dominant tree species.

Two broad flat wetlands are located to the west of the woolscouring plant. Both these wetlands contain an unusual assemblage of plant species including Melaleuca huegelii , Melaleuca rhaphiophylla, Banksia littoralis , and Gahnia trifida .

Twenty-nine of the 34 wetlands in the SEA Area are considered to be Conservation Category wetlands due primarily to the presence of FCT19b identified as a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) and also for other environmental attributes. The remaining five wetlands are classified as Resource Enhancement wetlands.

VII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The wetlands are part of the Becher Suite of wetlands and are located in swales estimated to be around 5,000-6,000 years old. Wetlands of this suite and age range are not currently protected in the conservation estate.

The wetlands are groundwater dependent rather than perched wetlands relying on rainfall or surface runoff. As a result, the impact of the future development on groundwater levels and quality are important considerations. The importance of the wetlands and the potential impact of future development near the wetlands will need to consider their long-term future under the current drying climate conditions.

Geomorphology

The SEA Area is located on the northern portion of the Rockingham-Becher Plain, a relatively recent feature of the Quindalup Dune System between Kwinana and Mandurah created as a result of coastline accretion caused by sea level fall over the last 6,400 years. The SEA Area contains a series of shore- parallel ridges that show the early formation of the Point Peron peninsula between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago. The sequence of low ridges and swales is fairly continuous in part but in other areas is affected by existing development and land uses that have earth-worked the surface features of the landform.

Significant Environmental Features

The studies completed for this SEA have identified areas of highest conservation significance in the SEA Area to be the following:

• The Conservation Category swale wetlands containing vegetation considered to be Floristic Community Type 19b which is a Threatened Ecological Community at the State and Commonwealth level;

• The broad, flat wetland to the west of the woolscouring plant that contains a limestone substrate and an unusual vegetation community and may not be present elsewhere in the Perth Metropolitan Region;

• The Tuart/ Melaleuca rhaphiophylla wetland vegetation to the west of the limestone area which is uncommon in the Perth Metropolitan Region;

• The beach-ridge plain landform which provides evidence of the early formation of the Point Peron peninsula; and

• Fauna habitat for the mygalomorph spider species Teyl “waldockae”.

Potential Effect of Development on Environmental Factors

Potential effects of the development of the SEA Area on Environmental Factors in the SEA Area are outlined in Table ES1. The vegetation on the Development Area will be largely cleared including 17ha of FCT19b. This will result in the loss of some habitat for fauna. There will also be impacts on fauna due to noise, light and human interaction during and post construction.

Full development of the RIZ according to the Structure Plan could impact on the groundwater quality and levels in a number of ways including contamination of the groundwater by nutrients and pollutants from industry and raising of groundwater following clearing of native vegetation.

Pre and post development contours as modelled by Umwelt show groundwater levels being slightly higher due to re-infiltration mechanisms incorporated into the design of the development, decrease in

VIII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

evapo-transpiration and higher run-off from hardstand areas. For the purpose of modelling the post development contours it was assumed that the areas to be developed as per the Structure Plan will be 90% hardstand and the use of Water Sensitive Urban Design principles will be employed over the development.

Development of the SEA Area according to the Proposed Structure Plan would involve the removal of 22 wetlands for industry and associated infrastructure. Development of a portion of the SEA area may result in indirect impacts on retained wetlands through changes in water quantity and water quality (nutrients and contaminants) caused by stormwater infiltration.

The construction in the Development Area would result in earth-working to create flat blocks for industrial development and to install above and below-ground services. The earth-working of the surface soils would result in the loss of the low ridges and swales and therefore the remaining surface expression of the northern portion of the Rockingham-Becher Plain.

Proposed Conservation Area

The proponent recognises that the SEA Area contains environmental features of regional significance. The proponent proposes to create a Conservation Area of approximately 78ha in the south-central portion of the SEA Area that will be protected from industrial development and set aside as a Conservation Area. This boundary has been developed after careful consideration of the significant environmental factors with a view to sustainability within the RIZ.

The Conservation Area protects the following environmental values of the SEA Area:

• The Melaleuca huegelii dominated vegetation on wetland soils with a limestone substrate to the west of the wool scouring plant

• The largest wetland on the limestone substrate;

• All areas of the Tuart ( Eucalyptus gomphocephala ) / Melaleuca rhaphiophylla wetland vegetation;

• 28ha of Threatened Ecological Community 19b in Good to Very Good condition;

• The area of wetlands that is most likely to sustain FCT19b under future climate conditions;

• Contains vegetation largely in Good – Very Good condition (the highest condition rating in the SEA Area);

• 14 of the 20 vegetation associations that occur in the SEA Area;

• 7 complete and parts of 5 more of the 34 wetlands in the SEA Area. All twelve wetlands are Conservation Category wetlands;

• 42ha of the 67ha of wetlands in the SEA Area;

• Swale and Tuart tree habitat for the mygalomorph spider species Teyl “waldockae”; and

• A large portion of the beach-ridge plain within the SEA Area that provides evidence of the early formation of the Point Peron peninsula.

The proposed Conservation Area is large enough to be managed efficiently as a Conservation Reserve being greater than 20ha as indicated by Bush Forever (Government of Western Australia, 2000b) as being the general guide for the lower size limit for a Conservation Area in the Metropolitan region.

IX Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Management Strategies

The management of the significant environmental features that are identified in this SEA will include a number of strategies (Table ES1). The principles of environmental protection as applied to the SEA Area are outlined in Table ES2. LandCorp commits to the preparation of a comprehensive Conservation Management Plan that outlines how the Conservation Area will be managed to ensure the protection of its environmental features. Notwithstanding the preparation of the Conservation Management Plan, the following management strategies will be implemented by LandCorp to protect and enhance the values of the Conservation Area: • Fencing of the area to restrict access to designated areas within the Conservation Area;

• Clean-up of dumped rubbish in the Conservation Area;

• Rehabilitation of degraded areas within the Conservation Area;

• The control of feral animal populations in the Conservation Area;

• Weed control in the Conservation Area;

• Integrated landscaped interfaces where wetlands in the conservation area will be bisected by the boundary;

• Enhancement of the fauna habitat in the area by providing harvested and artificial breeding habitat for significant fauna;

• Use of Water Sensitive Urban Design to ensure groundwater levels are maintained to pre- development levels (winter concentrations);

• Using artificial polishing drainage basins for the re-infiltration of stormwater into the Conservation Area; and

• Long term management by an appropriate managing authority.

The proponent also commits to developing a Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan for the Development Area to be approved by DEC and implemented by LandCorp prior to construction. This will detail strategies that will be employed over the Development Area of the SEA Area. These include but are not limited to: • Retention of vegetation as far as is practicable in the developed area;

• The relocation of any significant fauna prior to construction;

• The harvest of potential breeding habitat for avifauna and integration into retained vegetation; and

• Vegetation of road verges with native species to provide linkage between areas of remnant vegetation.

A Water Management Strategy to be developed by LandCorp and approved by the Department of Water prior to construction will detail how the development will: • Secure enough water from acceptable sources for sound economy;

• Ensure adequate fit-for-purpose water supply;

• Optimise the use of water from the Waste Water Treatment Plant within the development;

• Manage stormwater as a resource;

X Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Maintain stormwater and groundwater quality to pre-development levels;

• Maintain hydrology of natural ecosystems;

• Retain groundwater balance;

• Create urban landscapes as ecologically functioning units;

• Integrate WSUD within landscape at site, precinct and district scales; and

• Influence microclimates in workplaces by keeping water in the landscape and preventing the Urban Heat Island Effect.

The proponent also commits to the: • Use of Water Sensitive Urban Design Principles;

• Monitoring programs pre, during and post construction to ensure groundwater levels and quality are maintained to pre construction criteria; and

• Prohibiting shallow groundwater abstraction during construction and for future industrial uses.

Management Outcomes

The management outcomes (Table ES1) expected for the Conservation Area are: • Protection of Conservation Category Wetlands;

• Decrease in weeds on the site by using appropriate weed control leading to increased native biodiversity;

• Decrease in weed vector transfers due to restricted access;

• Protection of the site from fires due to restricted access curtailing dumping activities which will also protect and enhance the biodiversity on the site;

• Protection of 28ha of TEC FCT19b;

• Protection of 34ha of Tuart dominated vegetation;

• Protection of 39ha of the Melaleuca and Banksia woodland

• Enhancement of the vegetation in the area due to rehabilitation of existing tracks and degraded areas in the Conservation Area;

• Maintenance and improvement of habitat for fauna;

• Protection of habitat for the mygalomorph spider species Teyl “waldockae”;

• Maintenance of groundwater levels using Water Sensitive Urban Design in the developed area; and

• Maintenance of groundwater quality to pre-development criteria using innovative stormwater treatment options.

Over the Development Area of the SEA Area the environmental outcomes will be: • Maintenance of the groundwater quality; and

• Native vegetation will be planted on road reserves within the SEA Area and wider RIZ area to provide a green linkage through the industrial area.

XI Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Wetland Viability

Modelling of the groundwater undertaken by Umwelt in 2008 in the region of the RIZ shows a decline in groundwater levels of approximately one metre since 1990. Umwelt modelled the topography of the site and found that the wetlands in the south-east portion of the RIZ had a shallower distance to the watertable than those in the north of the site. Using established root depths for species within the wetlands, specifically those typically associated with FCT19b, Umwelt predicted that the wetland vegetation needs to be sustained by water levels within 1.8-1.9m below surface during the dry months of the year. Based on their analysis, it was considered that the wetlands in the south-east portion of the site could be sustainable in the future, whereas other wetlands are not likely to survive in their current condition given the drying climate trends. The Conservation Area boundary contains the area of highest potential for sustainable wetlands.

Triple Bottom Line Assessment

The Conservation Area size was subjected to a Triple Bottom Line Assessment and compared with other possible options including a 22ha, 54ha 78ha (proposed in this SEA) and 96ha. The 78ha Conservation Area is deemed to have the optimum outcome for society and the environment, while keeping the economic costs to an acceptable level. This ensures that the proposal for the development of the SEA Area is balanced.

The Triple Bottom Line Assessment identified the following estimated costs and benefits of the 78ha SEA Conservation Area.

A monetary loss in: • $132m in 20 year development returns;

• $132m in total annual economic output;

• $69m of annual wages;

• $32m of investments in construction;

• $19m in annual government taxes; and

• $12m in annual dividends. Other non-monetary losses: • employment opportunities; roughly 988 direct jobs in manufacturing (15% of the local workforce in manufacturing) and 2,356 indirect jobs (5% of the total workforce in the Kwinana and Rockingham areas) and 21 apprenticeships;

• 72 businesses (5% of the total on RIZ) that cannot be located on the RIZ area (for which there are no similar alternatives available); businesses that will not be able to capture the resource, utility, infrastructure and buffer zone synergies existing and planned in the Kwinana Industry area; and

• RIZ has long been earmarked as an industrial area. Retaining substantial to significant parts of that land for conservation purposes might jeopardise the land use efficiency of the region and the state.

For these costs the following benefits are realised; the preservation of:

• 70% of the relevant vegetation associations identified on site;

• 57% of the Threatened Ecological Community 19b present on site;

XII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• A net gain of 5ha of TEC19b (with 26ha of TEC19b new identified on RIZ);

• 56% of the Wetlands identified (which are all Conservation Category Wetlands);

• 100% of the wetland Tuart Trees; and

• A large area of the unique Low Ridge and Swale Landform.

(From Arup, 2009 (Appendix A))

XIII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE ES1: SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PREDICTED OUTCOMES FOR THE IP14 SEA AREA Environmental Potential EPA Objective Existing Environment Management Strategies Predicted Outcome Factor Environmental Effects Vegetation To maintain the The SEA Area contains Full development of the A Conservation Area The Conservation Area abundance, diversity, native vegetation in a SEA Area would result in (78ha) is proposed in the will protect the most geographic distribution range of condition from the clearing of the south central portion of significant vegetation and productivity of flora Completely Degraded to majority of vegetation. the SEA Area. features of the site which at the species and Very Good. The are: ecosystem levels through vegetation is part of the Development of the SEA A Conservation - 28ha containing the avoidance or Quindalup Vegetation Area according to the RIZ Management Plan that Threatened Ecological management of adverse Complex and contains a Structure Plan would outlines how the Community 19b in impacts and through total of 21 vegetation result in 222ha of native Conservation Area will be Very Good to improvement of associations from four vegetation being cleared managed to ensure the Excellent condition; knowledge Floristic Community including 17ha of protection of its - The Melaleuca Types. FCT19b and 99ha of environmental features huegelii dominated Tuart vegetation. will be prepared. vegetation occurring FCT 19b is present within on wetland soils with a many of the dune swales. 78ha of native vegetation The Conservation Area limestone substrate to FCT19b is a Threatened including 28ha of will be fenced, rubbish the west of the Ecological Community at FCT19b and 34ha of will be removed, woolscouring plant; the State and Tuart vegetation will be degraded areas will be and Commonwealth level. retained in a rehabilitated and weeds - The Tuart/ Melaleuca FCT29b is also present Conservation Area will be controlled. rhaphiophylla wetland on the RIZ and the DEC managed by an vegetation. has listed it as a Priority appropriate managing A Vegetation and Fauna Ecological Community. authority. Management Plan Protection of the outlining the vegetation in a All of the FCTs and most Retention of vegetation in management of retained conservation reserve will of the vegetation a conservation area vegetation in the add significantly to the associations are managed by an development area will be protection of TEC19b represented in nearby appropriate agency could prepared. vegetation. Bush Forever sites. improve the environmental values of Native vegetation will be The outcomes of the Two unusual or the area protected. planted on road reserves management of the uncommon vegetation within the SEA Area and Conservation Area will associations occur on the wider RIZ area to provide be to enhance the site. These are the a green linkage through biodiversity of the site by Melaleuca huegelii the industrial area. restricting access and dominated vegetation stopping dumping occurring on wetland activities. The weeds on

XIV Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

As part of the Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan for the Development Area road reserves within the SEA Area and wider RIZ area will provide a green linkage through the industrial area

Flora Protect Declared Rare A total of 166 plant Full development of the A Conservation Area The Conservation area and Priority Flora species has been SEA Area would result in (78ha) is proposed in the will retain most of the consistent with the recorded from the RIZ, the clearing of the south central portion of vegetation associations provisions of the Wildlife of which 98 are native majority of vegetation the SEA Area. within the SEA Area and Conservation Act, 1950 , and 68 introduced. and associated flora. as a result will also and the Environmental Rehabilitation in the contain most of the plant Protection and No Declared Rare or Retention of vegetation in Conservation Area will be species in the SEA Area. Biodiversity Act, 1999 . Priority Flora has been a conservation area done using local endemic Protect other flora of recorded from the RIZ or managed by an plants. No Declared Rare or conservation significance SEA Area. appropriate agency could Priority Flora will be improve the A Vegetation and Fauna impacted by the environmental values of Management Plan development of the the area protected. outlining the remaining area. management of retained Tuart trees in the The outcomes of development area will be management of the prepared. Conservation Area will be an increase in the Tuart trees will be biodiversity on the site retained in the developed will be enhanced by

XV Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

Tuart trees retained for shade and to enhance the micro-climate Fauna To maintain the Three, and possibly four Full development of the A Conservation Area The Conservation Area abundance, diversity, species of fauna listed SEA Area would result in (78ha) is proposed in the will retain most of the geographic distribution under Commonwealth the clearing of the south central portion of vegetation associations and productivity of native and State government majority of vegetation the SEA Area. within the RIZ and as a fauna at the species and legislation requiring and associated fauna. result will also contain ecosystem levels through special protection due to This includes 37ha of the Feral animal control will most of the fauna habitat the avoidance or their vulnerability are Acacia and Xanthorrhoea be undertaken in the and fauna species in the management of adverse predicted or were shrubland habitat, 99ha Conservation Area. RIZ, including habitat for impacts and recorded on site. The of the Tuart dominated the unusual spider improvement in Southern Brown woodland habitat, 29ha A Vegetation and Fauna species Teyl ‘waldockae’. knowledge Bandicoot, Rainbow Bee- of the Melaleuca and Management Plan eater, Carnaby’s Banksia woodland habitat outlining the No conservation Cockatoo and possibly and 61ha of the management of fauna significant fauna will be the Carpet Python are degraded habitat. and fauna habitat in the affected by the either present or likely to development area will be development of the be present. The Conservation Area prepared. remaining area. retains 34ha of Tuart A tree hollow survey dominated habitat and Significant fauna will be The Conservation Area indicated that the 39ha of the Melaleuca relocated from the will provide an enhanced potential use of the site and Banksia woodland. development area prior to habitat by rehabilitation by Carnaby’s Black development. and provision of Cockatoos for breeding is Retention of vegetation in harvested habitat. limited. The Peregrine a conservation area Hollows from trees to be Falcon, Southern Brush- managed by an cleared will be harvested Native fauna will be tailed Phascogale and appropriate agency could prior to construction and protected from predation Western False Pipistrelle improve the placed along with artificial from feral animals. may utilise the project environmental values of breeding habitat in the area, but this is the area protected. Conservation Area. The relocation program considered unlikely. will minimise losses of fauna in the developed

XVI Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

The unusual spider species Teyl ‘waldockae’ occurs in the area in dune swales.

Groundwater and To ensure that emissions Shallow groundwater Groundwater levels could A Conservation Area The future industry Surface Water do not adversely affect exists under the SEA be affected by increased (78ha) is proposed in the abutting the Conservation Quality and environmental values or Area ranging in elevation recharge following south central portion of Area will be managed to Quantity the health, welfare and from 0.90-1.7m AHD. No clearing, increased the SEA Area. avoid adverse impacts on amenity of people and evidence of perching was nutrient and pollutant the groundwater levels land uses by meeting found in the wetlands. levels from industry and The Conservation Area is and quality within the statutory requirements The present groundwater increasing salinity from ‘up-gradient’ of the Conservation Area. and acceptable is at approximately one abstraction. proposed future industry standards metre below wetland and therefore less likely The use of Water surface levels most Post development to be affected by Sensitive Urban Design probably as a result of modelling by Umwelt potential impacts. will maintain groundwater lower than normal rainfall shows groundwater levels and quality in the since 1992. levels will be slightly Water Sensitive Urban Conservation Area. higher than current Design features will be

XVII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

Wetlands To protect the The SEA Area contains Development of the SEA A Conservation Area The Conservation Area environmental values and 34 wetlands of which 30 Area would result in the (78ha) is proposed in the will retain 7 complete and functions of wetlands in are totally within the SEA clearing of 22 out of 34 south central portion of 5 partial wetlands (all Western Australia; Area, three mostly in the wetlands present in the the SEA Area. CCWs) with vegetation in SEA Area and one SEA Area. Good – Very Good To protect, sustain and, partially. These consist The short and long-term condition. where possible, restore of 29 Conservation 7 full and 5 part wetlands management of the the biological diversity of Category and 5 Resource will be retained to a total Conservation Area The Conservation Area wetland habitats in Enhancement Category of 42ha in the include Water Sensitive will retain 42ha of the Western Australia; wetlands. The wetlands Conservation Area Urban Design features 67ha of wetlands in the are mostly located in SEA Area. To protect the narrow linear swales. Potential impact of a Wetlands 23, 24 and 29 environmental quality of change in groundwater are bisected by the All the different types of the wetland ecosystems Four wetland vegetation quality and quantity. Conservation Area wetland in the SEA will of Western Australia types were identified in boundary. Buffering to be protected in the through sound the wetlands. The bisected wetlands in the Conservation Area. management in condition of the Conservation Area will be accordance with the vegetation ranged from done using integrated Protection of the concept of ‘wise use’, as Degraded to Very Good. landscaped interfaces. wetlands in a

XVIII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

The outcomes using Water Sensitive Urban Design principles will maintain groundwater levels and quality thereby, the function of the wetlands and the wetland vegetation. Geomorphology The EPA’s objective for The SEA Area is located Development of the SEA A Conservation Area The Conservation Area landscape and landforms in the northern portion of Area would remove the (78ha) is proposed in the will retain a significant is to maintain their the Rockingham-Becher surface features in the south central portion of portion of the integrity, ecological Plain and contains shore- remaining portion of the the SEA Area. Rockingham-Becher functions and parallel ridges and northern part of the Plain including the early environmental values swales. The area Rockingham-Becher formation of the Point includes the early Plain. Peron peninsula. formation of the Point Peron peninsula around 5,000-6,000 years old.

XIX Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE ES2: PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AS APPLIED TO THE SEA AREA

Relevant PRINCIPLE* If Yes, consideration Yes/No 1. The precautionary principle Yes The SEA contains extensive scientific study and there is sufficient knowledge Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full to address potential environmental impacts. Specialist studies of the scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing relevant environmental factors outlined by the Scoping Document (eg measures to prevent environmental degradation. vegetation, flora, fauna, wetlands, groundwater and geomorphology) have been undertaken to assess the environment and potential impacts. In application of this precautionary principle, decisions should be guided by: (a) careful evaluation to avoid, where practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and (b) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

2. The principle of intergenerational equity Yes The proponent proposes to protect and area of 78ha containing The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and representation of all significant environmental features of the RIZ in a productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced for the Conservation Area to be managed by an appropriate managing authority. benefit of future generations. The proponent has scientifically modelled future environmental effects of a drying climate and has designed all principles of the development for sustainability in areas such as vegetation and fauna protection and groundwater management.

3. The principle of conservation of biological diversity and ecological Yes Investigations undertaken for flora (remnant vegetation, DRF and TEC) and integrity fauna (priority and scheduled species) have been undertaken in accordance Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be with the EPA’s relevant guidance statements. The findings will form the a fundamental consideration. basis of the Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan and the Conservation Management Plan to be prepared for the SEA Area.

XX Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

Relevant PRINCIPLE* If Yes, consideration Yes/No 4. Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive Yes A Triple Bottom Line Assessment has been undertaken for four scenarios for mechanisms a Conservation Area incorporating environmental, social and economical Environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets factors. and services. The polluter pays principles – those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance and abatement. The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and ultimate disposal of any waste. Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structure, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or minimise costs to develop their own solution and responses to environmental problems.

5. The principle of waste minimisation Yes The Structure Plan includes opportunities for synergies between future All reasonable and practicable measures should be taken to industries. Individual industrial proposals will be required to manage waste minimise the generation of waste and its discharge into the according to EPA guidelines. environment.

* Source: Environmental Protection Authority (2004d)

XXI Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

CONTENTS

AN INVITATION TO COMMENT ON THIS STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS XXVI

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Location 1

1.2 Purpose of this Document 1 1.2.1 Original Assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority 1 1.2.2 Objective of this SEA 1 1.2.3 Scoping Document 2 1.2.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment Process 3

1.3 Future Approvals Process 3 1.3.1 State Approvals 3 1.3.2 Commonwealth Approvals 4

1.4 Statutory Requirements 4

1.5 The Proponent 4 1.5.1 Proponent Background 4 1.5.2 Proponent Contact Details 4

2 BACKGROUND 5

2.1 Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ) 5 2.1.1 Strategic Importance of the RIZ 5 2.1.2 RIZ Development Justification 6 2.1.3 Proposed RIZ Development Overview 6

2.2 History of Environmental Work on RIZ 8

2.3 History of SEA Boundary 9

3 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT 10

3.1 Climate 10

3.2 Flora and Fauna 11

XXII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

CONTENTS

3.3 Topography 11

3.4 Geology, Geomorphology and Soils 11

3.5 Groundwater 12

3.6 Wetlands 12

3.7 Aboriginal Heritage 12

4 ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 14

4.1 Relevant Environmental Factors 14

4.2 Vegetation 14 4.2.1 EPA’s Objective 14 4.2.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance 14 4.2.3 Existing Environment 15

4.3 Flora 19 4.3.1 EPA’s Objective 19 4.3.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance 19 4.3.3 Existing Environment 19

4.4 Fauna 20 4.4.1 EPA’s Objective 20 4.4.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance 20 4.4.3 Existing Environment 21

4.5 Groundwater and Surface Water Quality and Quantity 28 4.5.1 EPA’s Objective 28 4.5.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance 28 4.5.3 Existing Environment 28

4.6 Wetlands 30 4.6.1 EPA’s Objective 30 4.6.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance 30 4.6.3 Existing Environment 31 4.6.4 Wetland Management Category 33 4.6.5 Wetland Groundwater Modelling 35

4.7 Geomorphology 35 4.7.1 EPA’s Objective 35 4.7.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance 35

XXIII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

CONTENTS

4.7.3 Existing Environment 35

4.8 Summary of Significant Environmental Features in the SEA Area 37

5 POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 38

5.1 Vegetation and Flora 38

5.2 Fauna 38

5.3 Groundwater and Surface Water 39

5.4 Wetlands 39

5.5 Geomorphology 39

6 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 40

6.1 Proposed Conservation Area 40

6.2 Environmental Management of Conservation Area 40 6.2.1 Management Strategies 40 6.2.2 Monitoring and Contingency Plans 41 6.2.3 Research, Education and Public Involvement 42

6.3 Environmental Management in the Development Area 42

7 PREDICTED OUTCOMES 45

7.1 Protection of Environmentally Significant Features 45

7.2 Vegetation and Flora 45

7.3 Fauna 46

7.4 Groundwater and Surface Water 46

7.5 Wetlands 46

7.6 Geomorphology 47

7.7 Future Management 47

8 WETLAND VIABILITY 48

XXIV Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

CONTENTS

9 RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION 49

10 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ASSESSMENT 50

11 REFERENCES 52

12 DISCLAIMER 55

XXV Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Tables

Table ES1: Summary of Relevant Environmental Factors, Potential Effects, Management Strategies and Predicted Outcomes for the RIZ SEA Area.

Table ES2: Principles of Environmental Protection as Applied to the SEA Area

Table 1: Responsibilities for Development Activities

Table 2: Summary of the Meteorological Data

Table 3: Areas of Vegetation Associations in the SEA Area

Table 4: Representation of the Quindalup Vegetation Complex in Nearby Bush Forever Sites (<10km Away)

Table 5: Floristic Communities Types Recorded in RIZ SEA Area within Nearby Bush Forever Sites (<10km Away)

Table 6: Floristic Communities Types Recorded in RIZ SEA Area within Bush Forever Sites >10km Away

Table 7: Tree Hollow Locations and Observations

Table 8: Number of Individuals Caught in the Trapping Areas (Number of Individuals Caught)

Table 9: Number of Individuals Caught in Various Trap-Types

Table 10: Morisita-Horn Similarity Index Scores for the Reptile Assemblages among the Four Sites

Table 11: Species Listed as Being Significant Vertebrate Fauna by the Commonwealth or State Governments and Predicted to Occur in the Rockingham Area

Table 12: Wetlands in the RIZ and SEA Area

Table 13: Wetland Management Categories and Objectives

Table 14: Summary of Wetland Assessment Results

Table 15: Summary of Wetland Outcomes

Figures

Figure 1: Regional Location

Figure 2: 1999 RIZ Structure Plan

Figure 3: 2008 Proposed RIZ Structure Plan

Figure 4: RIZ Strategic Direction

Figure 5: RIZ and Strategic Environmental Assessment Area

Figure 6: Topographic Contours

Figure 7: Vegetation Types XXVI Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

Figure 8: Vegetation Condition

Figure 9: Bush Forever Sites within 20km of the SEA Area

Figure 10: Areas of FCT19b

Figure 11: Fauna Habitat Areas

Figure 12: Identified Tree Hollows

Figure 13: Modelled IP14 Area Pre-Development Scenario Groundwater Contours May 2004

Figure 14: Modelled IP14 Area Conceptual Post-Development Scenario Groundwater Contours May 2004

Figure 15: Wetlands

Figure 16: Geomorphology of the Rockingham-Becher Plain

Figure 17: Age Sequence of the Rockingham-Becher Plain

Figure 18: Proposed Conservation Area

Figure 19: Conceptual Local Environmental Systems

Figure 20: Water Management – Concept Plan

Figure 21: RIZ Area with Water Table within 2.5m of the Ground Surface in May 2004

Figure 22: Options Considered for Conservation Area Boundary

Appendices

Appendix A: RIZ – Triple Bottom Line Opportunity Cost Assessment (Arup, 2009)

Appendix B: Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System Searches (2009)

Appendix C: East Rockingham Industrial Park (IP14) – Flora and Vegetation Survey (ATA Environmental 2006)

Appendix D: Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ) – Fauna Risk Assessment (Coffey Environments 2009)

Appendix E: East Rockingham Industrial Park (IP14) – Groundwater Hydrology (JDA Consulting Hydrologists 2006)

Appendix F: IP14 Area Geomorphology and Groundwater Investigation (Umwelt Environmental Consultants, 2009)

Appendix G: IP14 Area Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Opportunities Review (EDAW 2009)

Appendix H: Rockingham Industry Zone Water Management Strategy – Preliminary Scoping Document (EDAW, 2009)

XXVII Coffey Environments ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Location

The area subject to this Strategic Environmental Assessment is 339ha (the SEA Area) within the Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ) (Figure 1). The RIZ was previously known as the Improvement Plan 14 (IP14) Area. The RIZ is approximately 1160ha and is located about 40km south of the Perth Central Business District and approximately 2km northeast of Rockingham (Figure 1). The RIZ extends from the coast just north of the CBH Grain Terminal to the east to the Leda Nature Reserve and is generally bounded by Office Road to the north and Dixon Road to the south. The western-most portion of the RIZ is adjacent to Kwinana Beach (Cockburn Sound).

The SEA Area, located within the RIZ (Figure 1), is the land that is the subject of this SEA. This area is considered to have environmental attributes that require further investigation to determine their significance. The SEA Area is currently mostly vegetated and has not been developed.

The SEA Area excludes most of the land within the RIZ that is completely degraded and does not have any environmentally significant features. The SEA boundary also excludes areas that for various reasons are required to be developed urgently. These areas will be subject to separate environmental assessments.

1.2 Purpose of this Document

1.2.1 Original Assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority

The strategic proposal for the development of a portion of RIZ was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) by LandCorp in 2004 with a request that the redevelopment of the nominated area to be assessed as an SEA. The area of the RIZ being considered for assessment in this SEA contains ecological values that are of possible conservation significance. The EPA resolved to assess the strategic project as an SEA (Assessment No. 1534) in 2004 under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 .

1.2.2 Objective of this SEA

A strategic proposal can be a plan, program, or conceptual development that will lead to future specific proposals with likely environmental impacts. The objective of the RIZ SEA is to determine an appropriate development footprint in which future industry can be located. The SEA will also identify whether any part of the SEA Area needs to be protected from future development and needs to be managed for its long-term conservation values.

In this case LandCorp is seeking approval for development in the SEA Area which includes: • Clearing of vegetation in the Development Area;

• Earthworks in the Development Area;

• Installation of services in the Development Area;

• Construction of roads in the Development Area; and

• Construction of stormwater drainage infrastructure in the Development Area.

Coffey Environments 1 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

The desired objective of the SEA is to provide environmental approval for those activities and infrastructure associated with establishing future land uses in the development area and for them to be considered derived proposals. See Section 1.3 regarding future approvals.

The responsibilities for these development actions are outlined in Table 1.

TABLE 1: RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Responsible Development Activity in the Development Area Party

Clearing of vegetation LandCorp

Earthworks LandCorp

Electricity LandCorp

Water LandCorp

Installation of services Sewerage LandCorp

Gas LandCorp

Telecommunications LandCorp

Construction of roads LandCorp

Construction of stormwater drainage infrastructure LandCorp

Future Construction of future land uses developer

1.2.3 Scoping Document

The initial step in the preparation of a SEA for the proposed development area is the preparation of an Environmental Scoping Document. The Scoping Document was prepared in accordance with the Guide to preparing an Environmental Scoping Document (EPA, 2004). The purpose of the Scoping Document was to assist the EPA in identifying the work required to ensure that all significant and appropriate issues were properly considered as part of the EPA’s environmental process of the proposal. The Scoping Document outlined the studies that had been undertaken to date and described the studies that were required to be completed to fulfil the reporting requirements of the SEA. The Scoping Document was endorsed in April 2005 by the EPA as an appropriate basis for the development of the SEA.

Coffey Environments 2 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

1.2.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment Process

An SEA is a formal assessment that provides a degree of certainty that areas of land proposed for development will not require further assessment for those environmental factors assessed in the SEA. The relevant factors will be considered by the EPA who will recommend the environmental conditions that will apply to future proposals. Finally a legally binding decision on the SEA will be given by the Minister for the Environment.

An SEA requires advertising to elicit submissions on the merits of the strategic proposal. This SEA is subject to a twelve week public review period, during which time the public, stakeholders and other interested groups are invited to make submissions to the EPA, which in turn have to be responded to by the proponent. The EPA will then submit its report and recommendations to the Minister for the Environment on the environmental acceptability of the strategic proposal along with any environmental conditions which should apply to future proposals should they be referred.

The EPA’s report will be published and any person or organisation may appeal to the Minister against the recommendations or content of the report. The Minister for the Environment will assess any appeals received and ultimately determine whether or not the project can proceed. If the Minister determines that the project can proceed, legally binding conditions, dictating the environmental management and other requirements with which the proponent will have to comply, will be set pursuant to Section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

1.3 Future Approvals Process

1.3.1 State Approvals

When a future proposal is referred to the EPA, which is consistent with the outcomes of this strategic assessment, the EPA may declare that this proposal is a ‘derived proposal’. These are proposals that have been identified in the Strategic Proposal and do not have significant environmental issues that have not already been addressed in the SEA. Conditions from the strategic assessment, if any, could then be applied by the Minister for Environment to this ‘derived proposal’ and no further assessment by the EPA would be required. The desired objective of the SEA is to provide environmental approval for those activities and infrastructure associated with establishing future land uses in the development area and for them to be considered derived proposals.

A number of environmental factors have not been included in the SEA due to the strategic nature of the assessment. It is not possible to assess the environmental impact from each industry as the specific detail of the industry is not yet determined. The EPA may decide that there are factors that should be deferred to ensure that the EPA has the opportunity to assess future local development proposals when further information is available. Factors that have not been addressed in this SEA document and may need to be addressed by individual developers in the future include but are not limited to: • Air Quality;

• Liquid and Solid Wastes;

Coffey Environments 3 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Noise and Vibration; and

• Public Health and Safety.

1.3.2 Commonwealth Approvals

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) has provided advice on the SEA process and their likely involvement. DEWHA advises that it is possible to refer an SEA as an action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act 1999) on the basis that it is reasonable to conclude that developments foreseen in the SEA will proceed and that the impacts of these developments on the matters of national environmental significance need to be considered. DEWHA considers that the SEA should be formally referred under the EPBC Act 1999 and that the best time for referral might be at the commencement of the public review period for the SEA or following consideration of public comments. A copy of the draft SEA has been forwarded to DEWHA for comment prior to release for public comment.

1.4 Statutory Requirements

Legislation of most relevance (other legislation/policies/guidelines are referred to in this SEA) includes: • Environmental Protection Act 1986.

• Wildlife Conservation Act 1950.

• Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959.

• Town Planning and Development Act 2005

The following Commonwealth legislation is relevant: • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

1.5 The Proponent

1.5.1 Proponent Background

The development of the Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ) is an initiative of the Western Australian Government and is being implemented by LandCorp. LandCorp is undertaking the subdivision, servicing and leasing of the land.

1.5.2 Proponent Contact Details

The Western Australian Land Authority Level 3, Wesfarmers House 40 The Esplanade Perth 6000 WA

Contact: Ben McCarthy

Coffey Environments 4 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

2 BACKGROUND

To understand the significance of the SEA Area it is important to understand the vision, strategic importance and history for the greater Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ). Sections 2.1 and 2.2 refer to the entire RIZ that contains the SEA Area.

2.1 Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ)

2.1.1 Strategic Importance of the RIZ

The RIZ has been part of an industrial estate earmarked since 1955 and recognised as a heavy industry site for 25 years (ECS, 2006). The broad planning framework was established in the Stephenson Hepburn Report (1955), the “Premiers Committee for the Development of Cockburn Sound and Kwinana” (1961) and the 1963 Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The land at Kwinana Beach was zoned Special Industry under the MRS in 1972. A concept plan for the area was formulated in 1976 and revised in 1978 to resolve the disjointed ownership and other difficulties with the sites. Improvement Plan 14 (IP14) was included in a 1981 Concept Plan “Study for the Future Development of East Rockingham and Kwinana Beach”. The IP14 was adopted in 1985 by WAPC. In 1991 the Strategic Development Plan for the East Rockingham Industrial Park was incorporated into the MRS

The RIZ is well situated for the proposed industries as it has access to deep-water port facilities, road, rail and energy resources. This area is also near the communities of Rockingham and Kwinana and the existing infrastructure is not available anywhere else in the MRS area. The costs to establish the infrastructure required for an industrial area in a new area are prohibitive.

The RIZ is surrounded by the Greater Kwinana Industrial Area which produces outputs worth $4.34 billion per annum and exports $1.58 billion a year. The area generates total economic activity worth $15.3 billion (20% of Western Australia’s total value of production). This includes providing 3,600 jobs and 70% of the employees in this workforce live locally. The Kwinana area also generates indirect and induced employment that contributes 24,400 jobs, which is vital to the Western Australian economy.

The RIZ has been studied by Arup in a Triple Bottom Line Assessment (Appendix A). The value of the development to the Western Australian economy is outlined below: • $4.51m per hectare per year of direct output;

• $4.53m per hectare per year of indirect output per hectare;

• 4 direct jobs created per hectare;

• 22 indirect jobs per hectare;

• $0.41 million per hectare in investments in construction;

• $0.24 million per hectare in annual government taxes; and

• $0.15 million per hectare in annual dividends.

The RIZ has been partially developed for mainly industrial land uses over many years. Industries that currently exist within the RIZ include the Woolscouring plant, manufacture of industrial chemicals, value adding industries to construction materials, transport and port industries. These are located adjacent to Dixon Road and commercial development has taken place either side of Patterson Road.

Coffey Environments 5 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

2.1.2 RIZ Development Justification

The RIZ is zoned as Industrial in the MRS. The RIZ is significant in that it contains the last major landholding in or near the southern Perth Metropolitan Region that is designated for heavy industrial use. It is well situated with access to deep-water port facilities, road, rail and energy resources and the community resources of Kwinana and Rockingham.

The site has been planned for industrial uses for a considerable number of years and there is a lack of alternatives with the same value as an industrial development. After Kwinana Beach there are no ready alternatives for industrial development to meet current demands in the South-West. Kemerton, in the south west of Western Australia, has been developed to a degree but does not have port access. Oakajee and Burrup are not considered options due to their lack of infrastructure and remote location. It is estimated that delaying the development of the RIZ is costing the state $70 million per year. The development of the RIZ also postpones the time at which the government will have to expend large sums developing other areas.

2.1.3 Proposed RIZ Development Overview

A Structure Plan for the RIZ (IP14 Area at that time) was developed in 1999 (Figure 2), before much of the environmental work for the SEA had been completed. This Structure Plan was adopted by the City of Rockingham and the WAPC as stated in the Statement of Planning Policy No. 7.1 - East Rockingham Industrial Park: Environmental Planning Policy (City of Rockingham, 2004).

In 2008 LandCorp updated the Structure Plan to incorporate the findings of environmental investigations undertaken as part of this SEA study. The 2008 Proposed Structure Plan shows development of approximately 640ha of the total 1160ha of the RIZ into heavy, general and light industry areas (Figure 3). The Proposed Structure Plan also includes a Conservation Area (78ha) consistent with the recommendations of this SEA. The remainder of land uses in the RIZ form a parkland buffer between industry and surrounding land uses (Figure 3).

The Proposed Structure Plan for the RIZ comprises six precincts designated for specific and complementary industrial use and other landuses in the balance of the RIZ.

Precinct 1:

Port-Related Industry – 80ha allocated to industries that require direct port access for the import/export of bulk commodities for processing and/or distribution. Proposed to be located close to the Kwinana Bulk Cargo Jetty. A service corridor also enables access to the jetty.

Precinct 2:

Environmentally Acceptable Heavy Industry – 184ha allocated for heavy, large-scale industry which can meet environmental and risk criteria. The area has been selected to also act as a buffer to communities in Rockingham and Kwinana by transitional industrial areas and parkland.

Precinct 3:

Advanced Materials Park – 34ha allocated for industries involved in value-added processing of chemicals and minerals with negligible risk, noise or emission potential. Examples include zirconia and fused-alumina plants, which already operate in the area.

Coffey Environments 6 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Precinct 4:

General Industry – 190ha allocated to general industry including those ancillary to or supporting the industry establishing in the three major precincts. Selected to provide a transitional buffer area between heavy industry and other land-uses.

Precinct 5:

Light Industry – 44ha allocated to industries involved in light manufacturing including mechanical workshops and repairers. Designated as an extension of the existing light industrial area north of Dixon Road.

Special Use – Garden Industrial Precinct:

This precinct of 55ha will include larger lots in a landscaped setting with guidelines to ensure the development is landscaped in accordance with approved Landscape Master Plan and an Outline Development Plan will be required under the District Planning Scheme. This area also includes the buffer for Mandurah Road.

Other Land Uses

This area includes various land uses such as: • Conservation Area – 78ha;

• Waste Water Treatment Plant – 28ha;

• Caravan Park – 7.5ha;

• Parkland Buffer – 276ha;

• POS (Disused Rubbish Tip Site) – 16ha; and

• Service Commercial – 13ha allocated for a wide range of activities including offices, showrooms, display yards, food outlets, medical centres, recreation and leisure. This precinct also will act as a buffer and includes an existing area developed adjacent to Dixon Road.

Future industries proposed in the short term for the RIZ include a Water Corporation Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), a Kaolin Processing Facility and an ethanol plant. The land proposed for the Kaolin Processing Facility and ethanol plant has been omitted from the SEA Area as they are planned to be located on areas that do not have significant environmental features. The Waste Water Treatment Plant proposed to be located in the RIZ is currently undergoing an independent Public Environmental Review Assessment.

A workshop with the key project stakeholders in 2008 confirmed the objectives for development of the RIZ. The main development objectives for the RIZ were defined as: • Consolidation of strategic industry (essential to the economy of Western Australia) located on the Western Trade Coast.

• Maximising the land available to this strategic industry on the Western Trade Coast, capitalising on the access to and investment in port, rail, road and other major established infrastructure.

• Ensuring a representative and viable Conservation Reserve with appropriate management strategies protecting and conserving a significant part of the ecological values identified.

Coffey Environments 7 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Minimising the impacts of industrial land uses, maintaining quality of life and safety of adjoining communities and other sensitive land uses.

• Maximising local employment opportunities, training programmes and apprenticeships.

• Protecting European and Aboriginal heritage where practical.

(From Arup, 2009 – Appendix A).

These objectives and the Proposed Structure Plan have been incorporated into an overall vision for the RIZ. The vision for the development is as follows.

“The Rockingham Industry Zone builds on Western Trade Coast’s industrial synergies providing an innovation platform for integrating ecological systems with industrial needs to deliver sustained community, environmental and economic prosperity.”

The Structure Plan has been developed to show environmental linkages as well as possible synergies between existing and future development (Figure 4). The developable land in the SEA Area will remain the property of LandCorp and as such the future proponents will need to comply with restrictions as set by LandCorp to ensure all environmental management commitments will be adhered to.

2.2 History of Environmental Work on RIZ

The RIZ has had a long history but a limited amount of environmental work carried out prior to the work undertaken for this SEA. The following outlines the previous environmental work and consultation that has occurred prior to the EPA setting the level of assessment as an SEA.

In spring 1998 a flora survey was undertaken by Malcolm Trudgen and Arthur Weston within the wetland to the west of the proposed woolscouring site as well as in wetlands within the rail loop west of Patterson Road.

As a result of the Trudgen and Weston flora survey, the WA Threatened Species and Communities Unit of the (then) Department of Conservation and Land Management wrote to LandCorp’s environmental consultant Quilty Environmental indicating that there was the possibility that a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC 19) was present in the wetlands of the rail loop and to the west of the woolscouring plant site. CALM commented that the significance of the area near the woolscouring plant site had higher conservation values than within the rail loop due not only to the significant vegetation but also to the age of the Holocene dunes.

The significance of the vegetation on the site was not recognised in the draft BushPlan or final Bush Forever reports released in 1998 and 2000, respectively. However, in February 2002 the Western Australian Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) indicated that a portion of the RIZ located in the south central part that “seems to coincide with the location of several conservation category wetlands”. The nominated site, known as the “Crompton/Day Rd Wetlands, East Rockingham” was not incorporated as a Bush Forever site as DPI indicated that the area was already protected as there was a Threatened Ecological Community and Conservation Category Wetlands on the site (Government of Western Australia, 2002).

The number of wetlands and TECs recorded on the site were greatly increased after the Flora and Vegetation Assessment was undertaken in August 2002 by ATA Environmental as part of the SEA process.

Coffey Environments 8 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

2.3 History of SEA Boundary

The Scoping document approved in 2004 had an SEA Area of 640ha within the RIZ. The SEA boundary was revised in 2006 to exclude land to be developed and undergo independent environmental assessment which resulted in the:

• Exclusion of the land between the rail line and the beach; • Exclusion of the land north of Ward Road; • Exclusion of the land to the south of Alumina Road; • Exclusion of degraded land in the north-east corner; and • Exclusion of the area proposed for the Water Corporation’s Waste Water Treatment Plant and the corridor linking the proposed site with Patterson Road. In 2008 LandCorp informed the EPA of the revised the boundary to release land to be subjected to individual environmental assessments to:

• Exclude the area south of Chemeq Ltd site; • Exclude the WaterCorp PER site; and • Exclude the area between Day Road and Mandurah Road (Figure 5).

Coffey Environments 9 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

3 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT

This section provides a description of the environmental setting relating to the proposal. More detail on the relevant environmental factors is contained in Section 4.

3.1 Climate

The climate of Kwinana, as for the entire Perth Metropolitan Area, is characterised by a Mediterranean climate with mild wet winters and hot dry summers.

A summary of the meteorological data relevant to the RIZ is presented in Table 2.

The mean daily minimum temperature measured at Kwinana BP Refinery ranges from 10.6°C in August to 19.1°C in February. The mean daily maximum temp erature ranges from 17.7°C in July to 29.3°C in February.

The month of January has the lowest mean relative humidity measured at Kwinana BP Refinery, which is 52% at 9am and February and March have the lowest humidity of 54% at 3pm. The months of June and July have the highest mean relative humidity, both of which are 74% at 9am and July has the highest humidity of 66% at 3pm.

The average annual rainfall measured at Kwinana BP Refinery is 759.4mm. Eighty percent of total rainfall falls between May and September.

Mean daily evaporation measured at the Medina research station ranges from a minimum of 1.8mm in June and July, to a maximum of 8.5mm in January. The total annual evaporation is approximately 1730mm, which exceeds annual rainfall by approximately 970mm.

Winds in the Kwinana region result from both large-scale (synoptic) winds associated with low and high- pressure systems, and local thermally influenced winds. Typically, strong offshore breezes occur during the daytime followed by corresponding onshore breezes as the land cools during the evening. This sea breeze/land breeze cycle is typical of coastal environments (Sinclair Knight Merz, 2002a).

Synoptic winds in the Kwinana region are generally from the east. During spring and summer, the easterly winds are disrupted by the sea breeze from the south-west and south-south-west, which is generally an afternoon weather phenomenon (Sinclair Knight Merz, 2002a).

Summer winds tend to be quite persistent, and 50% of winds have speeds of 5 ms -1 to 9ms -1. Winds during winter are typically from westerly through northerly directions. Winter winds are typically more variable with occasional periods of calm and strong storm winds, and 50% of winds having speeds of 2ms -1 to 7ms -1 (D.A. Lord & Associates, 2001, p12).

The annual wind roses based on data from the Hope Valley Meteorological Station (1980) is shown below (source Sinclair Knight Merz (2002a)) in Diagram 1:

Coffey Environments 10 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Diagram 1: Annual wind roses

3.2 Flora and Fauna

Native vegetation remains on a proportion of the SEA Area ranging in condition from Completely Degraded to Very Good. The vegetation is part of the Quindalup Vegetation Complex and includes a mixture of Tuart woodland, Acacia and Melaleuca shrubland and woodlands in wetland swales. The vegetation condition ranges from Excellent to Degraded with a large amount of grassy weed infestation throughout most of the bushland areas.

The vegetation is not identified as a Bush Forever site. Bush Forever site 349 (Leda and Adjacent Bushland, Leda) is in close proximity to the east and site 356 (Lake Cooloongup, Lake Walyungup and Adjacent Bushland, Hillman to Port Kennedy) is located close to the south of the area.

The woodland and shrubland vegetation on the site contains a variety of fauna habitat.

3.3 Topography

The topography of the study area is generally flat but in parts contains a series of parallel shallow swales and low ridges (Figure 6). The site varies from 2mAHD adjacent to the coastline to 8mAHD towards the east of the site near Mandurah Road. The dune swale areas vary from 3-4mAHD with dune ridges generally at 5-6mAHD.

3.4 Geology, Geomorphology and Soils

The SEA Area is part of the coastal fringe of the Swan Coastal Plain. The SEA Area is associated with the Quindalup Dune System, which consists of calcareous sands of Holocene origin. The SEA Area is at the northern end of the Rockingham-Becher Plain, which forms part of the Quindalup Dune System. The Rockingham-Becher Plain consists of a succession of beach ridges formed during deposition of sand parallel to the beach.

Coffey Environments 11 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

At the northern end of the Rockingham-Becher plain (including the SEA Area), there appears to have been several periods of dune formation. This has resulted in an irregular pattern of beach ridges and poorly defined dunes and swales. This is particularly apparent in the eastern portion of the study area. The western portion of the study area has a more distinct dune and swale pattern and is younger in age than the eastern portion.

A cemented layer of limestone substrate is present in some eastern portions of the SEA Area. This substrate is a cemented mixture of clays and calcium carbonate and is generally impervious to water. Areas within RIZ containing this substrate have damp soils and poor drainage. The presence of the limestone substrate indicates that the area may have had more extensive wetland at sometime in the past (Trudgen and Weston, 1998).

The SEA addresses the significance of the RIZ of the Rockingham-Becher Plain landform unit within the Quindalup Dunes. Landform diversity and representation will be taken into account as part of the assessment of the regional significance of natural areas of the site.

3.5 Groundwater

Maximum groundwater levels in the area generally range from 3mAHD in the eastern part of the site to 1mAHD near the coast. Groundwater beneath the site flows from east to west. The depth to maximum groundwater varies from between 0-1m below the surface in the swale areas and 2-3m below the ridges.

3.6 Wetlands

A number of wetlands are mapped in the SEA Area in the Geomorphic Wetlands Swan Coastal Plain dataset (DEC 2006). Four wetlands are mapped on the western side of Patterson Road in the rail loop and seven wetlands are mapped in the south-eastern portion of the area to the east of Patterson Road.

Three of the wetlands mapped west of Patterson Road are classified as Damplands and one is mapped as a Sumpland. All four wetlands are mapped as having a management category of Resource Enhancement. The seven wetlands east of Patterson Road are all mapped as sumplands with a management category of Conservation.

Conservation category wetlands support a high level of ecological attributes and functions and are accorded priority for protection and conservation. Resource Enhancement category wetlands are recognised as those that may have been partially modified but still support substantial ecological attributes and functions (WRC 2001).

Work undertaken for this SEA by ATA Environmental identified, mapped and categorised many new wetlands on the RIZ that were not on the DEC dataset and modified the mapping of those that were.

None of the wetlands in the area are protected by the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 or are listed as RAMSAR wetlands.

3.7 Aboriginal Heritage

Pursuant to Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth) and the 'previous exclusive possession act' native title has been extinguished over the area. The land is freehold and has been before 23 December 1996 and therefore requirements and claims do not apply.

Coffey Environments 12 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

According to a search of the Department of Indigenous Affairs Aboriginal Heritage Enquiry System the RIZ Area has been studied as part of the University of Western Australia’s Perth Area Survey and the Ballaruk (Traditional Owners of Whadjuk territory) Site Recording Project (Appendix B). A review of the Heritage Enquiry System for registered sites in the SEA Area (Appendix B) indicates that there are 7 Aboriginal Heritage sites located near the SEA Area. These sites are not within the boundaries of the SEA Area and the proposed development will not affect any of these sites.

Future developers in the SEA Area will be advised by the proponent of their obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, 1972.

Coffey Environments 13 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

4 ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

4.1 Relevant Environmental Factors

The SEA Area contains ecological values that may be of conservation significance and may also include matters of National Environmental Significance such as Threatened Communities and Threatened Species listed under the EPBC Act 1999 . The relevant environmental factors as outlined in the Scoping Document that are examined in this SEA are: • Vegetation;

• Flora;

• Fauna;

• Groundwater Surface Water Quality and Quantity;

• Wetlands; and

• Geomorphology.

4.2 Vegetation

4.2.1 EPA’s Objective

“The EPA’s objective for flora is to maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of flora at the species and ecosystem levels through the avoidance or management of adverse impacts and through improvement in knowledge (EPA 2004a).”

The EPA has established the following broad principles for the protection of native terrestrial vegetation (and flora) (Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development, EPA Guidance Statement No. 33) (EPA, 2008): • avoid clearing;

• maintain biodiversity at sustainable levels;

• prepare and implement regional strategies for native vegetation and biodiversity protection;

• conserve biodiversity in situ

• reintroduce native vegetation;

• prevent loss of biodiversity;

• make informed decisions;

• apply new understanding; and

• to mitigate adverse impacts.

These principles form the basis for the recommended management strategies.

4.2.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance

• EPA (2004) Guidance Statement No. 51 – Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessments in Western Australia ;

Coffey Environments 14 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Environmental Protection Act 1986 ;

• Wildlife Conservation Act 1950;

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

4.2.3 Existing Environment

Vegetation Types

A survey of the RIZ was undertaken by ATA Environmental between 2002 and 2005 (Appendix C) in alignment with Guidance Statement No. 51 Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia (EPA, 2004c). The survey included the SEA Area and other areas in the RIZ that could potentially be developed in the future but have been omitted from the SEA Area. The detailed quadrat component of the vegetation and flora survey was conducted in two consecutive Spring seasons in 2004 and 2005 which experienced close to average rainfall.

A separate survey was also undertaken in 2006 for the south-eastern portion of the SEA Area and adjoining lots within the RIZ (ATA Environmental, 2006). The complete results from the vegetation surveys are contained in Appendix C.

In addition to the ATA Environmental survey, Trudgen and Weston (1998) surveyed five 10m x 10m plots in wetland vegetation on the RIZ as part of a larger survey.

The vegetation of the SEA Area is part of the Quindalup Vegetation Complex as mapped by Heddle et al . (1980). The vegetation complex level of describing vegetation is a broad level of description and can include a wide range of different vegetation types within each complex. The Quindalup Vegetation Complex includes a vast array of different vegetation types and structure from coastal heath close to the beaches through to Acacia shrublands, Tuart woodlands and a wide range of wetland vegetation types. Within the RIZ, the Quindalup Vegetation Complex was further described according to the structure and composition of the dominant plants to define vegetation associations.

A total of 21 vegetation associations were mapped on the entire RIZ that was the subject of the surveys (Figure 7) and all of these vegetation associations are included within the SEA boundary. The 21 associations occurring in the SEA Area are:

Dryland Flats • Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart) Woodland

• Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Acacia rostellifera Woodland

• Acacia rostellifera Tall Shrubland

• Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca huegelii Open Woodland

• Melaleuca huegelii/Acacia rostellifera Tall Open Shrubland

• Melaleuca huegelii/Hakea prostrata Tall Shrubland

• Xanthorrhoea preissii/Avena fatua Shrubland

Dryland Ridges • Acacia rostellifera/Hakea prostrata Shrubland

• Xanthorrhoea preissii/Acacia saligna/Hakea prostrata Shrubland

Coffey Environments 15 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Hakea prostrata Shrubland

Wetland Swales

• Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland

• Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Melaleuca huegelii/Gahnia trifida Low Woodland

• Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Acacia rostellifera/Gahnia trifida Low Woodland

• Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Low Woodland

• Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis/ Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland

• Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Acacia rostellifera/ Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland

• Banksia littoralis/Acacia rostellifera Low Woodland

• Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Woodland

• Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland.

Wetland Flats • Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Gahnia trifida Low Open Woodland

• Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis/Acacia rostellifera/Melaleuca huegelii Low Open Woodland.

The vegetation in the RIZ was inferred to be representative of four different Floristic Community Types (FCTs) as described by Gibson et al . (1994). Floristic Community Types are different from vegetation associations in that they are described according to the floristic composition rather than by the height and density of the dominant species.

The 21 vegetation associations were considered to represent the following four Floristic Community Types:

• Floristic Community Type 17 – Melaleuca rhaphiophylla – Gahnia trifida seasonal wetlands (also recorded with E. gomphocephala ) recorded in the southern portion of the site.

• Floristic Community Type 19b – Woodlands over Sedgelands in Holocene Dune Swales. All the wetlands that contain woodlands in the linear swales throughout the site are likely to be representative of this FCT. The Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland in the northern portion of the site to the east of Patterson Road is superficially similar to FCT 19b without a woodland overstorey. However, it was considered that this area had been significantly degraded and in its original state would have contained an overstorey of Melaleuca huegelii. As such, it is probably more similar to FCT 19b.

• Floristic Community Type 29b – Acacia shrublands on taller dunes. This Floristic Community Type has been recorded on sandy areas within low relief dunes as well as tall dunes. The structure and dominant species of this FCT can be quite variable.

• Floristic Community Type 30c2 – Quindalup Eucalyptus gomphocephala and/or Agonis flexuosa woodlands. The Tuart associations with an Acacia rostellifera or Melaleuca huegelii understorey are most likely representative of this FCT.

Trudgen and Weston (1998) also determined that the five wetland areas they surveyed on the site were most likely to be FCT 19.

Coffey Environments 16 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

The area of each of these associations and Floristic Community Types in the SEA Area are outlined in Table 3. The areas of each of the FCT’s in the SEA Area are: • 23ha of FCT 17;

• 44ha of FCT19b;

• 114ha of FCT 29b; and

• 128ha of FCT 30c2

Vegetation Condition

The condition of the vegetation was assessed according to the condition rating scale of Bush Forever (Government of WA, 2000a). Overall there was a high weed density in the vegetation within the SEA Area. Particularly weedy and degraded areas include parts of the northern SEA boundary in to the north-east of the Chemeq plant (Figure 8). Most of the other completely degraded portions of the RIZ have been excluded from the SEA. According to the Bush Forever vegetation condition rating scale, areas of high weed density can still be assessed as being in Very Good condition provided the vegetation structure has not been significantly degraded. Areas designated as Good condition are able to have significant alteration to the vegetation structure as well as the presence of some very aggressive weeds at high density. Approximately 58% of the SEA Area was in Good or better than Good condition, with 19% being Good to Degraded, 13% Degraded and 11% being Cleared or Completely Degraded (Table 3).

Vegetation that was considered to be in Good to Very Good condition was recorded in: • The area west of Patterson Road in the vicinity of the rail loop;

• The southern half of the large central block; and

• In the southeast corner of the site between Day Road and Mandurah Road and between Mandurah Road and the railway line on the eastern boundary.

The Tuart stand to the east and abutting Patterson Road contains a large number of mature Tuart trees and some areas where the understorey is reasonably intact. However, in most of this stand the understorey has been altered significantly to such an extent that this area was assessed as being in Good to Degraded condition.

Several areas were recovering from fires of various ages during the 2004/2005 survey, with some recently burnt areas and others a few years after the fire. The high degree of weed species is highly likely to be a direct result of a high frequency of fires. Fires were considered likely to be started from the burning of abandoned cars which was found to be common particularly in the southern half of the site.

The SEA Area contains a large number of vehicle tracks in the central portion. Access to 4WD and 2WD and motorcycles is very easy throughout this part of the site as the site is not fenced and the soils are conducive to vehicle access. There is also a significant amount of dumping taking place over the site from white goods to mattresses and sofas to general household refuse. This is resulting in degrading the vegetation due to disturbance.

The area west of Patterson Road and the area east of Day Road did not appear to be used as much by off-road vehicles as the central section.

Coffey Environments 17 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Vegetation Significance

Vegetation significance can be assessed either at the whole of site level or the significance of individual components of the vegetation. The whole of site approach was used in the Bush Forever report published by the W.A. State Government in 2000 (Government of W.A. 2000a). The Bush Forever process used a number of criteria to determine whether an area of vegetation was considered to be regionally significant and therefore warranted some form of protection. The vegetation in the RIZ survey area was not identified in Bush Forever as an area of regionally significant vegetation. The area was also not included on the nominated additional Bush Forever sites through the Bush Forever process.

The composition of individual components of the vegetation can determine that a site, or parts thereof, have significance irrespective of the Bush Forever process. The most common criterion used for the assessment of individual vegetation significance is that of Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs). TECs are those Floristic Community Types that are considered to be not well protected or reserved and are under some threat. TECs in the south-west of Western Australia were initially identified by English and Blythe (1997). The register of TECs is now administered by the Department of Environment and Conservation. In addition to TECs, there can be other aspects of vegetation that may be considered significant, including its unusual composition, geographic location, relationship to other vegetation types etc. The flora and vegetation survey undertaken by ATA Environmental identified that the site contained some vegetation that was considered significant at the local, regional or international level.

The vegetation assessment concluded the following:

• The Quindalup Vegetation Complex is currently well reserved in the Perth Metropolitan Region and locally (see Table 4);

• All four Floristic Community Types are represented in Bush Forever sites within 10km of the SEA Area and other Bush Forever sites elsewhere in the Perth Metropolitan Region (see Table 5 and 6 and Figure 9);

• Floristic Community Types 17, 29b and 30c2 are not listed as Threatened Ecological Communities at the State or Commonwealth level;

• Floristic Community Type 19b is a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) at the State and Commonwealth level. The FCT19b areas in the RIZ SEA Area are similar to the FCT 19b areas in Lake Cooloongup/Walyungup and west of Rockingham Golf Course areas and moderately similar to the Paperbark Woodland vegetation in the Lark Hill area. This similarity does not diminish their significance as a TEC;

• Floristic Community Type 29b is listed as a Priority Ecological Community by the DEC (DEC, 2008). It is categorised as Priority Three (i) which are poorly known ecological communities defined as communities that are known from several to many occurrences, a significant number or area of which are not under threat of habitat destruction or degradation (DEC, 2008);

• The Melaleuca huegelii dominated vegetation occurring on wetland soils with a limestone substrate to the west of the woolscouring plant is a very unusual vegetation association which might not be represented in the conservation estate and while not a Threatened Ecological Community is considered of high conservation significance;

• The Tuart/ Melaleuca rhaphiophylla wetland vegetation is an uncommon vegetation association that is represented only in small areas in the Bush Forever site immediately to the south of the RIZ; and

Coffey Environments 18 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• The Tuart woodlands are not in the Quindalup Soil System within the 600-690 and 900-999mm rainfall zones, and also do not contain ‘low disturbance understorey’ and are therefore not identified in the draft Tuart Conservation and Management Strategy as Priority 1 or 2 ‘indicative high conservation areas’.

The vegetation classed as FCT19b that is a TEC at the State and Commonwealth level present in the SEA Area is mapped on Figure 10. Flora and Vegetation studies on the RIZ mapped an additional 26ha of FCT19b in the RIZ to the previously known extent of this vegetation type, with a total of 44ha in the SEA Area. There is a total known extent of approximately 185ha of FCT19 with about 104ha being FCT19b. Of this there is about 0.2ha in National parks and 1.5ha in ‘other reserves’ (eg for recreation). There is 102ha listed as ‘Freehold’ tenure with approximately 42 ha of this in Regional Parks.

4.3 Flora

4.3.1 EPA’s Objective

“Protect Declared Rare and Priority Flora consistent with the provisions of the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1950, and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act, 1999. Protect other flora of conservation significance (EPA 2004a).”

The EPA has established the following broad principles for the protection of flora (EPA, 2008): • avoid clearing;

• maintain biodiversity at sustainable levels;

• prepare and implement regional strategies for native vegetation and biodiversity protection;

• conserve biodiversity in situ;

• reintroduce native vegetation;

• prevent loss of biodiversity;

• make informed decisions;

• apply new understanding; and

• to mitigate adverse impacts.

These principles form the basis for the following recommended management strategies.

4.3.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance

• EPA (2004) Guidance Statement No. 51 – Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessments in Western Australia ;

• Environmental Protection Act 1986 ;

• Wildlife Conservation Act 1950;

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .

4.3.3 Existing Environment

A flora survey of the RIZ was undertaken by ATA Environmental between 2002 and 2005 (Appendix C) in alignment with Guidance Statement No. 51 Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for

Coffey Environments 19 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia (EPA, 2004c). In addition to the ATA Environmental survey, Trudgen and Weston (1998) surveyed five 10m x 10m plots in wetland vegetation on the RIZ as part of a larger survey.

A combined total of 166 plant species were recorded from the RIZ in both studies. Of the 166 plant species recorded, 98 were native and 68 were introduced. The number of introduced species represents a large percentage (41%) of the total flora of the study area. The ATA Environmental flora assessment was undertaken mostly in September 2004 as well as November 2005 when most perennial and ephemeral species would have been present. As such the flora list is considered to represent over 95% of the total flora of the area surveyed. The survey included sampling from permanently marked 10m x 10m quadrats within the RIZ.

Families with the greatest representation of taxa were the Poaceae (Grass) family (20 taxa, including 15 introduced), the Asteraceae (Daisy) family (14 taxa, including 11 introduced), the Cyperaceae (Sedge) family (12 taxa) and the Papilionaceae (Pea) family (10 taxa, including 5 introduced).

A DEC database search for Declared Rare and Priority Flora was conducted prior to the ATA Environmental survey (2002) of the RIZ study area. No Declared Rare or Priority listed flora has been recorded within the vicinity of the study area. No Declared Rare or Priority Flora species or Commonwealth Listed species were identified during the Vegetation and Flora Assessment (Appendix C).

4.4 Fauna

4.4.1 EPA’s Objective

“The EPA’s objective for native fauna is to maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of native fauna at the species and ecosystem levels through the avoidance or management of adverse impacts and improvement in knowledge (EPA 2004a).”

The EPA has established the following broad principles for the protection of native terrestrial fauna (EPA, 2008): • protect and manage adequate natural areas;

• adopt an ecosystem management approach;

• adopt environmentally sound management practices;

• development should not result in species extinction;

• adopt an integrated and consultative approach;

• obtain adequate information to allow informed decision-making; and

• mitigate adverse impacts.

These principles form the basis for the following recommended management strategies.

4.4.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance

• Wildlife Conservation Act 1950.

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Coffey Environments 20 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• EPA (2004c) Guidance No. 56 - Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia.

4.4.3 Existing Environment

A vertebrate and invertebrate fauna survey of the RIZ was undertaken by Coffey Environments (formerly ATA Environmental) in 2005 and was updated in 2008 (Appendix D). The survey included a desktop survey of W.A. Museum and CALM databases, an 8 day vertebrate fauna survey, an invertebrate trapping programme over 3 months and a two day tree hollow survey (Appendix D).

Habitat Descriptions

Coffey Environments rated the condition of the habitat in the SEA Area according to the in-house rating scale for fauna habitat values. This scale includes

High Quality Fauna Habitat – These areas closely approximate the vegetation mix and quality that would have been in the area prior to any disturbance. The habitat has connectivity with other habitats and is likely to contain the most natural vertebrate fauna assemblage.

Very Good Fauna Habitat - These areas show minimal signs of disturbance (e.g. grazing, clearing, fragmentation, weeds) and generally retain many of the characteristics of the habitat if it had not been disturbed. The habitat has connectivity with other habitats and fauna assemblages in these areas are likely to be minimally effected by disturbance.

Good Fauna Habitat – These areas showed signs of disturbance (e.g. grazing, clearing, fragmentation, weeds) but generally retain many of the characteristics of the habitat if it had not been disturbed. The habitat has connectivity with other habitats and fauna assemblages in these areas are likely to be affected by disturbance.

Disturbed Fauna Habitat – These areas showed signs of significant disturbance. Many of the trees, shrubs and undergrowth are cleared. These areas may be in the early succession and regeneration stages. Areas may show signs of significant grazing, contain weeds or have been damaged by vehicle or machinery. Habitats are fragmented or have limited connectivity with other fauna habitats. Fauna assemblages in these areas are likely to differ significantly from what might be expected in the area had the disturbance not occurred.

Highly Degraded Fauna Habitat – These areas often have a significant loss of vegetation, an abundance of weeds, and a large number of vehicle tracks or are completely cleared. Limited or no fauna habitat connectivity. Faunal assemblages in these areas are likely to be significantly different to what might have been in the area pre-disturbance.

The woodland and shrubland vegetation on the site contains a variety of fauna habitats. The four most significant fauna habitats were investigated and described below.

• Acacia and Xanthorrhoea shrubland dominated by Acacia rostellifera , Hakea prostrata, Xanthorrhoea preissii and Acacia saligna. This was rated largely as Disturbed Fauna Habitat with some areas in the north of the site being Good Fauna Habitat and was Site 1 in the trapping locations (Figure 11).

• Tuart dominated Woodland containing Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart), Acacia rostellifera , Melaleuca huegelii and patches of Xanthorrhoea preissii and Avena fatua . This is also rated as Disturbed Fauna Habitat over most of the site with the south central area rated as Very Good Fauna Habitat and Trapping Site 2 was located in this habitat type (Figure 11).

Coffey Environments 21 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Melaleuca and Banksia woodland. It contained Melaleuca rhaphiophylla with Gahnia trifida , Banksia littoralis, Acacia rostellifera and Melaleuca huegelii . This is rated as Good Fauna Habitat in which Trapping Site 3 was located (Figure 11)

• Degraded Shrubland containing Xanthorrhoea preissii, Acacia rostellifera and A. saligna . This area had a large proportion of weed invested grassland. These areas were rated as Highly Degraded Fauna Habitat. Trapping Site 4 was located in the northern part of this area (Figure 11).

Habitat for Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos

A tree hollow survey was undertaken in 2008 that covered the RIZ. This survey was undertaken to observe any Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart) trees that contain hollows that potentially provide breeding habitat for Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos. A total of 52 trees with hollows were recorded in the entire RIZ. Of these 12 trees were observed in the survey to contain bee hives. These hollows have not been included as potential habitat. 25 trees contained tree hollows in the SEA Area (Figure 12). No Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos were recorded breeding in the hollows.

The suitability of the tree hollows was assessed using the criteria able to be determined from the ground described by Johnstone and Storr (1998) (range from 2.5-12m above the ground, having an entrance of 23-30cm in diameter and a depth of 1.0-2.5m, although the DEC fact sheet on Carnaby’s Cockatoo suggested hollows could be 2-10m above the ground and their depth varies from 0.25-6.0m). Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos have a preference for smooth-barked Eucalypts especially Salmon Gums (Eucalyptus salmonophloia ) and Wandoo ( Eucalyptus wandoo ), but nests have been recorded in York Gum ( E. loxophleba ), Flooded Gum ( E. rudis ), Tuart ( E. gomphocephala ) and rough-barked Marri (Corymbia calophylla ). The trees on the RIZ consist of Tuart trees only.

As outlined in Table 7 very few of the tree hollows observed are likely to fit the criteria as outlined by Johnstone and Storr (1998). Most of the hollows were less than 25cm in diameter and the location of many of the hollows indicates that the depth of the hollow will not be sufficient to be a potential nesting site for Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos. Finally the presence of bees in many of the hollows negates the possibility of the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos using these sites as breeding habitat.

There have been very few hollows develop on the site to date and less that are potential breeding habitat for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos. The frequency of fires, general growth habit of the Tuart trees and lack of development of appropriate hollows in the RIZ Referral Area indicates the future development of breeding habitat in the next 50 years is extremely unlikely.

Avifauna

Bird species sighted within the vicinity of the project area are listed in Appendix 3 of the Fauna Survey (Appendix D of the SEA). A total of 121 species may be found in the general locality, however, not all of these species are expected to be observed, forage, or nest in the general area. There are always going to be vagrants present in an area because of unusual weather (e.g. flooding, storms). Of these 121 species, 42 were observed in the RIZ during the survey by ATA Environmental.

No bat activity was observed during the night searches.

Reptiles

Reptile species caught in the RIZ during the December 2004 survey are listed in Table 8. Twenty-two species of reptiles were caught during the field survey. The most abundant reptiles were the skink, Ctenotus fallens and gecko, Strophurus spinigerus . Tracks indicated an unusually high number of

Coffey Environments 22 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Varanus tristis in the treed areas. Statistical tests indicate a relative concurrence between the reptile assemblage for three of the four sites (Table 10).

Mammals

Mammals caught and sighted during the December 2004 survey and in the vicinity of the four trapping sites are shown in Table 4. Three species of mammals were caught. The project area has an unusually high number of house mice (Mus musculus ; 244). Numerous rabbits, a fox and a cat were sighted in the night searches.

Amphibians

The hot dry conditions in December 2004 were not suitable for catching amphibians. Some of the frog species likely to be found in the area burrow underground and only emerge after heavy rain to forage and breed. Calls for Heleioporus eyrei were heard one evening during the night searches.

Invertebrates

A short range endemic survey program was developed in association with the Western Australian Museum and Dr Barbara Main of the University of Western Australia. The survey program focussed on the Diplopoda (millipedes), Pulmonata (land snails) and Mygalmorphae (trapdoor spiders) which potentially support narrow range taxa. The survey program included a visual searching of likely habitats for Short Range Endemics by WA Museum staff as well as pit fall trapping over a 3 month period in winter to early spring, with identification of the samples undertaken by WA Museum staff (Dr Mark Harvey and Dr Shirley Slack Smith) and Dr Barbara Main.

Mygalomorph Spiders

Five species of mygalomorph spiders were collected during the 2005 survey. These were Missulena hoggi , Chenistonia tepperi , Teyl “waldockae”, Eucyrtops sp. and Kwonkan sp.

The Missulena hoggi species occurs widely in the metropolitan region and coastal plain environs but has become restricted in occurrence to remnant native vegetation due to suburban and industrial development. Chenistonia tepperi similarly is widespread and has a wide geographic range throughout the southern part of the state. Although urbanisation is restricting its occurrence to small areas of native vegetation the species in its broader range is not likely to be endangered. The Eucyrtops (juvenile specimen) is probably one of the known species from the metropolitan region which are also undergoing diminishment of range due to urbanisation.

Of most interest is the Teyl species “waldockae” which is still not formally named. It has been collected by the WA Museum from two urban coastal areas during surveys of urban bushland and is known also from Rottnest. The spiders are small, cryptozoic and vulnerable to soil disturbance and turnover of litter.

Of the five mygalomorph species collected two cannot unequivocally be attributed to a particular species as only juvenile specimens were available. Two species, Chenistonia tepperi and Missulena hoggi (spp. group) are widely distributed elsewhere and their overall persistence does not appear to be threatened.

Collection records of Teyl “waldockae” suggest that elsewhere it is confined to the Quindalup Dune system of the Perth coastal plain and occurs in the interdune swales, i.e. in the low lying moisture holding areas. The two sites (Trigg Dunes and Woodman Point) surveyed by the WA Museum in 1994 and 1995 both have some reserve status although the Trigg Dunes site has been burnt. However it is

Coffey Environments 23 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

not known where else in the Dune system the spider occurs, nor what its northern or southern geographic limits are.

The invertebrate survey recommended that portions of two of the habitats (Tuart woodland and Melaleuca/Banksia littoralis woodland) be retained as habitat areas for the spider.

Millipedes

Two different species of Antichiropus were identified from the RIZ. The species Antichiropus ‘GI’ has been found in a variety of locations on the Swan Coastal Plain and adjacent regions. It is quite common in some woodland habitats on Rottnest Island and is also known from Garden Island, Cottesloe, Peppermint Grove, Bassendean, Darlington, Carabooda, and Nambung Nature Park. In the RIZ Antichiropus ‘GI’ was found at all four habitat types and is abundant within the region. The species Antichiropus ‘UBS2’ has been found across the Swan Coastal Plain from Hepburn Heights in the north, to East Rockingham and Parmelia in the south. It is also abundant in native vegetation habitats on the foothills of the Darling Scarp. In the RIZ Antichiropus ‘UBS2’ was found at all four habitat types and is abundant within the region.

No species of Antichiropus (Millipede) occur solely within the impact zone of the proposed development. Some species occur within the impact zone, but they also occur in other areas of the Swan Coastal Plain and adjacent regions (Harvey, 2005).

Land Snails

Four species of land snails were collected during the 2005 survey. They were Helix aspersa , Theba pisana, Cochlicella acuta and Cochlicella Barbara . Snails from the genera Cernuella and Candidula were also collected.

None of the samples submitted contained any specimens listed in the EPBC Act 1999 , the various schedules of the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 , DEC’s Priority Fauna list and those considered regionally significant in Bush Forever. These samples did not contain any snails native to Australia. All specimens are of species native to the southern Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa that have been introduced into Western Australia. Many are also present in other southern Australian states.

Species potentially occurring within the project areas identified as being of National Environmental Significance under the EPBC Act 1999

Numerous species of birds were identified as having national environmental significance under the EPBC Act 1999 within the search grid co-ordinates. However, the vast majority of these are marine, coastal, or salt lake species that are likely to inhabit the marine environment to the west of the project areas, and are unlikely to breed or forage in the project area. These birds have not been considered. The remaining species are listed in Table 11. The only species of particular conservation interest under the EPBC Act likely to be found in the area are Carnaby’s Cockatoo and the Rainbow Bee-eater. The White-bellied Sea Eagle may occasionally be sighted flying in the vicinity.

Significant Fauna under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950-1979

In Western Australia, all native fauna species are protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950- 1979 . Fauna species that are considered rare, threatened with extinction or have a high conservation value are specially protected under the Act. In addition, some species of fauna are covered under the 1991 ANZECC convention, while certain birds are listed under the Japan and Australian Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the China and Australian Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA). As well as the

Coffey Environments 24 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

above classification, CALM also classify fauna under five different Priority codes and rare and endangered fauna are classified under the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2005 into four schedules of taxa.

Threatened and priority species listed under the Wildlife Conservation Act that may potentially occur in the RIZ include three Schedule 1 species, and two Schedule 4 species. Seven species with a priority listing with CALM have also been predicted or recorded in the general area. The likelihood of species listed under government legislation or conservation programs being found in the SEA Area is discussed below.

Significant fauna potentially present in the SEA Area

Below is a brief description of the preferred habitat of listed species potentially present in the SEA Area and an assessment of the likelihood of these species being found in the SEA Area.

Calyptorhynchus latirostris (Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo) - This species inhabits the southwest of WA. Its preferred habitat is the woodland where it preferentially feeds on plants of the Proteaceae family but it also eats seeds and nectar form a range of plants. In winter, flocks can be found in heaths. It is observed regularly on the Swan Coastal Plain, occurs in the region, and is likely to in the project area although not observed during the survey. There is little suitable habitat for foraging on the project site. Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos might occasionally make use of the large Tuart trees on the site for roosting. The survey of tree hollows on the site also indicates that there is no breeding and limited potential breeding habitat on the site.

Calyptorhynchus baudinii (Baudin’s Cockatoo) - This species is most common in the far southwest of WA where it breeds. It is known to breed from the southern forests north to Collie and east to near Kojonup. Baudin’s Cockatoo is typically found in vagrant flocks and utilizes the taller, more open Jarrah and Marri woodlands, where it feeds mainly on Marri seeds and various Proteaceous species. It breeds in Spring/Summer in the southern forests, nesting in tree hollows (primarily Marri). It is unlikely to occur in the SEA Area.

Myrmecobius fasciatus (Numbat) - This marsupial is active during the day, sheltering in hollow logs and feeding exclusively on termites. Numbats were once widespread across southern Australia but are currently restricted to a few pockets of Wandoo and Jarrah forest at Dryandra and Perup Nature Reserves. They are vulnerable to cat and fox predation. An individual was sighted in Thomsons Lake Nature Reserve in 1984. Given this species restricted distribution, specialist feeding requirements and susceptibility to fox predation it is highly unlikely numbats would occur within the SEA Area.

Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon) - This species is found across most of Australia, but only occurs in low densities and has a wide and patchy distribution. It favours hilly or mountainous country and open woodlands. This species may occasionally occur in the region and SEA Area.

Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa (Southern Brush-tail Phascogale) - Brush-tail Phascogales are arboreal marsupials which require tree hollows in suitable woodland or forest and rely on abundant invertebrate prey to sustain populations. A recent record by CALM at Point Peron (2001) indicates this species occurs in the Rockingham region. Given the disturbed nature of the project area, its closeness to light industry and its size it is unlikely the Southern Brush-tail Phascogales occur in the SEA Area.

Macropus irma (Western Brush Wallaby) - This species was very common in the early days of settlement, however, its range has been seriously reduced and fragmented due to clearing for agriculture and there is a significant decline in abundance within most remaining habitat. It is now

Coffey Environments 25 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

distributed across the south-west of WA from north of Kalbarri to Cape Arid. The optimum habitat is open forest or woodland, particularly favouring open, seasonally wet flats with low grasses and open scrubby thickets. It was not seen during any of the site visits. It was recorded in Leda Nature Reserve in 1989, however, is unlikely to occur at on the SEA Area, due to inappropriate habitat types.

Falsistrellus mackenziei (Western False Pipistrelle) – This volant species of micro-chiropteran bat is widespread in high rainfall jarrah forest and coastal woodlands of the southwest, living in tree hollows. A sighting in 1993 at Jandakot south of Perth indicates that the Western False Pipistrelle may occur within the region and SEA Area.

Ixobrychus minutus (Little Bittern) – The Little Bittern is a cryptic species that inhabits swamps, lakes and watercourses bordered by dense reeds. They have been sighted recently at Herdsman and Forestdale Lakes in the Perth metropolitan area but have not been recorded in Rockingham since 1939 (CALM Threatened Fauna search). The Little Bittern is not expected to occur in the SEA Area but may occur in other habitats in the region.

Burhinus grallarius (Bush Stonecurlew) – Bush Stonecurlew are well camouflaged ground nesting birds and have not been sighted within the Rockingham region since early last century except on Garden Island (Wykes et al., 1999). It is unlikely to occur in the region or on the SEA Area given limited suitable habitat and the impact of feral animals on this species.

Macropus eugenii derianus (Tammar Wallaby) – Tammar Wallabies are one of the smaller wallaby species. Like most wallabies they shelter during the day among dense shrubby vegetation, preferring thickets of Melaleuca and Sheoak with grassland. They are found across the southwest in nature reserves such as Tutanning and offshore islands, including Garden Island. Tammar Wallaby populations were reduced by land clearing and fox predation. They are unlikely to be found in the SEA Area.

Isoodon obesulus fusciventer (Southern Brown Bandicoot or Quenda) - Southern Brown Bandicoot prefer dense scrub (up to one metre high), often in or near swampy vegetation. They will often feed in adjacent forest and woodland that is burnt on a regular basis and in areas of pasture and cropland lying close to dense cover. Southern Brown Bandicoots were recorded in the RIZ and may occur in the SEA Area.

Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater) - This species is found across the better-watered parts of WA including islands. It prefers lightly wooded, sandy country near water. It spends its winters from the Gascoyne north to Indonesia. It moves south mainly in late September and early October and north from February to April. It is scarce to very common across its range. The Rainbow Bee-eater has been seen in the region and is expected to utilize the SEA Area for breeding in the summer months.

Haliaeetus leucogaster (White-bellied Sea Eagle) - This species is the second largest bird of prey found in Australia. White-bellied Sea Eagles are a common sight in and near coastal areas of Australia. Birds form permanent pairs that inhabit territories throughout the year. This eagle has been seen in the area, and may be observed flying overhead in Rockingham. It is unlikely to utilize the SEA Area for feeding or breeding.

Although it did not register on the CALM Threatened and Priority search, the South West Carpet Python may occur in the area. The Carpet Python ( Morelia spilota imbricata ) is a large python found across the south west of Western Australia, north to Geraldton and Yalgoo, and east to Kalgoorlie, Fraser Range, and Eyre. Carpet Pythons inhabit forest, heath, or wetland areas and shelter in hollow logs or in branches of large trees. They occur in relatively high abundance on Garden Island, and have been

Coffey Environments 26 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

caught in the Rockingham area. It is unknown whether the individuals caught in Rockingham have come from Garden Island or the local area. This species is widespread within the south west, but is not in high density across its distribution. It is possible that Carpet Pythons could be found in the SEA Area.

Of the species listed under Commonwealth and State government legislation requiring special protection due to their vulnerability only the Southern Brown Bandicoot, Rainbow Bee-eater, Carnaby’s Cockatoo and possibly the Carpet Python are likely to be present. The Peregrine Falcon, Southern Brush-tailed Phascogale, and Western False Pipistrelle may utilize the SEA Area, but is considered unlikely given the disturbed nature of the project area, its closeness to light industry and its size.

An inspection of the general area within a 10 km radius of the site indicated that there were other areas in either private or government ownership that had similar vegetated habitats. If Carnaby’s Cockatoos utilize this site then they have a range of alternative feeding and roosting area in the region, however, the large Tuart remnants do provide potential sites for nesting. The fauna assessment (Appendix D) does not consider clearing this site will have a significant impact on Carnaby’s Cockatoo. The Rainbow Bee-eater has a range of alternative foraging and nesting areas in the region and is unlikely to be adversely affected by clearing. Southern Brown Bandicoots and Carpet Pythons, if they are in the area, would most probably be lost if the bushland was cleared.

Introduced and Feral Animals

A number of introduced and feral animals were recorded for the project site. Mice ( Mus musculus ) were the most abundant animal caught in the RIZ. In addition, a cat ( Felis catus ) and fox ( Vulpes vulpes ) were observed and fresh daily tracks were identified on the sand tracks to indicate there are a number of these mammals in the area.

Faunal Assemblage Comparisons with Other Studies

The structure of the terrestrial vertebrate faunal assemblage in the RIZ was different to most other remnant urban bushland sites of this size (e.g. Bold Park). The RIZ generally has fewer species, a couple in relatively high abundance and many in very low abundance. This faunal assemblage is typical of a disturbed environment (Thompson, 2004). The very high density of the introduced House Mouse is also an indication of a high level of disturbance.

Assemblages with Ecological Significance

The EPA’s Position Statement No 3, Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection and Guidance Statement No. 56, Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors; Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia indicate that field survey data should be used to assess the impact of the development on species and ecosystems.

There are no characteristics of the reptile assemblage or the species recorded on site to indicate that it has particular conservation significance in the region.

The RIZ has a disproportionately high abundance of house mice compared to other surveys. Mice may out-compete other native rodents that would reduce the species richness in the area. The presence of a high number of mice would also contribute to the high number of nocturnal birds of prey, elapids and goannas recorded on the site.

Coffey Environments 27 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Other than the presence of Southern Brown Bandicoot, there are no characteristics of the mammal assemblage or the species recorded on site to indicate that they have particular conservation significance in the region.

It is particularly difficult to quantify bird assemblages at a site as there are appreciable temporal variations driven by seasonal effects, specific rain events, droughts, etc. The bird assemblage represented on a presence – absence basis for the RIZ appears to fit in with the regional pattern. The Rockingham region does however, have a high abundance of birds of prey. Other surveys in the region have also shown a high abundance of eagles, kites and falcons.

The invertebrate fauna survey recognised that the spider species, Teyl “waldockae”, is an unnamed species not well collected or known from the Swan Coastal Plain and is worthy of protection. The species appears confined to inter-dunal swales in the Quindalup dune system. The invertebrate survey recommended that portions of two of the habitats (Tuart woodland and Melaleuca/Banksia littoralis woodland) be retained as habitat areas for the spider.

4.5 Groundwater and Surface Water Quality and Quantity

4.5.1 EPA’s Objective

“The EPA’s broad principles for water management are to maintain the quantity of water (Surface and ground) so that existing and potential environmental values, including ecosystem maintenance are protected; and to ensure that the quality of water emissions (surface, ground, and marine) does not adversely affect environmental values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses and meets statutory requirements and acceptable standards (EPA, 2004a).”

4.5.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance

• Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000a). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, National Water Quality Management Strategy , October 2000.

• Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000b) Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting, National Water Quality Management Strategy , October 2000.

• Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000c) Australian Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management, National Water Quality Management Strategy , 2000.

• Department of Environment (2004) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Australia , February 2004.

• Department of Environment (2005) Decision Process for Stormwater Management in W.A.

• Government of Western Australia (2005) State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy.

4.5.3 Existing Environment

The SEA Area lies on the western end of the Jandakot Groundwater mound and near the northern boundary of the more local Safety Bay Mound. The Superficial Aquifer that lies directly under the site is an unconfined aquifer in both the Safety Bay Sand and Tamala Limestone formations. The shallow

Coffey Environments 28 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

groundwater has a salinity of 500-1,000 mg/L which sits over a dense saline wedge that can extend up to 1km inland. This wedge is in the Policy Area for the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy (Government of Western Australia, 2005).

According to Davidson (1995) the groundwater flows from east to west towards the coast. The groundwater through-flow is highly variable ranging from 200-2000m per year in the Tamala Limestone and around 20m/year in the Safety Bay Sand. Under the SEA Area the maximum groundwater level has a very narrow range from around 1m AHD near the western boundary to only 1.5m AHD on the eastern boundary (Water and Rivers Commission, 1997).

The proponent commissioned a groundwater study by JDA Consulting Hydrologists (Appendix E) to provide more detailed information on groundwater levels, seasonal variation in depth and potentially direction, and to assist in determining the hydrological characteristics of the wetlands on the site.

Twenty-one monitoring bores were installed in 15 locations in March 2005. Six of the bores were distributed around the SEA Area while the remaining nine were installed along a transect running perpendicular to the low ridges and swales. The transect had six sets of paired bores in wetland swales and three bores located on ridges between the swales. For each paired monitoring bore, there was one shallow and one deep bore, designed to detect any perched water level in the wetlands.

The bore logs revealed a fine silt layer in the first 1m of the soil profile. The silt was cemented in places and of variable thickness and strength. The cemented layer was generally harder and thicker (0.5-1m) in the wetland soils. Tamala Limestone was not encountered in the deepest bore which was drilled down to 8m.

Water levels measured over a 10 month period from May 2005 to January 2006 showed a very flat water level ranging from a minimum of around 0.9-1.0m AHD in May 2005 up to 1.7-1.8m AHD in September 2005. The fluctuation in watertable level in 2005 therefore was approximately 0.8m. Levels recorded in a DEC bore located near Day Road in the south-east corner of the SEA Area have shown an annual seasonal fluctuation of 0.60m since 1975. The hydrograph of this bore also indicates a decreasing maximum and minimum groundwater level since 1992. The average maximum groundwater level has decreased about 0.9m in this period.

Wetland Water Levels

The 2005 groundwater monitoring study (Appendix E) did not detect any surface water in the wetlands in which bores were placed. This is consistent with the observations during the 2005 flora and vegetation survey which occurred during the time of peak groundwater levels in September. The shallow bores in the wetlands did not detect any perched layer on the cemented silt substrate. Groundwater levels ranged from a minimum of 2.0-2.7m below ground level in May 2005 to a maximum of 1.1-1.9m below ground level in September 2005. Therefore, at no time in 2005 was the top of the superficial groundwater aquifer within 1.1m of the wetland surface.

As stated above, average maximum and minimum groundwater levels have fallen steadily by approximately one metre in the south-east corner of the SEA Area since 1975. Therefore, prior to 1992 the groundwater level would have been much closer to the surface of the wetlands. On average the maximum water levels were likely to have been at the surface or just below prior to 1992.

Groundwater Modelling

The results of the groundwater monitoring undertaken by JDA (Appendix E) and additional data from the Department of Water bores located in the vicinity of the SEA Area were incorporated into a

Coffey Environments 29 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

groundwater model created by Umwelt Environmental Consultants (Appendix F). The Umwelt model was undertaken to study the interaction between the groundwater levels and climate variability and to predict the potential sustainability of the wetlands on the site given the decline in groundwater and likely further reductions with climate change scenarios for Perth. Discussion of the results and implications of this study are in Section 8.

Pre development groundwater contours show the groundwater in May 2004 in the RIZ area ranging from 0.95 to 1.25mAHD (Figure 13). The modelled post development scenario is very similar to the pre-development contours but show a slightly higher groundwater levels post development (Figure 14). This has been modelled assuming 90% hardstand in the developed area and the use of water sensitive urban design over the site (Appendix F).

Water Quality

Water quality data were collected from the 21 bores installed during the JDA Consulting Hydrologists study (Appendix E).

The data show that the pH of the shallow groundwater is alkaline ranging between 8.30 and 8.77. The alkaline pH levels are to be expected given the presence of shallow limestone soils in the area.

Salinity of the groundwater was mostly fresh, from 350 to 910mg/L with the exception of bore 7 which measured 4900mg/L. Bore 7 is located on the southern boundary of the SEA Area. The sodium and chloride ion balance of the water in bore 7 is equivalent to the ionic balance of salt water and indicates that the higher salinity of bore 7 is attributable to the influence of Lake Cooloongup.

4.6 Wetlands

4.6.1 EPA’s Objective

“The EPA’s Position Statement No. 4 on the environmental protection of wetlands (EPA 2004b) sets out the EPA’s overarching goals for wetlands, as follows: • to protect the environmental values and functions of wetlands in Western Australia;

• to protect, sustain and, where possible, restore the biological diversity of wetland habitats in Western Australia;

• to protect the environmental quality of the wetland ecosystems of Western Australia through sound management in accordance with the concept of ‘wise use’, as described in the RAMSAR Convention, ecologically sustainable development principles, regardless of land use activity; and

• to have as an aspirational goal, no net loss of wetland values and functions.

4.6.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance

• Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 (EPP Lakes).

• Government of Western Australia (1997) Wetlands Conservation Policy for Western Australia.

• EPA (2004g) Position Statement No. 4 - Environmental Protection of Wetlands.

• WAPC Statement of Planning Policy - Water Resources (Draft).

• WRC (2001) Water and Rivers Commission Position Statement: Wetlands.

Coffey Environments 30 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• DPI (2004) A Land Use planning Guideline for the Determination of Wetland Buffer Requirements.

• EPA (2006) Environmental Offsets Position Statement 9.

4.6.3 Existing Environment

The Wetland of the Swan Coastal Plain (Hill et al. 1996) and the current W.A. Land Information Service (WALIS) Geomorphic Wetlands dataset (August 2006) both identify eleven wetlands on the RIZ, all of which are within the SEA boundary (Figure 15). The mapped wetlands include four Resource Enhancement (RE) Category Wetlands to the west of Patterson Road and seven Conservation Category Wetlands (CCW) in the vicinity of the Woolscouring Plant. The type of wetland includes Damplands and Sumplands. A dampland is a basin type of wetland that contains water close to the surface but rarely if ever above the ground. A sumpland is also a basin type of wetland but has water above-ground for some part of the year. The hydrological regime is consistent with the classification of the wetlands as being damplands and sumplands.

The mapped wetlands including the WALIS reference number (UFI) are as follows:

Mapped Wetlands West of Patterson Road • UFI 6317 Resource Enhancement Sumpland

• UFI 6227 Resource Enhancement Dampland

• UFI 6316 Resource Enhancement Dampland

• UFI 6318 Resource Enhancement Dampland

Mapped Wetlands West of the Woolscouring Plant • UFI 6319 Conservation Category Sumpland

• UFI 6220 Conservation Category Sumpland

• UFI 6383 Conservation Category Sumpland

• UFI 6221 Conservation Category Sumpland

• UFI 6222 Conservation Category Sumpland

• UFI 6223 Conservation Category Sumpland

• UFI 6224 Conservation Category Sumpland

The presence of wetlands in these two locations is also identified in V&C Semeniuk Research Group’s (1991) Wetlands of the City of Rockingham – Their Classification, Significance and Management . The wetlands are recognised as being part of the Becher Suite of wetlands and are shown diagrammatically to the west of Patterson Road and in the vicinity of the present woolscouring plant. However, no further information on the management category or environmental features of these wetlands is given in the report.

A survey of wetlands in the RIZ was conducted by ATA Environmental in 2002 and in 2005-6 as part of the vegetation and flora survey. The survey recorded the location, vegetation type and condition of each wetland. Subsequent to the field survey, the EPA Bulletin 686 questionnaire was used to determine the management category of the new wetlands not previously identified in Hill et al. or WALIS.

Coffey Environments 31 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

The survey recorded 38 wetlands within the RIZ, of which 30 are totally within the SEA Area, three mostly in the SEA Area and one partially (Figure 15). Two of the wetlands currently identified in Hill et al. and WALIS were considered on the basis of vegetation, topography and soil types to be wrongly identified as wetlands. These areas are UFI 6317 and UFI 6318. Both wetlands contained dense Acacia rostellifera which can often appear on aerial photographs to be wetland vegetation.

Information on the each of the wetland’s dimensions are given in Table 12. Most of the wetlands were located in linear swales with an average width of around 30m and lengths varying from 60m – 1.05km long. In some cases there are two or more wetlands mapped in the same swale (eg. wetland 24, 25 and 26). This indicates that the swale is not always continuous and in some parts contains some higher ground that interrupts the continuity of the swale and therefore the wetland.

Two wetlands (wetland 29 and 33) located immediately west of the woolscouring plant were not recorded in a linear swale but were located on a broad flat area which had shallow sand over a pavement of limestone.

The size of the wetlands was mostly less than 1ha. In total there is around 69ha of the site mapped as wetland. The two broad wetlands (wetland 29 and 33) make up 28ha or 41% of this total.

The vegetation in the wetlands was relatively similar in composition. However, four broad wetland vegetation types could be recognised as follows:

Wetland Vegetation Type 1: comprising Melaleuca huegelii and Xanthorrhoea preissii but without any characteristic wetland tree or shrub/sedge species (possibly degraded)

Wetland Vegetation Type 2: comprising Melaleuca rhaphiophylla and Banksia littoralis and often Melaleuca huegelii . Gahnia trifida not common in the understorey

Wetland Vegetation Type 3: comprising Melaleuca rhaphiophylla and sometimes Melaleuca huegelii but few to no Banksia littoralis . Gahnia trifida common in the understorey

Wetland Vegetation Type 4: comprising Eucalyptus gomphocephala over Melaleuca rhaphiophylla and Gahnia trifida

Wetland Vegetation Type 1 could suggest that the swales are not as wet as the other Wetland Vegetation Types 2, 3 and 4 as there are no Paperbarks (Melaleuca rhaphiophylla), Swamp Banksias (Banksia littoralis ) or Saw Sedge (Gahnia trifida ) present. The soils, however, have been observed to be moist at various times of the year, including spring when the watertables are likely to be at their highest. As a result these areas were considered to be swale wetlands. A complicating factor in this interpretation is the degraded condition of the northern half of the SEA Area, including the three wetlands (1, 2 and 3) that are considered to have Wetland Vegetation Type 1. The absence of several tree species may be the result of past clearing, frequent fires or other disturbance.

Some of the vegetation associations in the SEA Area are considered to be Threatened Ecological Community 19b. The areas of TEC 19b are located in wetlands that contain Melaleuca rhaphiophylla and Banksia littoralis . The wetlands dominated by Melaleuca rhaphiophylla and Gahnia trifida and those with Eucalyptus gomphocephala (Tuart) were considered to correspond to Floristic Community Type 17 which is not a TEC.

The wetlands containing the Threatened Ecological Community 19b vegetation are considered to have regional significance because of the status of the vegetation. In addition, the wetlands containing Tuart

Coffey Environments 32 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Woodland over Melaleuca rhaphiophylla and Gahnia trifida understorey are considered to be significant as this vegetation type is not common in existing reserves.

The wetlands are all part of the Becher Suite of consanguineous wetlands (V&C Semeniuk Research Group, 1991). The Becher Suite of wetlands are located only on the Rockingham-Becher Plain and are most common on the Point Becher cuspate foreland in the Port Kennedy area. The wetlands of the Becher Suite are typically small, linear damplands and sumplands and contain freshwater below and occasionally above ground. The age of the Becher Suite wetlands ranges from 1,000-7,000 years old with the youngest wetlands located closest to the coast (V&C Semeniuk Research Group, 1991). Vegetation within the Becher Suite wetlands is variable and demonstrates patterns in relation to distance from the coast and age of the wetlands.

The wetlands in the SEA Area are estimated to be between 5,000 and 6,000 years old. In this regard the wetlands are of similar age to the two linear wetlands mapped as Banksia littoralis Low Woodland on the western side of Lake Cooloongup (Keighery et al ., 1997) which at around 6,000 years old are probably the oldest of the Becher Suite wetlands. The two wetlands near Lake Cooloongup contain Banksia littoralis and Melaleuca rhaphiophylla over an understorey with common species Acacia rostellifera, Muehlenbeckia adpressa, Hardenbergia comptoniana, Xanthorrhoea preissii and Gahnia trifida . Floristically these two linear wetlands on the western end of Lake Cooloongup appear very similar to the Wetland Vegetation Type 2 wetlands in the SEA Area.

Becher Suite wetlands of around 5,000 years old do not appear to be reserved outside of the RIZ /SEA Area. Wetlands of around 4,000 years old are protected in the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park in the Lark Hill area. The vegetation of the 4,000 year old wetlands consists of Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Woodland with some Banksia littoralis over Baumea juncea, Lepidosperma gladiatum, Ficinia nodosa, Cyperus tenuiflorus and Centella asiatica . The understorey appears to be quite different to the understorey of any of the Vegetation Type 1-4 wetlands in the SEA Area.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the Becher Suite wetlands in the SEA Area are of an age (5,000- 6,000 years old) that is not known to occur elsewhere on the Rockingham-Becher Plain in conservation areas apart from two small areas at the upper end of the age range within the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park to the west of Lake Cooloongup. The wetlands also appear to have a vegetation composition that is significantly different from younger Becher Suite wetlands.

The wetlands therefore have significant conservation values as an example of wetland formation, function, flora and fauna habitat, and as an example of successional establishment on a beach ridge plain.

4.6.4 Wetland Management Category

Wetlands on the Swan Coastal Plain are assigned a management category to assist in guiding how they are managed and what level of protection is required. There are three management categories - Conservation, Resource Enhancement and Multiple Use. The category into which a wetland belongs is determined in general terms by the ecological values that the wetland has. Details of Management Categories and Objectives for Management for wetlands are given in Table 13.

The wetlands mapped in the RIZ by the DEC prior to this SEA process include seven Conservation Category wetlands and four Resource Enhancement wetlands. The other wetlands identified during the SEA process have not been officially assigned a management category. Therefore, for this SEA all 34 wetlands identified as occurring on the SEA Area, including the currently mapped wetlands, were assessed using EPA Bulletin 686: A Guide to Wetland Management in the Perth and Near Perth Swan

Coffey Environments 33 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Coastal Plain Area (Environmental Protection Authority, 1993). Bulletin 686 provides a questionnaire to be used when assessing wetlands. The questionnaire comprises four parts: • Presence of Rare species – Any wetland containing rare species is automatically allocated to the Conservation Category.

• Natural Attributes – The naturalness of the wetland.

• Human-use attributes – The number of human uses for which the wetland is important.

• Supplementary questions – Used for those wetlands where the scores from the questionnaire place them on the boundary of two management categories or those wetlands located on private land with high private human-use value. The presence of Threatened Ecological Communities in many wetlands was a major factor in scoring this question.

A score is allocated for each relevant section of the questionnaire allowing the wetland to be allocated a management category.

The questionnaire was used for the assessment of all wetlands identified. A summary of the scoring results for the wetlands on the SEA Area is given in Table 14. The use of the supplementary questions is also indicated. Supplementary questions are used when the scores obtained from the questionnaire result in a borderline management category. The answers to the supplementary question determine the appropriate management category.

As shown in Table 14, scores for natural attributes are generally lower for wetlands in the northern part of the RIZ and increase towards the southern part of the site near the Woolscouring plant. Those wetlands with lower natural attribute scores generally have a sparse over-storey or a lack of paperbarks in the dominant layer. Weed invasion (disturbance) is also a more common occurrence in those wetlands with a low natural attribute score.

Wetlands with high human use attribute scores are generally in areas further away from roads and buildings. Evidence of horse riding and trail bike use also resulted in a higher human use score for some wetlands.

A number of wetlands in the centre of the SEA Area had scores which placed them in the transition zone between the Resource Enhancement and Conservation Categories. In these cases the supplementary questions were used. The first supplementary question relates to the presence of rare and endangered species or communities with a limited distribution. The majority of the wetland vegetation on the SEA Area is likely to be representative of Floristic Community Type 19b – Woodlands over Sedgelands in Holocene Dune Swales. As this community type is a Threatened Ecological Community, all wetlands subject to the supplementary question are automatically shifted to the management category to the right of the transition zone.

The wetlands located to the west of the Woolscouring plant obtained the highest Natural Attribute scores. These wetlands have an intact understorey, patches of dense vegetation and contain a vegetation structure and composition that is different from other areas of the SEA Area. No supplementary questions were used for these wetlands as the scores were sufficiently high to be classified as Conservation Category wetlands.

A total of 28 wetlands in the SEA Area are considered to be of Conservation Category.

Coffey Environments 34 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

4.6.5 Wetland Groundwater Modelling

Umwelt’s findings confirmed the JDA results that the wetlands in the SEA Area are controlled by groundwater levels, rather than being perched, and have had a decline in water levels of approximately one metre since 1990. Umwelt modelled the topography of the RIZ in relation to the groundwater contours (Appendix F) and found that the wetlands in the south-east portion of the RIZ had a shallower distance to the watertable than those in the north of the site. Using established root depths for species within the wetlands, specifically those typically associated with FCT19b, Umwelt predicted that the wetland vegetation needs to be sustained by water levels within1.8-1.9m below surface during the dry months of the year. Based on the Umwelt analysis, it was considered that the wetlands in the south- east portion of the site could be sustainable in the future, whereas other wetlands are not likely to survive in their current condition.

4.7 Geomorphology

4.7.1 EPA’s Objective

“The EPA’s objective for landscape and landforms is to maintain their integrity, ecological functions and environmental values (EPA, 2004a).”

The EPA (EPA, 2008) recommends that:

• natural and human-modified landscapes and landforms important to the community and maintain key ecosystem processes and diversity are identified and managed using an integrated ecosystem management or natural resource management (NRM) approach. The NRM framework recommended by the EPA involves consultative processes that establish the environmental values to be protected, issues and threats, priorities for action, environmental objectives and criteria, an implementation strategy, monitoring and reporting, and performance review and improvement;

• landscapes and landforms of high conservation significance are fully protected, and other valued landscapes and landforms are also protected commensurate with the significance of the landscape or the landform;

• landscape health is protected through informed decision-making that fully recognises the principles of ecologically sustainable development, in particular, the key principles pertaining to the management of ecosystems, biodiversity protection, intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle;

• land use, development areas, infrastructure and individual constructions are carefully sited and designed to complement natural settings and processes; and

• degraded land and natural resources are rehabilitated where possible.

4.7.2 Applicable Legislation, Criterion or Guidance

• EPA (2008) Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development. Guidance Statement No. 33 .

4.7.3 Existing Environment

The SEA Area lies at the northern end of a geomorphic landform known as the Rockingham–Becher Plain that extends from Kwinana south to Mandurah (Geological Survey of W.A., 1980) (Figure 16). The Rockingham–Becher Plain is part of the extensive Quindalup Dune System and contains soils of

Coffey Environments 35 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

relatively young geological origin comprising unlithified sand composed of shell fragments, quartz and minor feldspar.

The Rockingham–Becher Plain is classified as a cuspate beach-ridge plain and contains three major dune landforms - shore-parallel ridges, parabolic dunes and isolated dune chaots. (Semeniuk et al. , 1989). The predominant landform on the plain is the shore-parallel dune ridge system.

The Rockingham–Becher Plain has formed in very recent times as a result in the decrease in sea levels during the Holocene. The oldest dunes on the Rockingham–Becher Plain have been estimated to be around 6,400 years old when the sea level was around 2.5m higher than current levels (Semeniuk & Searle, 1986). These oldest sediments are located on the eastern side of Lakes Cooloongup and Walyungup (Figure 17). The low shore-parallel ridges represent old coastlines during this period. In general, the dunes decrease in age from east to west as a result of the movement of the coastline further westward over the last 6,400 years. The rate of accretion (growth) is variable throughout the plain. In addition, the dynamic coastal processes during this period have also resulted in the erosion of some areas of the plain. The process of dune accretion and erosion is still evident today particularly at Point Becher from the Secret Harbour to Port Kennedy area.

The SEA Area contains a complex series of shore-parallel beach ridges and intervening swales. The shape of the dunes ridges changes from east to west and appears to represent the early stages of formation of Point Peron around 5,000 – 6,000 years ago. In the far south-east corner of the SEA Area the dunes are almost imperceptible on the ground but are oriented concave to the west. At the location of present day Day Road, the dunes begin to bulge in the other direction and are convex to the north- west. This orientation indicates the northern side of a small, but growing cuspate foreland. The point of the foreland is located in the southern portion of the SEA Area, extending over present day Patterson Road and through the rail loop. The dunes in the northern portions of the SEA Area represent the northern side of the cuspate foreland and are oriented generally in a north-west direction. The shape of the northern dune ridges changes from convex to concave towards the northern boundary of the SEA Area.

Semeniuk et al. (1988) state that the Rockingham-Becher Plain primarily has significance for the following reasons: • The development of a distinct geomorphological feature which has a characteristic structure; and

• A stratigraphy which faithfully reflects the environment of its position, its setting and its history.

In addition, the V&C Semeniuk Research Group (1991) state that the primary reason for the importance of the Rockingham-Becher Plain is because the area: • Has been used as a model to illustrate a stratigraphical approach to analysing and understanding the evolution of such systems which may be used as a basis for similar analysis of the many overseas cuspate forelands;

• Provides a textbook example of modern sedimentation and coastal geomorphology that will serve as an international standard; and

• Provides a framework for a range of other features, eg. calcrete, climate history, and tectonically- induced sea level history.

The main focus of discussion and assessment about the significance of the Rockingham-Becher Plain has centred on the Point Becher cuspate foreland area. This discussion was precipitated by the proposal to develop a portion of the Point Becher area for the Port Kennedy Regional Recreation

Coffey Environments 36 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Centre. The EPA in its assessment (EPA, 1989) concluded that the area contained important features of scientific interest such as the beach ridge plain which contains sedimentary and geomorphic evidence of sea level change and climate history. They concluded that the most complete sequence that had these features was located in the southern part of the Point Becher area. The southern area also contained the best quality vegetation and wetlands within the dunes.

As a result of the EPA assessment and other studies of the area, a large portion of the southern part of Point Becher has been retained in the Rockingham Lakes Regional Park. The Regional Park includes a complete sequence of dunes from the present coastline inland to Lakes Walyungup and Cooloongup (interrupted only by Warnbro Sound Avenue and Ennis Avenue).

The northern portion of the Rockingham-Becher Plain that includes the SEA Area has not been part of any discussions regarding significance or reservation. The area was not recommended for nomination for the Register of the National Estate in 1991. However, this may have been due to the industrial zoning over the land rather than the lack of significant geomorphologic and other scientific features.

4.8 Summary of Significant Environmental Features in the SEA Area

The studies completed for this SEA have identified that the area contains environmental features of regional significance. The areas of highest conservation significance in the SEA Area are considered to be the following: • The Conservation Category swale wetlands containing vegetation considered to be Floristic Community Type 19b which is a Threatened Ecological Community at the State and Commonwealth level;

• The broad, flat wetland to the west of the woolscouring plant that contains a limestone substrate and an unusual vegetation community and maybe not present elsewhere in the Perth Metropolitan Region;

• The Tuart/ Melaleuca rhaphiophylla wetland vegetation to the west of the limestone area which is uncommon in the Perth Metropolitan Region;

• The beach-ridge plain landform which provides evidence of the early formation of the Point Peron peninsula; and

• Fauna habitat for the mygalomorph spider species Teyl “waldockae”.

Coffey Environments 37 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

5 POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

5.1 Vegetation and Flora

Development of the SEA Area according to the RIZ Structure Plan would involve clearing of the majority of the native vegetation for industry and associated infrastructure. The development will clear 222ha of vegetation in the SEA Area. An area of 31ha of Cleared land will also be developed. The areas of each of the FCT’s to be cleared in the SEA Area are: • 4ha out of 14ha of FCT 17;

• 17ha out of 44ha of FCT19b;

• 99ha out of 114 of FCT 29b; and

• 102ha out of 128haof FCT 30c2

The development will result in the clearing of 17ha of FCT19b in the SEA Area with 28ha being retained. A total of 99ha of vegetation associations that has Tuart present in the SEA Area will also be cleared for development with 34ha being retained.

Clearing will not affect any significant flora as no Declared Rare and Priority Flora have been recorded on the site.

Development in the area has the potential to increase weed and rubbish vectors to retained vegetation and affect the vegetation due to altered groundwater and surface water regimes.

5.2 Fauna

The development in the SEA Area in accordance with the RIZ Structure Plan will result in the loss of habitat for native fauna. There are 4 habitat types present in the SEA Area and the approximate areas of each to be cleared are: • 37ha out of 38ha of the Acacia and Xanthorrhoea shrubland;

• 99ha out of 135ha of the Tuart dominated woodland;

• 29ha out of 68ha of the Melaleuca and Banksia woodland; and

• 61ha out of 62ha of the degraded shrubland.

There will also be the loss of some individuals of sedentary species during clearing. The impact on significant species will be minimal. It is unlikely that the land clearing will substantially modify, destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for the Rainbow Bee-eater or Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo as there are a range of alternative feeding and breeding areas in the region such as: • BF349 Leda and Adjacent Bushland, Leda;

• BF356 Lake Cooloongup, Lake Walyungup and Adjacent Bushland Hillman to Port Kennedy;;

• BF377 Port Kennedy;

• BF341 Woodman Point;

• BF346 Brownman Swamp, Mt Brown Lake and Adjacent Bushland, Henderson/Naval Base;

Coffey Environments 38 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• BF355 Point Peron and Adjacent Bushland, Peron/Shoalwater Bay; and

• BF358 Lake Richmond, Rockingham (Figure 9).

Carnaby’s Cockatoos have alternative feeding opportunities in the area; however the large Tuart remnants provide potential roosting sites. Twenty trees containing hollows in the SEA Area will most likely be cleared.

Southern Brown Bandicoots and Carpet Pythons would most probably be lost if the bushland were cleared. Clearing of the land may force the fox population into the adjacent urban area. There is also the possibility of light, noise and human interactions disturbing native fauna during and post construction.

5.3 Groundwater and Surface Water

Development of the SEA Area according to the RIZ Proposed Structure Plan could impact on the groundwater quality and levels in a number of ways including: • Contamination of the groundwater and surface water by nutrients and pollutants from industry;

• Transfer of pollutants to Cockburn Sound

• Lowering of groundwater levels by abstraction for industry;

• Raising of groundwater following clearing of native vegetation;

• Increase in salinity of shallow groundwater due to abstraction of fresh groundwater; or

• Increase the surface run-off due to hardstand areas in the development.

5.4 Wetlands

Development of the SEA Area according to the RIZ Proposed Structure Plan will result in the direct loss of 22 of the wetlands covering 20ha in the SEA Area. 7 full and 5 part wetlands will be retained in the Conservation Area with a total area of 42ha out of 67ha in the SEA Area.

Wetlands 22, 23, 24 and 28 are bisected by the Conservation Area boundary and are partially in the development footprint. Wetland 29 is for the most part within the Conservation Area. Due to the fact that these are groundwater dependant as outlined by the hydrological studies undertaken for this SEA (Appendix E and F) the hydrological function in retained areas will not be altered by the bisection of the wetlands. This will result in no buffer being retained in the areas that the boundary crosses the wetlands. The absence of a buffer can potentially increase weed and rubbish vectors to the wetlands.

The development may also have indirect impacts on retained wetlands through hydrological changes (water quantity and water quality) caused by stormwater infiltration, and groundwater abstraction.

5.5 Geomorphology

Development of the SEA Area in accordance with the RIZ Proposed Structure Plan will require earth- working to create flat blocks suitable for industrial development and to install above- and below-ground services. Earth-working will result in the loss of the low ridges and swales and therefore the remaining surface expression of the northern portion of the Rockingham-Becher Plain.

Coffey Environments 39 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

6 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

6.1 Proposed Conservation Area

The proponent is committed to protecting a portion of the SEA Area as a conservation reserve for the purposes of protecting the most significant environmental features of the SEA Area. The Conservation Area covers a total area of 78ha and is located in the southern half of the SEA Area between Patterson Road and Day Road (Figure 18). The Conservation Area was determined using the following rationale: • Retention of regionally significant vegetation;

• Retention of vegetation associations that are representative of vegetation within the developable area;

• Retention of vegetation that is in Very Good to Excellent condition;

• Retention of the conservation significant wetlands that are considered to be most viable in the long- term;

• Preservation of ecological linkages to surrounding conservation areas;

• Protection of any other values considered to be of regional significance, e.g. geomorphology; and

• Provision of an area that is large enough to be viable in the long term.

The Conservation Area will be managed primarily for conservation, however it is envisaged that this area will provide future employees in the RIZ and residents in surrounding areas opportunity for passive recreation activities (e.g. bush walking, nature observation etc).

6.2 Environmental Management of Conservation Area

6.2.1 Management Strategies

The Conservation Area will require on-going management prior to the commencement of construction, during construction and post-construction (in perpetuity). Given the regional importance of the wetlands and vegetation in the Conservation Area, the Conservation Area should be managed by an appropriate managing authority which has expertise in managing bushland areas.

By implementing appropriate strategies, LandCorp will be able to manage the immediate and future threats to the Conservation Area to ensure that its environmental values are improved are improved. LandCorp commits to the preparation of a comprehensive Conservation Management Plan that outlines how the Conservation Area will be managed to ensure the protection of its environmental features. In particular the Conservation Management Plan will include: • Summary of management commitments/recommendations;

• Introduction;

• Description of the proposal including planning justification and detailed plans;

• Description of existing natural, social and economic conditions;

• Issues;

• Management aim and objectives;

Coffey Environments 40 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Management responsibilities;

• Management actions;

• Diagrammatic management plan;

• Funding and resources;

• Monitoring and response; and

• Other elements of environmental management plan.

This proposed framework has been devised from Guidance Statement 33 (EPA 2008) and the Draft Bushland SPP Implementation Guideline Series Guideline 4: How to prepare an Environmental Management Plan. This will be developed by the proponent and approved by the DEC prior to construction.

Notwithstanding the preparation of the Conservation Management Plan, the following management strategies will be implemented by LandCorp to protect and enhance the values of the Conservation Area: • Install perimeter fencing prior to the commencement of construction to restrict vehicular access, reduce the occurrence of rubbish dumping and prevent the unauthorised clearing of native vegetation;

• Remove existing dumped rubbish;

• Implement weed control to reduce weed burden and encourage natural regeneration;

• Rehabilitate degraded areas using native species;

• Enhance fauna habitat values by providing salvaged tree hollows and artificial breeding infrastructure for conservation significant fauna;

• Implement a feral animal control program;

• Provide an integrated landscaped interface (i.e. buffer) where wetlands in the Conservation Area intersects the developable area;

• Implement Water Sensitive Urban Design Principles to maintain pre-development groundwater levels; and

• Use artificial polishing drainage basins for the re-infiltration of stormwater into the Conservation Area to maintain groundwater quality to pre-development levels.

Any conditions imposed on the proponent for the SEA will also be placed on a referred proposal that is considered a derived proposal. In this way any future development adjacent to the Conservation Area could be made responsible to implement relevant parts of the Conservation Management Plan.

6.2.2 Monitoring and Contingency Plans

Monitoring programs pre, during and post construction will be devised to:

• Ensure the biodiversity of the Conservation Area is maintained by monitoring permanent vegetation transects on an annual basis;

• Ensure weed control methods are effective by monitoring permanent vegetation transects and undertaking visual assessments on an annual basis;

Coffey Environments 41 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Ensure access to the public is effectively restricted by monitoring rubbish and disturbance in the conservation area on an annual basis;

• Ensure fauna habitat and biodiversity is maintained using annual trapping programs;

• Monitor the effectiveness of feral animal control during bimonthly baiting by recording bait uptake and indications of feral animal activity;

• Ensure groundwater levels are maintained to pre-development winter levels to maintain the vegetation using monthly water level measurements; and

• Ensure groundwater quality is maintained to pre-construction criteria using quarterly water quality analyses within the wetlands, upland areas and downstream of the SEA Area.

The monitoring will be used to assess the effectiveness of the strategies in maintaining or improving the environmental values of the Conservation Area. This will be undertaken until the Conservation Area is ceded to the managing authority. Any decline in the environmental values of the Conservation Area that may occur before ceding the land to the future managing authority will be investigated and an appropriate remedial strategy implemented where necessary. The root cause of the decline in the environmental values will be determined and will be rectified by the responsible party.

6.2.3 Research, Education and Public Involvement

The Conservation Area is suitable for a number of scientific research studies including research on the wetland ecology and hydrology, spiders, bandicoots and other fauna, and geomorphology. The proponent will determine how the environmental values of the Conservation Area can be used for research and educational purposes in conjunction with research institutions.

Industry involvement in the management of the Conservation Area and other retained environmental features will be encouraged.

6.3 Environmental Management in the Development Area

LandCorp commits to the preparation of a comprehensive Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan for the Development Area that outlines how the development will be managed. This will be developed and implemented by LandCorp after approval by the DEC prior to construction. In particular, as for the Conservation Management Plan, the Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan will include: • Summary of management commitments/recommendations;

• Introduction;

• Description of the proposal including planning justification and detailed plans;

• Description of existing natural, social and economic conditions;

• Issues;

• Management aim and objectives;

• Management responsibilities;

• Management actions;

• Diagrammatic management plan;

• Funding and resources;

Coffey Environments 42 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Monitoring and response; and

• Other elements of environmental management plan.

Notwithstanding the preparation of the Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan, a number of management strategies will be employed by LandCorp in the development area pre, during and post development. The management strategies for vegetation and fauna in the developed area include: • Retaining, where practical, vegetation within the developed area;

• Fauna trapping and relocation program to be implemented in consultation with the DEC to relocate any Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat and Carpet Pythons present in the development area;

• Potential breeding habitat for avifauna will be salvaged during clearing and integrated into the Conservation Area; and

• Within the development area, vegetation will be established in road verges using native species to provide linkages between areas of remnant vegetation (Figure 19).

LandCorp has also commissioned a study into the use of Water Sensitive Urban Design principles in the developed area (Appendix G). This study outlines opportunities such as:

• Treatment of stormwater using buffer strips that contain bio-retention cells that contain sand and media filters;

• Rainwater Storage for irrigation, toilet flushing and other non-health sensitive uses;

• Stormwater Runoff Control and Collection to treat stormwater to the appropriate quality in collection areas before the water is released into the stormwater drains; and

• Recycled Non-Potable Water to reuse water from developments such as the waste water treatment plant.

The use of WSUD design features will mitigate the impact of industrial development on groundwater in the SEA Area and in particular will add to the management options for the Conservation Area. As modelled the infiltration of 22% of rainfall from the hardstand areas into the conservation area will results in very little change in the groundwater levels. Groundwater abstraction for use by industry within the SEA Area will not be undertaken in the development as part of the design guidelines for the development.

LandCorp has prepared a Preliminary Scoping Report for a Water Management Strategy (WMS) for the RIZ that addresses potential impacts on the site (Appendix H). The Water Management Concept Plan that has been developed as part of the Scoping Document for a Water Management Strategy (Figure 20) shows the Water Sensitive Urban Design features that will be incorporated and retrofitted into the development.

The WMS to be developed by the proponent and approved by the Department of Water prior to construction will outline measures to: • Secure enough water for sound economy;

• Ensure adequate fit-for-purpose water supply;

• Optimise the use of WWTP water supply;

• Manage stormwater as a resource;

Coffey Environments 43 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

• Maintain stormwater and groundwater quality to pre-development levels;

• Maintain hydrology of natural ecosystems;

• Retain and improve groundwater balance;

• Manage the salt wedge / Cockburn Sound interface;

• Create urban landscapes as ecologically functioning units;

• Integrate WSUD within landscape at site, precinct and district scales; and

• Influence microclimates in workplaces.

This WMS will be commissioned and implemented by LandCorp. The future development on the site will be governed by LandCorp as they will retain possession of the land and development will be undertaken under a lease agreement.

Any conditions imposed on the proponent for the SEA will also be placed on a referred proposal that is considered a derived proposal. In this way any future development in the Development Area could be made responsible to implement relevant parts of the Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan and the Water Management Strategy.

Coffey Environments 44 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

7 PREDICTED OUTCOMES

7.1 Protection of Environmentally Significant Features

The Conservation Area will protect the following environmental values of the SEA Area:

• The Melaleuca huegelii dominated vegetation on wetland soils with a limestone substrate to the west of the wool scouring plant

• The largest wetland on the limestone substrate;

• All areas of the Tuart ( Eucalyptus gomphocephala ) / Melaleuca rhaphiophylla wetland vegetation;

• 28ha of Threatened Ecological Community 19b in Good to Very Good condition;

• The area of wetlands that is most likely to sustain FCT19b under future climate conditions;

• Contains vegetation largely in Good – Very Good condition (the highest condition rating in the SEA Area);

• 14 of the 20 vegetation associations that occur in the SEA Area;

• 7 complete and parts of 5 more of the 34 wetlands in the SEA Area. All twelve wetlands are Conservation Category wetlands;

• 42ha of the 67ha of wetlands in the SEA Area;

• Swale and Tuart tree habitat for the mygalomorph spider species Teyl “waldockae”; and

• A large portion of the beach-ridge plain within the SEA Area that provides evidence of the early formation of the Point Peron peninsula.

The proposed Conservation Area is large enough to be managed efficiently as a Conservation Reserve, being greater than 20ha as indicated by Bush Forever (Government of Western Australia, 2000b) as being the general guide for the lower size limit for a Conservation Area in the Metropolitan Region. The area is also considered of sufficient regular dimension to be managed for conservation in the long term.

The management strategies that will be applied to the Conservation Area will achieve positive outcomes for the environmental values of the area.

7.2 Vegetation and Flora

The Conservation Area will retain and protect a high proportion of the vegetation types and plant species known to occur in the RIZ, particularly the SEA Area. The control of weeds and protection of the Conservation Area from fire will also promote biodiversity.

Flora and Vegetation studies on the RIZ mapped an additional 26ha of FCT19b in the RIZ to the previously known extent of this vegetation type, with a total of 44ha in the SEA Area. There is a total known extent of approximately 185ha of FCT19 with about 104ha being FCT19b. Of this there is about 0.2ha of FCT19b in National parks and 1.5ha in ‘other reserves’ (eg for recreation). There is 102ha listed as ‘Freehold’ tenure with approximately 42 ha of this in Regional Parks. The development of the RIZ would result in the clearing of 17ha of FCT19b in the SEA Area and the protection of 28ha. This increases the area protected in Conservation Estates of FCT19b from 44ha to 72ha.

Coffey Environments 45 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

7.3 Fauna

The Conservation Area will retain a high proportion of the fauna habitat and fauna species known to occur in the RIZ and SEA Areas. The enhanced biodiversity and condition of the vegetation in the Conservation Area will also improve the value of the fauna habitat on the site. This will be further improved by the integration of harvested and constructed breeding habitat for avifauna. The Conservation Area will protect suitable habitat for the spider Teyl “waldockae” such as the Tuart woodland and Melaleuca/Banksia littoralis woodland habitat.

The habitat in the SEA Area is fragmented by the surrounding development and the presence of major roads on the edge such as Mandurah Road. The proximity of the buffer zone in the Proposed Structure Plan (Figure 3) and the Bush Forever sites shown in Figure 9 in close proximity to the Conservation Area provide linkage for avifauna and this will be maintained. The planting of native species along roads will provide linkage between remnant bushland that does not currently exist. This will have a positive effect on the fauna in the SEA Area.

7.4 Groundwater and Surface Water

Pre-development contours modelled by Umwelt show little variation to post-development. The mitigation of employing Water Sensitive Urban Design principles in the development will regulate the groundwater levels to pre-development winter levels. This will also maintain an appropriate level of stormwater infiltration during storm events to reflect natural surface/groundwater flow interaction. The use of infiltration basins and buffer strips will provide filtration for stormwater. This will ensure that the groundwater quality is maintained at pre-development criteria.

7.5 Wetlands

The Conservation Area will retain 12 (7 completely and 5 in part) of the 34 wetlands present in the SEA Area (Table 15) with a total area of 42ha. The 12 wetlands include 6 complete and 4 part swale wetlands and the two large broad flat wetlands to the west of the woolscouring plant. The linear wetlands in the Conservation Area range in length from 90m up to 1.05km. The vegetation in the 12 wetlands is in Good-Very Good condition and is representative of three of the four Wetland Vegetation Types (2, 3 and 4). Two of the three wetlands with Wetland Vegetation Type 1 are located outside the SEA Area and the third has only a small section of Degraded condition within the SEA Area and was not considered large enough or of sufficient condition to require retention. All the 12 wetlands that will be retained in the Conservation Area are classified as Conservation Category. The wetlands are groundwater dependent and as such the splitting of the 5 wetlands that will be retained in part will not affect the wetland functions.

Adequate buffers should be applied, designed to protect wetlands from potential deleterious impacts while helping safeguard and maintain ecological processes and functions within the wetland and, wherever possible, in the buffer (DPI, 2004). Buffers can also act to protect the community from potential impacts such as nuisance midge problems. Buffer distances are measured from the outside extent of wetland dependant vegetation to the outside edge of any proposed development or activity. The required buffer distance for wetlands depends on the (proposed) adjacent land use. In the Conservation Area the buffers to most of the wetlands have been included. Wetlands 22, 23, 24, 28 and 29 that will be divided by the Conservation Area boundary will have integrated landscaped interfaces with the developed area. The integrated landscaped interfaces will include the contouring and planting of native species around the edge of the bisected area to create a dense buffer. The

Coffey Environments 46 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

planted and retained buffers between wetlands and the developed area will enhance the visual amenity of the area around wetlands in the Conservation Area. These areas will also protect the wetland functions and preserve the biodiversity within the wetland.

An important point when considering management of wetland in the Conservation Area is the possible future of the wetlands under a drying climate with or without development. As discussed, the groundwater under the wetlands is approximately one metre below the levels recorded in 1975. As a result, the highest water levels were around 1m below the natural ground surface. As the wetlands are determined to be the result of groundwater levels, and not perched, continuing low levels are likely to see the wetland vegetation change from wetland to dryland. The outcomes outlined in Section 7.4 will enhance the lifespan of the retained wetlands, sustaining them into the future.

7.6 Geomorphology

The reservation of the Conservation Area will also preserve a part of the unique geomorphology on the Rockingham-Becher Plain including a complex series of shore-parallel beach ridges and intervening swales. The dune ridges represent the early stages of formation of Point Peron around 5,000 – 6,000 years ago.

7.7 Future Management

The outcomes of managing the Conservation Area will be to restrict access thereby stopping illegal dumping, trail biking and other activities that have a deleterious effect on the environment. This will prevent the area from further degradation and controlled access to the area will improve the amenity value of the area.

The Conservation Area will need long-term management in order and retain or improve its conservation values. Given the regional importance of the wetlands and vegetation in the Conservation Area it is anticipated that the area should be managed by an appropriate managing authority which has expertise in managing bushland areas.

Coffey Environments 47 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

8 WETLAND VIABILITY

The results of the groundwater monitoring undertaken by JDA (Appendix E) and additional data from the Department of Water bores located in the vicinity of the SEA area were incorporated into a groundwater model created by Umwelt Environmental Consultants (Appendix F). The Umwelt model was undertaken to study the interaction between the groundwater levels and climate variability and to predict the potential sustainability of the wetlands on the site given the decline in groundwater and likely further reductions with climate change scenarios for Perth.

Umwelt’s findings confirmed the JDA results that the wetlands in the RIZ are controlled by groundwater levels, rather than being perched. Levels recorded in a DEC bore located near Day Road in the south- east corner of the SEA Area have shown an annual seasonal fluctuation of 0.60m since 1975. The hydrograph of this bore and others in the area indicates a decreasing maximum and minimum groundwater level since 1992. The average maximum groundwater level has decreased approximately one metre since 1990.

The TEC FCT19b is associated with the groundwater fed wetlands in the SEA Area. Using established root depths for species typically found in this FCT within the wetlands, Umwelt predicted that the wetland vegetation needs to be sustained by water levels within1.8-1.9m below surface during the dry months of the year. Figure 21 shows the sections of the SEA Area in which the water table was within 2.5m of the ground surface in May 2004. These areas were determined by modelling the topography of the site with existing data for depth to groundwater.

Figure 21 shows the wetlands in the south-east portion of the SEA Area had a shallower distance to the watertable than those in the north of the site. Given the fact that the drying climate in Western Australia will cause a further decrease in the groundwater levels these wetlands have a much higher potential to maintain the TEC vegetation in the future. In the northern part of the SEA Area the groundwater has already decreased since 1955 and between 2003 and 2007 the average below ground surface water table contour was greater than 1.9m (Figure 21). This will adversely affect the flora species that make up FCT19b and continuing climate trends will result in the vegetation in these areas changing so they no longer will be able to be described as FCT19b.

The designated conservation area has been delineated from this modelling as being the area in which current groundwater trends will sustain FCT19b longer into the future. These wetlands have the shallowest distance to the groundwater, thus the vegetation has the highest potential to survive in its current form as FCT19b. Retaining this area and maintaining the groundwater in the area will ensure that the areas of FCT19b in the Conservation Area will be preserved into the future.

Coffey Environments 48 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

9 RESPONSIBILITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION

The proponent commits to setting aside the 78ha Conservation Area as a reserve for conservation. The Proponent will identify management priorities, responsibilities, funding and resources, and scheduling of implementation of the following management strategies of the Conservation Area: • Fencing;

• Weed control;

• Rehabilitation;

• Fauna trapping and relocation;

• Feral animal control; and

• Monitoring programs for flora, vegetation, fauna and groundwater.

The Conservation Area will then be ceded to an appropriate Management Authority for future management.

The proponent will also identify management priorities, responsibilities, funding and resources, and scheduling of implementation for management strategies within the developed area such as: • Establishment of native vegetation in road verges;

• Harvest and construction of breeding habitat;

• Construction guidelines to minimise noise, light and human interactions that have the potential to disturb native fauna in the surrounding areas to the development;

• Implementation of WSUD; and

• Development of stormwater infrastructure.

Any condition imposed on the proponent with regard to the management of the environment in the SEA Area will also be imposed on the proposed industry development. This applies to industries that are considered by the EPA to have the potential to impact on the Conservation Area during construction and operation.

Coffey Environments 49 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

10 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ASSESSMENT

A Triple Bottom Line Assessment has been commissioned by the State Cabinet. This compared four options for Conservation Areas that have been considered as part of the review of the environmentally significant features of the SEA Area.

The four options were a Conservation Area of 22ha, 54ha, 96ha (Figure 22) and 78ha (Figure 18), which is proposed in the SEA. These areas came from studies and discussion taken prior to this SEA. In 1999 CALM indicated a portion of the RIZ next to Dixon Road that should be set aside as a ‘conservation area’. The ‘conservation area’ was 22ha and this was nominated as Bush Forever but was not added to the site list. The results of the 2002 survey were discussed with officers from the Environmental Protection Authority Service Unit, Department of Environment and Conservation Wetlands Branch and the Department of Environment and Conservation WA Threatened Species and Communities Unit. These discussions included a desire to retain a greater area for conservation given the new information. An area of approximately 54ha was tabled in the general vicinity of the original 22ha. This proposal was examined on the ground with officers from the three organisations plus wetland and geomorphological consultants Vic and Christine Semeniuk. The 54ha area was not submitted for any formal or informal comments. A larger 96ha option was also considered by LandCorp in 2005.

The Triple Bottom Line Assessment took forteen factors into consideration, under the headings of environmental, social and economic factors. The cost/benefit analysis was undertaken using the SPeAR® (Sustainable Project Assessment Routine) approach by Arup (Appendix A). The economic cost of setting aside land as a Conservation Area rather than an industrial site increases with the size of the Conservation Area. The environmental and social benefits of the 78ha Conservation area are significantly higher than that of the 22ha and 54ha options, with no significant value added by extending the area into the 96ha option. The 96ha option therefore does not have an enhanced benefit to the environmental and social factors studied in the assessment, but is a significant economic cost. The 22ha and 54 ha have some economic cost but do not have the benefits to the environment and social factors studies.

The TBL identified the following estimated costs and losses for the SEA Conservation Reserve option of 78ha summarised below. A monetary loss in:

A monetary loss in: • $132m in 20 year development returns;

• $132m in total annual economic output;

• $69m of annual wages;

• $32m of investments in construction;

• $19m in annual government taxes; and

Coffey Environments 50 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

For these costs the following benefits are realised; the preservation of: • 70% of the relevant vegetation associations identified on site;

• 57% of the Threatened Ecological Community 19b present on site;

• A net gain of 5ha of TEC19b (with 26ha of TEC19b new identified on RIZ);

• 56% of the Wetlands identified (which are all Conservation Category Wetlands);

• 100% of the wetland Tuart Trees; and

• A large area of the unique Low Ridge and Swale Landform.

From Arup, 2009 (Appendix A)

In conclusion the Triple Bottom Line Assessment concluded the 78ha Conservation Area has the optimum outcome for society and the environment, while keeping the economic costs to an acceptable level. This allows a balanced outcome for the social, economical and environmental factors that will be affected by the development of the SEA Area.

Coffey Environments 51 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

11 REFERENCES

ATA Environmental (2006a). East Rockingham Industrial Park (IP14 Area) – Flora and Vegetation Survey. Report No. 2002/06.

ATA Environmental (2006b). East Rockingham Industrial Park (IP14 Area) – Fauna Survey . Report No. 2005/55.

ATA Environmental (2007). Lots 1, 2 and 52 Mandurah Road, Lot 2259 Dixon Road and Lot 14 Lodge Drive, East Rockingham Flora and Vegetation Survey . Report No. 2006/277

City of Rockingham (2004) Statement of Planning Policy No. 7.1 - East Rockingham Industrial Park: Environmental Planning Policy Endorsed by council on 27 April 2004

Department of Environment and Conservation (2008) Priority Ecological Communities for Western Australia August 2008

Department of Environmental Protection (1996). Land Development Sites and Impacts on Air Quality: A Guideline for the Prevention of Dust and Smoke Pollution from Land Development Sites in Western Australia . Perth WA.

Department for Planning and Infrastructure (2004). A Land Use Planning Guideline for the Determination of Wetland Buffer Requirements.

Ecoscape (2004). Tools for Identifying ‘Indicative High Conservaion’ Tuart Woodlands . Report prepared for the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

ECS (2006) Strategic Importance of the East Rockingham Industrial Area Economics Consulting Services. September, 2006

English, V. and Blythe, J. (1997). Identifying and Conserving Threatened Ecological Communities in the South West Botanical Province . Final Report (Project number N702) to Environment Australia. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, Western Australia.

Environmental Protection Authority (1989) Port Kennedy Regional Recreation Centre Report and Recommendations . EPA Bulletin 398.

Environmental Protection Authority (2002). Guide to Preparing and Environmental Scoping Document .

Environmental Protection Authority (2004a). EIA Principles, Factors and Objectives: Guide to EIA Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth.

Environmental Protection Authority (2004b). Environmental Protection of Wetlands Position Statement No. 4, Environmental Protection Authority, Perth.

Environmental Protection Authority (2004c). Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia Guidance Statement No. 51

(EPA) Environmental Protection Authority (2004d) Principles of Environmental Protection . Position Statement No. 7. Perth, Western Australia. August, 2004.

Coffey Environments 52 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Environmental Protection Authority (2008). Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development. Guidance Statement No. 33.

Geological Survey of W.A. (1980). Geology of W.A. Map Sheet 1:250,000.

Government of Western Australia (2000a). Bush Forever – Keeping the Bush in the City. Volume 1: Policies, Principles and Processes. Perth WA.

Government of Western Australia (2000b). Bush Forever – Keeping the Bush in the City. Volume 2: Directory of Bush Forever Sites. Perth WA.

Government of Western Australia (2002). Bush Forever Information Sheets – Nominated Additional Bush Forever Areas. Perth WA.

Government of Western Australia (2005) State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy Perth WA January 2005

Heddle EM, OW Loneragon and JJ Havel (1980). Vegetation of the Darling System . (In: DCE 1980 Atlas of Natural Resources, Darling System, Western Australia ). Department of Conservation and Environment, Perth WA.

Hill AL, CA Semeniuk, V Semeniuk, and A. Del Marco (1996). Wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain Volume 2B . Department of Environmental Protection, Perth WA.

JDA Consulting Hydrologists (2006) East Rockingham Industrial Park (IP14 Area) – Groundwater Hydrology. Johnstone, R.E and Storr, G. (1998). Handbook of Western Australian Birds, Volume 1 Non- Passerines (Emu to Dollarbird) , Western Australian Museum, Perth. Keighery, B.J, Keighery, G., and N. Gibson (1997). Floristics of Reserves and Bushland Areas in the Perth Region (System 6). Part XIV: Floristics of the Lakes Cooloongup and Walyungup Busland (Part M103).

Keighery, B.J. and Longman, V.M. (2002) Tuart ( Eucalyptus gomphocephala ) and Tuart Communities . Wildflower Society of WA.

Semeniuk,V. & Searle, D.J. (1985). The Becher Sand, A New Stratigraphic Unit for the Holocene of the Perth Basin. J. Roy. Soc. W.A. 67, 109-115.

Semeniuk,V. & Searle, D.J. (1986). Variability of Holocene Sea Level History along the South Western Coast of Australia – Evidence for the Effect of Significant Local Tectonsim. Marine Geology , 72, 47-58.

Semeniuk, V. Searle, D.J. & Woods, P.J. (1988) The Sedimentology and Stratigraphy of a Cuspate Foreland, South Western Australia. J. Coastal Research , 4, 551-564.

Semeniuk, V., Cresswell, I.D. & Wurm, P.A.S. (1989). The Quindalup dunes: The Regional System, Physical Framework and Vegetation Habitats. J. Roy. Soc, W.A. 71, 23-47.

Trudgen M & A Weston (1998). The Conservation Significance of Seasonal Wetland Vegetation in Industrial Park 14, East Rockingham Western Australia . Prepared for the Department of Conservation and Land Management, December 1998.

Tuart Response Group (2002). Status Report Tuart Conservation and Protection .

Coffey Environments 53 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Tuart Response Group (2004). Tuart Conservation and Management Strategy (unpublished report).

V&C Semeniuk Research Group (1991). Environment and Landscape Audit of the South-West, North- West and North-East Corridors , Perth Metropolitan Area: Report to the Western Australian Department of Planning and Urban Development.

Water and Rivers Commission (1997). Perth Groundwater Atlas .

Coffey Environments 54 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009 Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

12 DISCLAIMER

This document is published in accordance with and subject to an agreement between Coffey Environments (“Coffey”) and the client for whom it has been prepared, Landcorp (“Client”) and is restricted to those issues that have been raised by the client in its engagement of Coffey and prepared using the standard of skill and care ordinarily exercised by Environmental Scientists in the preparation of such Documents. Any person or organisation that relies on or uses the document for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by Coffey and the Client without first obtaining the prior written consent of Coffey, does so entirely at their own risk and Coffey denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be suffered as a consequence of relying on this Document for any purpose other than that agreed with the Client.

Coffey Environments 55 ENVIPERT00101AA_Strategic Environmental Asssessment_002-pvdm-V10 27 November 2009

Tables

Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF THE METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Mean daily temperature Mean relative a a a Mean Rainfall Mean daily (°C) humidity (%) Period evaporation Amount No. of rain b Minimum Maximum 9am 3pm (mm) (mm) days Jan 18.7 28.9 52 55 11.3 2.1 8.5 Feb 19.1 29.3 53 54 15.5 2.4 8.0 Mar 17.9 27.7 56 54 16.6 3.8 6.2 Apr 15.4 24.1 63 59 44.3 8.1 4.0 May 13.2 21.2 69 61 104.1 13.2 2.3 Jun 11.6 18.8 74 65 158.9 17.2 1.8 Jul 10.6 17.7 74 66 155.0 18.8 1.8 Aug 10.6 17.9 72 65 106.6 16.3 2.3 Sep 11.3 19.2 67 62 67.4 13.4 3.2 Oct 12.6 21.3 61 60 41.5 9.2 4.7 Nov 14.9 24.0 56 57 23.0 6.0 6.5 Dec 16.9 26.8 53 56 8.1 3.0 7.9 Annual 14.4 23.1 63 59 760.1 113.5 4.7 Source: a: Bureau of Meteorology Station 009064 Kwinana BP Refinery (1955-2007). b: Bureau of Meteorology Station 009194 Medina Research Centre (1983-2004).

TABLE 3: AREAS IN HA OF VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS IN THE SEA AREA Condition (ha) Good to Total (ha) Total (ha) in Very Good to Completely FCT Very Good Degraded in SEA Conservation Good Degraded Degraded Vegetation Association Good Area Area Dryland Flats Eucalyptus gomphocephala 30c2 14 0.08 26 2.9 0.30 43 12 (Tuart) Woodland Eucalyptus gomphocephala 30c2 7.6 31 7.2 0.61 1.2 0.08 48 7.0 /Acacia rostellifera Woodland Αcacia rostellifera Tall Shrubland 29b 0.53 9.1 6.0 15 2.2 0.54 33 0.46 Eucalyptus gomphocephala /Melaleuca huegelii Open 30c2 28 4.1 3.1 0.30 35 5.7 Woodland Melaleuca huegelii/Acacia 29b 6.0 0.55 0.69 7.2 rostellifera Tall Open Shrubland Melaleuca huegelii/Hakea 29b 7.2 7.2 6.9 prostrata Tall Shrubland Xanthorrhoea preissii/Avena fatua 29b 0.02 0.57 0.01 12 19 32 Shrubland Dryland Ridges Acacia rostellifera/Hakea 29b 0.05 1.4 0.31 2.9 4.7 prostrata Shrubland Xanthorrhoea preissii/Acacia saligna/Hakea prostrata 29b 3.1 8.0 0.57 13 0.71 26 0.96 Shrubland Hakea prostrata Shrubland 29b 1.1 0.23 1.2 1.1 3.7 1.3 Wetland Swales Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland 30c2 1.40 0.01 1.4 1.2 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla /Melaleuca 17 2.4 7.2 0.04 0.90 1.0 12 7.8 huegelii /Gahnia trifida Low Woodland

Condition (ha) Good to Total (ha) Total (ha) in Very Good to Completely FCT Very Good Degraded in SEA Conservation Good Degraded Degraded Vegetation Association Good Area Area Melaleuca rhaphiophylla /Acacia rostellifera /Gahnia trifida Low 17 2.2 0.30 2.5 2.2 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla /Banksia 19b 6.9 0.72 0.05 7.7 5.4 littoralis Low Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla /Banksia littoralis / Melaleuca huegelii Low 19b 11 1.1 0.15 0.43 0.10 13 2.5 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla /Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca huegelii 19b 11 0.04 0.02 0.19 11 9.4 Low Woodland Banksia littoralis/Acacia 19b 0.31 0.04 0.35 rostellifera Low Woodland Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca 19b 0.20 8.1 0.01 0.02 8.4 8.4 rhaphiophylla Woodland Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland. 19b 0.49 3.1 0.25 3.8 Wetland Flats Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Gahnia 17 8.4 0.37 8.8 8.6 trifida Low Open Woodland Cleared 31 0.20 Total 11 160 24 66 44 7.0 339 78 Please note due to rounding there are some margins of error associated with total values

TABLE 4: REPRESENTATION OF THE QUINDALUP VEGETATION COMPLEX IN NEARBY BUSH FOREVER SITES (<10km AWAY) Bush Forever Reserve Size (ha) and Other Site Vegetation Complexes 341 Woodman Point 91.7 (also includes Spearwood) 377 Port Kennedy 674.9 (Quindalup only) Point Peron and Adjacent Bushland, 355 107.1 (Quindalup only) Peron/Shoalwater Bay 959.8 (also includes open water, some Serpentine river, Bassendean 349 Leda and Adjacent Bushland, Leda C &S, Karrakatta C & S, Cottesloe C & S) Lake Cooloongup, Lake Walyungup and 1617.5 (includes open water, 356 Adjacent Bushland Hillman to Port Kennedy Karrakatta C & S, Cottesloe C & S) 358 Lake Richmond, Rockingham 28.7 (also includes open water)

TABLE 5: FLORISTIC COMMUNITIES TYPES RECORDED IN RIZ SEA AREA WITHIN NEARBY BUSH FOREVER SITES (<10km AWAY) Bush Forever Site Flo ristic Community Type 17 19 29b 30c2 349 Leda and Adjacent Bushland, Leda Lake Cooloongup, Lake Walyungup and 356 Adjacent Bushland Hillman to Port Kennedy 377 Port Kennedy 341 Woodman Point Brownman Swamp, Mt Brown Lake and 346 Adjacent Bushland, Henderson/Naval Base Point Peron and Adjacent Bushland, 355 Peron/Shoalwater Bay 358 Lake Richmond, Rockingham

TABLE 6: FLORISTIC COMMUNITIES TYPES RECORDED IN RIZ SEA AREA WITHIN BUSH FOREVER SITES >10km AWAY Bu sh Forever Site Floristic Community Type 17 19 29b 30c2 284 South West Link from Wilbinga to Yanchep National Park 288 Yanchep National Park and Adjacent Bushland 312 Bold Park and Adjacent Bushland, City Beach Manning Lake and Adjacent Bushland, 247 Hamilton Hill/Spearwood 429,435 Market Garden Swamps, Spearwood/Munster 261 Lake Coogee and Adjacent Bushland, Munster Baldivis Swamp and Adjacent Bushland, 495 Baldivis 275 Stakehill Swamp, Baldivis 75 Churcher Swamp, Baldivis 379 Anstey Swamp, Baldivis Paganoni Swamp and Adjacent Bushland, 395 Karnup

Bu sh Forever Site Floristic Community Type 17 19 29b 30c2 406 Wilbinga-Caraban Bushland 397 Coastal Strip from Wilbinga to Mindarie 322 Burns Beach Bushland Links from Burns Beach Bushland to Neerabup 323 National Park 325 Coastal Strip from Burns Beach to Hillarys Trigg Bushland and Adjacent Coastal Reserve, 308 Trigg/Scarborough Floreat Beach Bushland, City 310 Beach/Scarborough Swanbourne Bushland, Swanbourne/City 315 Beach 63 Garden Island

TABLE 7: TREE HOLLOW LOCATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS Approx Approx Approx Within Tree Diameter Height Latitude Longitude Height Orientation Observations SEA of from No of Tree Hollow Ground Area Hollow in dead 1 385168 6430916 20m 20cm 14m West No branch Bees present in 2 385126 6431018 18m 25cm 4m South No hollow in trunk Hollow upward 3 385150 6430980 18m 20cm 8m West facing in main No branch 4 385155 6430965 20m 25cm 6m West Hollow in trunk No Hollow low in North- 5 385193 6430901 16m 30cm 2m trunk, Bees No West present Dead tree - 6 385171 6430903 16m 15cm 6m West No Hollow in trunk 7 385021 6430305 14m 15cm 12m West Small Hollow Yes North- Hollow in dead 8 384996 6430281 18m 25cm 10m Yes West branch Hollow in main 9 385175 6430366 18m 20cm 12m East Yes branch Small birds 10 384626 6430320 18m 15cm 12m East present in small Yes hollow Hollow in fork 11 684698 6430177 14m 20cm 8m West Yes of main branch Hollow in dead 12 384549 6430195 14m 20cm 12m West Yes branch Hollow in 13 384549 6430162 16m 25cm 6m East branch, bees Yes present Hollow in 14 381513 6430123 14m 15cm 8m West Yes Branch

Approx Approx Approx Within Tree Diameter Height Latitude Longitude Height Orientation Observations SEA of from No of Tree Hollow Ground Area Birds observed in Hollow - 15 384540 6430046 18m 20cm 10m West Yes Suspected white corellas Dead tree - 10- 16 384873 6430027 18m Various West multiple Yes 25cm hollows North- Hollow in dead 17 384531 6430014 12m 20cm 8m No West branch 18 384922 6430080 16m 15cm 12m East Small Hollow No Large Hollow - 19 684559 6430022 10m 40cm 8m West No bees present 20 384596 6430043 16m 15cm 10m North Small Hollow Yes 21 384453 6430204 18m 20cm 6m East Hollow in trunk Yes 22 384466 6430281 16m 15cm 8m East Small Hollow Yes 23 384508 6430146 14m 15cm 8m South Small Hollow Yes Shallow hollow 24 384513 6430194 20m 25cm 12m East Yes present Hollow in main 25 384409 6430219 18m 20cm 6m East Yes branch North- 26 384377 6430182 20m 15cm 12m Small Hollow Yes West Hollow low in 27 384389 6430061 18m 25cm 4m East trunk, Bees No present Shallow hollow 28 384351 6430057 16m 25cm 12m East No present 10- Multiple 29 384258 6430014 14m Various North No 35cm hollows present Large hollow in 30 383600 6430098 20m 40cm 6m East trunk - bees Yes present Hollow in trunk 31 383803 6430204 16m 30cm 6m West No - bees present South- Large Hollow - 32 383927 6430281 18m 60cm 12m Yes West bees present 33 383898 6430330 14m 15cm 6m North Small Hollow No Hollow in main 34 383822 6430189 18m 35cm 10m North branch - bees Yes present Hollow in main 35 383930 6430198 14m 30cm 8m North Yes branch Hollow in main 36 383996 6430159 18m 25cm 8m North branch - bees Yes present North- Hollow in 37 383795 6428652 16m 20cm 12m Yes West branch Large hollow in 38 383650 6428860 18m 35cm 4m East trunk - bees Yes present

Approx Approx Approx Within Tree Diameter Height Latitude Longitude Height Orientation Observations SEA of from No of Tree Hollow Ground Area Hollow in main 39 383668 6428909 18m 25cm 12m West Yes branch North- 40 383686 6428687 20m 15cm 14m Small Hollow Yes West Hollow in main 41 383690 6428863 18m 20cm 8m West Yes branch Hollow in main 42 384029 6428736 16m 25cm 8m North Yes branch Hollow in large 43 383761 6428729 14m 20cm 6m East Yes branch Hollow in dead 44 384119 6428758 16m 20cm 12m West Yes branch Hollow in fork North- 45 384589 6429649 18m 30cm 6m of trunk - bees No West present South- 46 384235 6429556 16m 15cm 8m Small Hollow Yes East Hollow in main 47 385407 6429436 18m 20cm 10m East Yes branch Hollow in dead 48 385274 6428868 14m 25cm 8m West Yes branch Covered hollow 49 383229 6430090 18m 20cm 8m West Yes in main branch North- 50 383028 6430042 20m 15cm 12m Small Hollow Yes West Hollow in dead 51 383097 6429933 12m 30cm 4m West tree - bees Yes present 52 383394 6430133 18m 15cm 10m West Small Hollow Yes

TABLE 8: NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS CAUGHT IN THE TRAPPING AREAS Acacia and Tuart Melaleuca Degraded Xanthorrhoea dominated and Banksia shrublands shrublands (I) Woodlands woodlands (IV) (II) (III) Agamidae (Dragons) Pogona minor minor 5 2 1 1 Rankinia adelaidensis chapmani 1 5 2 Elapidae (Elapid snakes) Demansia psammophis 1 reticulate Pseudonaja affinis affinis 1 Gekkonidae (Geckoes) Gehyra variegata 1 Strophurus spinigerus 15 3 8 6 Pygopodidae (Legless lizards) Aclys concinna concinna 1 Delma grayii 1 Lialis burtonis 3

Acacia and Tuart Melaleuca Degraded Xanthorrhoea dominated and Banksia shrublands shrublands (I) Woodlands woodlands (IV) (II) (III) Scincidae (Skinks) Acritoscincus trilineatum 1 1 Cryptoblepharus plagiocephalus 2 3 5 Ctenotus australis 3 8 9 3 Ctenotus fallens 14 16 10 14 Egernia napoleonis 2 1 Hemiergis initialis initialis 2 8 9 3 Hemiergis quadrilineata 3 1 Menetia greyii 1 1 Morethia obscura 2 13 3 6 Tiliqua rugosa 6 3 4 Typhlopidae (Blind snakes) Ramphotyphlops australis 1 Varanidae (Goannas) Varanus gouldii 1 Varanus tristis 1 Muridae (Mice, Rats) House Mouse Mus musculus 69 52 35 88 Black Rat Rattus rattus 2 Peramelidae (Bandicoots) Southern Brown Bandicoot 1 1 Isoodon obesulus fusciventer Reptiles # of individuals 44 71 56 46 # of species 8 14 13 15 Mammals # of individuals 72 53 35 88 # of species 3 2 1 1

TABLE 9: NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS CAUGHT IN VARIOUS TRAP-TYPES Pipe pit - Buc ket Funnel Elliott Cage

traps pit-traps traps traps traps Agamidae (Dragons) Pogona minor minor 1 7 Rankinia adelaidensis chapmani 5 3 Elapidae (Elapid snakes) Demansia psammophis reticulata 1 Pseudonaja affinis affinis 1 Gekkonidae (Geckoes) Gehyra variegata Strophurus spinigerus 6 25 Pygopodidae (Legless lizards) Aclys concinna concinna 1 Delma grayii 1 Lialis burtonis 1 2 Scincidae (Skinks) Acritoscincus trilineatum 1 1 Cryptoblepharus plagiocephalus 4 3 3

Pipe pit - Buc ket Funnel Elliott Cage

traps pit-traps traps traps traps Ctenotus australis 5 19 Ctenotus fallens 9 1 41 Egernia napoleonis 1 3 Hemiergis initialis initialis 16 3 3 Hemiergis quadrilineata 3 1 Menetia greyii 1 1 Morethia obscura 11 1 12 Tiliqua rugosa 3 4 2 Typhlopidae (Blind snakes) Ramphotyphlops australis 1 Varanidae (Goannas) Varanus gouldii 1 Varanus tristis 1 Muridae (Mice, Rats) House Mouse Mus musculus 131 92 1 11 Black Rat Rattus rattus 2 Peramelidae (Bandicoots) Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon 2 obesulus fusciventer Number of species 13 9 20 2 2 Number of individuals 196 106 129 13 4

TABLE 10: MORISITA-HORN SIMILARITY INDEX SCORES FOR THE REPTILE ASSEMBLAGES AMONG THE FOUR SITES Tuart Melaleuca Degraded dominated and Banksia shrublands Woodlands woodlands (IV) (II) (III) Acacia and Xanthorrhoea shrublands (I) 0.62 0.73 0.81 Tuart dominated Woodlands (II) 0.80 0.90 Melaleuca and Banksia woodlands (III) 0.79

TABLE 11: SPECIES LISTED AS BEING SIGNIFICANT VERTEBRATE FAUNA BY THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE GOVERNMENTS AND PREDICTED TO OCCUR IN THE ROCKINGHAM AREA Species Status under Status under Potential to be found in the Wildlife Commonwealth project areas Conservation Environment Act Schedule Protection and (S) / Priority (P) Biodiversity Act Calyptorhynchus latirostris Likely to occur within the (Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo, Schedule 1 Endangered region and project area Short-billed Black-Cockatoo) Calyptorhynchus baudinii Unlikely to occur within the Schedule 1 Vulnerable (Baudin’s Black Cockatoo) region and project area

Species Status under Status under Potential to be found in the Wildlife Commonwealth project areas Conservation Environment Act Schedule Protection and (S) / Priority (P) Biodiversity Act Highly unlikely to occur Myrmecobius fasciatus, (Numbat) Schedule 1 within the region Falco peregrinus (Peregrine May occasionally occur Schedule 4 Falcon) within the project area Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa, In the in the region but (Southern Brush-tailed Priority 3 unlikely to be in project area Phascogale) Macropus irma (Western Brush Unlikely to occur within the Priority 4 Wallaby) project area Falsistrellus mackenziei, May occur within the project Priority 4 (Western False Pipistrelle) area Occurs in the region and Ixobrychus minutus, (Little Bittern) Priority 4 unlikely occur within the project area Burhinus grallarius, (Bush Unlikely to occur within the Priority 4 Stonecurlew) project area Macropus eugenii derianus, Unlikely to occur within the Priority 5 (Tammar Wallaby) project area Isoodon obesulus fusciventer Occurs within the project Priority 5 (Southern Brown Bandicoot) area Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee- Likely to occur within the Migratory eater) project area Haliaeetus leucogaster (White- Likely to occur in the region bellied Sea Eagle) but unlikely within the project Schedule 4 Migratory Morelia s. imbricata (Western area Carpet Python) May occur in the project area Note: search area was bounded by latitude 32 ° 08’ to 32 o 22’S, and longitude 115o 38’ to 115o 52’E

TABLE 12: WETLANDS IN THE RIZ AND SEA AREA Wetland Swale Wetland RIZ/SEA Area UFI Number Dominant Vegetation Condition No. Length (m) size (ha) Outside SEA 1 Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland Deg 150 0.71 Area RIZ/SEA 2 Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland Deg 255 0.66 (most) Outside SEA 3 Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland Deg 75 0.30 Area 4 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Deg-Good 330 0.53 5 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 75 0.13 6 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Gahnia trifida Woodland Good-V.Good 120 0.14 7 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 90 0.12 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Gahnia trifida 8 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 330 2.1 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Banksia littoralis 9 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 75 0.11 Woodland 10 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good 135 0.31 11 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good 60 0.06 Outside SEA 12 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 90 0.18 Area Outside SEA 13 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 135 0.33 Area RIZ/SEA Banksia littoralis/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low 14 Good-V.Good 900 3.0 (Most) Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis. M. huegelii 15 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 525 1.8 Shrubland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii 16 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 300 0.97 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii 17 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 225 0.64 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii 18 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 180 0.93 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii 19 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 240 0.48 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii 20 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 150 0.44 Woodland 21 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Gahnia trifida Woodland Good 150 0.30

Wetland Swale Wetland RIZ/SEA Area UFI Number Dominant Vegetation Condition No. Length (m) size (ha) Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii 22 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 825 5.1 Woodland RIZ/SEA 23 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 360 1.4 (Part) 24 RIZ/SEA 6219 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 1050 4.4 25 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 90 0.34 26 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 105 0.21 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Acacia rostellifera/Gahnia 27 RIZ/SEA 6220 Good-V.Good 750 2.2 trifida Shrubland Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla 28 RIZ/SEA Good-V.Good 180 0.64 Open Woodland RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/A. 29 Good-V.Good Broad 11 (Most) rostellifera/M. huegelii Woodland Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla 30 RIZ/SEA 6222 Good-V.Good 480 2.5 Open Woodland Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla 31 RIZ/SEA 6223 Good-V.Good 510 3.7 Open Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Eucalyptus gomphocephala 32 RIZ/SEA 6224 Good-V.Good 300 2.1 Open Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Gahnia trifida 33 RIZ/SEA 6383, 6221 Good-V.Good Broad 17 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Gahnia trifida 34 RIZ/SEA 6227 Good-V.Good 270 0.87 Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Gahnia trifida 35 RIZ/SEA 6316 Very Good 600 2.6 Woodland 36 RIZ/SEA Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland Good-V.Good 390 0.86 Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla 37 RIZ/SEA Very Good 150 0.12 Open Woodland Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla 38 RIZ/SEA Very Good 90 0.09 Open Woodland Total in 67 SEA Area *see text for description of vegetation types

TABLE 13: WETLAND MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES AND OBJECTIVES Management General Description Management Objectives Category C Wetlands which support a high level of Highest priority wetlands. Conservation Wetlands attributes and functions. Objective is preservation of wetland attributes and functions through various mechanisms including: reservation in national parks, crown reserves, state owned land; protection under Environmental Protection Policies; Wetland covenanting by landowners. These are the most valuable wetlands and the Commission will oppose any activity that may lead to further loss or degradation. No development. R Wetlands which have been partly Priority wetlands. Ultimate Resource Enhancement modified but still support substantial objective is for management, Wetlands ecological attributes and functions. restoration and protection towards improving their conservation value. These wetlands have the potential to be restored to conservation category. This can be achieved by restoring wetland structure, function and biodiversity. Protection is recommended through a number of mechanisms. M Wetlands with few attributes which still Use, development and Sustainable Use-Multiple provide important wetland functions. management should be Use Wetlands considered in the context of ecologically sustainable development and best management practice catchment planning through landcare. Should be considered in strategic planning (eg. drainage, town/land use planning).

From: Water and Rivers Commission Position Statement: Wetlands

TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT RESULTS Wetland Natural Human use Supple mentary Management RIZ/SEA Area No. Attributes attributes Questions Category Outside SEA Resource 1 13 3 Area Enhancement Resource 2 RIZ/SEA (most) 13 3 Enhancement Outside SEA Resource 3 14 3 Area Enhancement 4 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Conservation 5 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Conservation 6 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Conservation 7 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Conservation Resource 8 RIZ/SEA 15.5 6 Enhancement 9 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Conservation 10 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Conservation 11 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Conservation Outside SEA 12 16.5 7 4 Conservation Area Outside SEA 13 16.5 7 4 Conservation Area 14 RIZ/SEA (Most) 18.5 7 4 Conservation 15 RIZ/SEA 18.5 7 4 Conservation 16 RIZ/SEA 18.5 7 4 Conservation 17 RIZ/SEA 18.5 7 4 Conservation 18 RIZ/SEA 18.5 7 4 Conservation 19 RIZ/SEA 18.5 7 4 Conservation 20 RIZ/SEA 18.5 7 4 Conservation Resource 21 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Enhancement 22 RIZ/SEA 18.5 8 4 Conservation 23 RIZ/SEA (Part) 16.5 7 4 Conservation 24 RIZ/SEA 18.5 8 4 Conservation 25 RIZ/SEA 18.5 7 4 Conservation 26 RIZ/SEA 18.5 7 4 Conservation 27 RIZ/SEA 18.5 8 4 Conservation 28 RIZ/SEA 20.5 7 4 Conservation 29 RIZ/SEA (Most) 18 7 4 Conservation 30 RIZ/SEA 20.5 7 Conservation 31 RIZ/SEA 20.5 7 Conservation 32 RIZ/SEA 20.5 7 Conservation 33 RIZ/SEA 21.5 7 Conservation Resource 34 RIZ/SEA 15 4 Enhancement Resource 35 RIZ/SEA 15 4 Enhancement 36 RIZ/SEA 16.5 7 4 Conservation 37 RIZ/SEA 20.5 7 Conservation 38 RIZ/SEA 20.5 7 Conservation

TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF WETLAND OUTCOMES Retained in Wetland Vegetation Management Conservation Dominant Vegetation Condition No. type* Category Area (Y/N) 1 Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland 1 Deg RE N 2 Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland 1 Deg RE N 3 Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland 1 Deg RE N 4 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Deg-Good CC N 5 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 6 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Gahnia trifida Woodland 3 Good-V.Good CC N 7 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 8 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Gahnia trifida Woodland 3 Good-V.Good RE N 9 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Banksia littoralis Woodland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 10 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good CC N 11 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good CC N 12 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 13 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 14 Banksia littoralis/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Woodland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 15 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis. M. huegelii Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 16 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii Woodland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 17 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii Woodland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 18 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii Woodland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 19 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii Woodland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 20 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii Woodland 2 Good-V.Good CC N 21 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Gahnia trifida Woodland 3 Good RE N 22 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/M. huegelii Woodland 2 Good-V.Good CC Part 23 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 3 Good-V.Good CC Part 24 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC Part 25 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC Y 26 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC Y 27 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Acacia rostellifera/Gahnia trifida Shrubland 3 Good-V.Good CC Y Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Open 28 4 Good-V.Good CC Part Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/ Banksia littoralis/Acacia rostellifera/M. 29 2 Good-V.Good CC Part huegelii Woodland

Retained in Wetland Vegetation Management Conservation Dominant Vegetation Condition No. type* Category Area (Y/N) Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Open 30 4 Good-V.Good CC Y Woodland Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Open 31 4 Good-V.Good CC Y Woodland Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open 32 4 Good-V.Good CC Y Woodland 33 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Gahnia trifida Woodland 3 Good-V.Good CC Y 34 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Gahnia trifida Woodland 3 Good-V.Good RE N 35 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/M. huegelii/Gahnia trifida Woodland 3 Very Good RE N 36 Melaleuca rhaphiophylla/Banksia littoralis Shrubland 2 Good-V.Good CC N Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Open 37 4 Very Good CC N Woodland Eucalyptus gomphocephala/Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Open 38 4 Very Good CC N Woodland

Figures

Strategic Environmental Assessment, Rockingham Industry Zone

Abernethy in t way PERTH Road HWY

Rail Rd Haw Orrong TONKIN Road ROE STIRLING Rd kilometres HIGHWAY Kewdale Road

RIVER HIGHWAY 0246810Welshpool Hale SCALE 1 : 200 000 @ A4 Manning Rd AL Roa Tue 16 Jun 09 SWAN G BANY NIN d AN LEGEND C Road ckley HIGHWAYBi

CANNING High Rd RockinghamKelvin Industry PRINTED: PRINTED: HIGHWAY Railway LEACH Road HWY. Zone (RIZ) Boundary North RIVER

FREMANTLE Ave StrategicS Environmental South Street ROE O AssessmentU (SEA) Area RIVER THER Lake Railway Boundary Mills St arel

ock K FREEWAY Rd Hw Roe y East re INDIAN Futu Rd.

Rockingham Road Roa

Ranford HIGHWAY d

Cock holson OCEAN Southern R. HIGHWAY

Road Rd Nic Drain Jandakot Canning burn Road Rd Mills Dr rton TONKIN Beeliar Armadale Road Wa Lake

Road HECKED: JH 16-06-08

Road Ro ARMADALE Russell KWINANA

ad Rd Rd Forrest W COCKBURN un gong

SOUND Road Liddelow Wattleup Rd Road Rowley Drain River Road Road Anketell Hopkinson Kargotich Byford

Future Beenyup Thomas

King Brook

SOUTH Orton Road

Rd Ave Cardup

Wellard Road oo Mortimer Rd Br k

e WEST Mangles Rd Bay Road mor

Patterson Gil

Drain Tonkin ERN

Railway Leipold Rd Road Dixon Railway Rd ROCKINGHAM Shoalwater Mundijong Road Rd Ennis Mundijong Bay Rae Light Read St Safety Hwy

body

Safety HIGH Bay oad Road Rd

Bay R R Lowlands WAY o ad Road

WARNBRO Warnbro

Rapids SOUND SERPENTINE Rowe Road Gull Avenue Rd Serpentine Road Karnup RIVER Road

Jarrah Hopeland River Road River

Mandurah Sound Baldivis Road Railway Stake Road Utley hill Rd Road

Punrak Henderson Road R ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F01.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 16-06-08 C Kings bury D ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REGIONAL LOCATION FIGURE 1 ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F02.dgn DATUM: Not Spatially Correct DRAWN: GLM/CR 15-06-09 CHECKED: JH 15-06-09 PRINTED: Mon 15 Jun 09

SOURCE: Taylor&Burrell, IP-14Structure Plan(updated1998)

133.82 87.51 16.74 56.69

88.78

121.75 86.88

1400 SEWER

143.96 94.87 524.21 284.95 4.0472 Ha 2.3505 Ha

119.8

95.69 C.T. 1736/937 133.32 J 67.98 25.7642 Ha 123.15

27.22 283.3 3500mý

53.5

88.34

57.91 82.2

62.62

63.6 62.25 55.54

56.24 28.54 63.2

48.62

56.29

206.44 59.42

210.58 J 56.3

62.63 J 56.31 451.22 559.83

62.49 575.91 113.97 C.T. 1417/789

109.9

4.1790 Ha J

27.0299 Ha 610 WATER

168.46

25.9968 Ha 113.88

54.09 110.98 97.3

226.33

58.44

61.56

20.24

725.36 63.94

103.92 112.33

57.92 57.99 29.96 62.08 57.99

63.58

74.97

57.99 1.7569 Ha 71.23 57.92 J 190.62

139.54 62.08 58.49 226.57

112.13

24.38 66.51 75.45

35.73

58.04 J 7699mý

108.11 51.78

58.49 J

35.73 44.77

760 WATER 760 J 73.14

347.34 89.71 62.16 57.99

25.72

140 760 WATER 58.35

57.99

62.01 360.62

57.99 363.8 57.99

28.45 62.01 62.01 C.T. 1736/939

3.5885 Ha 22.9631 Ha

57.99 5.7114 Ha 1639mý 62.01 48.28 62.01

448.57

184.75

89.01

WAWA EASEMENT 188.2 9.34 200

195.47

271.95 26.1173 Ha 421.29

400 5

125.54

C.T.1736/935 217.5 J WATER 200 8.0000 Ha 370.28 8.1334 Ha

968.16

J 300.25

190.2 178.64

610 WATER 172.02 400 98.56

200 65.96 C.T. 1915/648 87.39

80.47 6.4138Ha

5.2826 Ha 90 340.12

186.74 3.8747Ha

178.64

178.15 J 22.5920 Ha 208.87

19.742 Ha

85.91

198.31 140.12 C.T. 1805/32 70 1.2125 Ha

25.02 J 198.29 50.59

204.49 190.09 8.0768Ha

70.11 405.03 3.7350Ha

C.T. 1624/948 451.83

WAWA EASEMENT 1.4719 Ha

130.73

265.54 403.54 752.88 462.29 250.62

12.3561 Ha

206.7 245.44

J 80 GAS 80 C.T. 1858/838 C.T. 1934/676 J 1.7982 Ha 35.2891 Ha J

28.46 41.12

6.7055Ha

70.78 J J J J 8.02

150 GAS 214.8 133.66

1400 SEWER N/WEST SHELF GAS LINE GAS SHELF N/WEST

150 WATER 109.15 C.T. 1918/837 C.T 1836/516 2.6957 Ha 758.85 3.2405 Ha 153.9011 Ha

630.4 2447mý 470.37

42.29 273.4 103.66

100.19 146.63 5.76

9465mý 322.11 C.T.1909/130 220.64

275.74 171.51 156.9 8.11 Ha

81.48 60.04 108.87

70.01 150 WATER

120 47.54

403.43 32.6 275.88 93.4

C/T 1915/649 250 GAS 110.53 36.47 99.6468 Ha 226.99 C.T.1909/132 83.65 11.5848 Ha 1909/797 1.1274mý

252.59 209

90.92 150 GAS

225 SEWER 180.97 298.72 TELECOM 1.8166 Ha 1926/108

1.6203 Ha 178.58

1205/58 201.29 160.85 W.M.C EASEMENT

PLAN 17924 1.6200 Ha TELECOM C.T. 254/30A 1456/303

148.14 C.T. 254/29A 13.5343 Ha 62 11.4580 Ha 2.0427 Ha 147.22 C.T.1608/741

1937/616

609.27 503.3 10.0024 Ha 21.18

C.T. 1549/229 330.39 225 SEWER J 5.6901 Ha 11.1074 Ha GAS SPURLINE 900

221.84 150 WATER 150 150 GAS 150 J J TELECOM

2.0357 Ha CHESTERFIELD ROAD CHESTERFIELD 1972/133 C.T. 1896/433

J 404.5

6.6159 Ha

150 WATER 150 C.T.1549/229 76.43 C.T. 1817/451 C.T. 1549/228 C.T. 1810/106 200 GAS 26.8567 Ha

C.T. 1549/230 ROAD 1.1688 Ha

592.37

150 GAS 4.1261 Ha

152.93

152.89 193.92

5.31 HA 201.93 C.T. 1549/227 8.8957 Ha

129.94

264.06 269.21 393.38 8.2500 Ha

130.21 50 GAS

C.T.1755/990

263.81

76.44 34.11 19.4016 Ha 66.99 ROAD C.T. 1817/450

170.88 398.44 316.92 128.45 60.13

C.T.1469/304 760 WATER 760 12.6207 Ha

282.26 C.T. 1912/815

C.T.1462/450

12.7744 Ha 491.95 4.0484 Ha 7.85 HA

282.26 241.37

150 GAS

335.92 GAS HP 250 241 124.93

0.13 HA

108.6 243.2

C.T. 1712/893 107.08 18.1292 Ha

151.78 TELECOM VCL WANG NATURAL GAS EASEMENT C.T 398/147

331.22 4059mý 350 STEEL

335.12 C.T. 1661/896 C.T.1625/359 EASEMENT GAS NATURAL WANG C.T. 1298/808

40.23 52.95

C.T. 1661/895 431.56 200 GAS C.T. 1186/648 C.T.1570/505 3.2251 Ha 2.17 HA C.T. 1298/806 6.7971 Ha C.T. 1169/265

C.T. 1298/807 218.97 237.19 1.65 HA C.T. 53/178A C.T. 1186/682 C.T. 1661/894 C.T.1669/509 C.T. 1169/240 1.0394 Ha C.T. 1661/893 1.4404 Ha MEM 7.51 HA 8.9950 Ha 1.7947 Ha

3.9412 Ha 3.5756 Ha 201.38 4026mý

215.08 5.2792 Ha 224.99 150 GAS 4047mý

3.34 HA 97.97 BK 3.5 HA

1.84 HA 381.54 67

230.04 80 GAS

C.T. 1194/596

74.79 J J

J 12.9689 Ha J

350 STEEL 350

J J

47.27 316.93 100 GAS 2.9515 Ha J 2.4393 J 1.3606 Ha

J Ha 95.1 1.41 HA

C.T 1741/405 167.05

J MEM BK20/1512

81.86 J

99.2 J C.T. 1581/299 8.21 HA

C.T. 1054/460 J J

1.6280 Ha 37.1 J C.T. 4/274 1.93 HA C.T. 1002/136 4710mý 360.64 2.3271 Ha

J 25/1452

1.91 HA

421.91 98.16 C.T. 701/11 8554mý 18.2648 Ha 8098mý 5.7236 Ha C.T. 1524/395 C.T. 1238/105 2331mý

15.7532 Ha

J J C.T. 1661/894

J 1119mý

381.79

C.T. 1661/893 C.T. C.T. 1123/272 C.T.

13.0 HA 180.91 C.T. 1136/889

10.1502 Ha 199.27

2.93 HA

50mý 85 J

204.68 218.98 J 241.28 421.93 1.54 HA J C.T.1730/105 C.T. 1744/157 5567mý C.T. 1579/505 36.8947 Ha C.T.1730/104 C.T. 1363/64 6.0095 Ha

13.26 HA 413.32

3.35 HA

370.86 34.59 93.34

418.13 92.47 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRYZONE 0 STRUCTURE PLAN 0 0 0 0 1000 800 600 400 200 SCALE 1:20000@A3 metres 1999 RIZ FIGURE 2 ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F03.dgn DATUM: Not Spatially Correct DRAWN: GLM/CR 28-09-09 CHECKED: JH 28-09-09 PRINTED: Tue 29 Sep 09 SOURCE: Allerding&Associates, DwgNo. LCPIP14GE, 05-09-2009. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRYZONE 0 2009 PROPOSED RIZ STRUCTURE PLAN 0 0 0 0 1000 800 600 400 200 SCALE 1:20000@A3 metres FIGURE 3 ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F04.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 15-06-09 CHECKED: JH 15-06-09 PRINTED: Mon 15 Jun 09 SOURCE: Hassell,2009. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRYZONE 0 STRATEGIC DIRECTION 0 0 0 0 1000 800 600 400 200 SCALE 1:17500@A3 metres FIGURE 4 RIZ FIGURE 5 500 ASSESSMENT metres LOCATION OF RIZ 100 200 300 400 AND SEA BOUNDARY SCALE 1 : 15 000 @ A3 0 Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ) Boundary Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Area Boundary Cadastral Boundary STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE

LEGEND

AVENUE AVENUE

Road Road Road

Gentle Gentle

GILMORE GILMORE

ROAD

MANDURAH

Wellard Wellard

Cemetery Railway

ROAD ROAD

SEA

MANDURAH MANDURAH Village Holiday Rockingham Pty Ltd

Norocoat

Road Road

Road

ROAD ROAD

Day Day

Street

Road Road Wool Washing Jandakot

Chesterfield

Ocean

SEA

Office Office

Road Road

Lodge Lodge

Road Developed Area

SEA

Road Road RIZ

Beach Beach

DIXON DIXON

Crompton Crompton

Street Street

NICKEL

Street ROAD REFINERY ROAD

Port

Claymore Claymore

Charles Road

Railway Railway Fused Metals

Australian

Kwinana Ward Road Dr

nia nia

irco irco Z Z

Golf PATTERSON PATTERSON

Alumina AVENUE Doral CHEMEQ Ltd BMX Way

ENNIS

Way

Road Road

SEA

Way Way

Beale Beale Smeaton

y Court Smeaton Hurrell

a Hurrell

Way l Way i

a Pedlar

Beach

Beach R Pickard Ave Ave Pickard Pickard

CBH

Drive Drive GRAIN TERMINAL

Depot St Municipal

Crocker

Enterprise Enterprise

Merchant Merchant Developed Area

Street Street Street Street

Sound Governor Rd

Cockburn

Lewington Lewington Rockingham Rockingham

Jecks Jecks

SOURCES: Aerial Photograph - DLI, Jan 2005 ; Cadastra, SEA Area Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006

HECKED: JH 15-06-09 JH HECKED: C 15-06-09 GLM/CR DRAWN: zn50 MGA DATUM: Assessment/EP2005-058F05.dgn Environmental ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Mon 15 Jun 09 Jun 15 Mon PRINTED: 4

2 4

8 8

2 2

6 6

2 2 12 12 10 500 10 4 4

400

2 2

4 300 4

2 2

2 metres 2

4 4 200

4 4

RIZ Boundary Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Area Boundary Cadastral Boundary Topographic Contour, mAHD 4 SCALE 1 : 10 000 @ A3

4 4 100

4 0 4 6 6

2 Railway ROAD

4 4

2 2

6 LEGEND

6 6

SEA

6 6

4 4 6 6

4 4 Area

ROAD ROAD Developed

MANDURAH

MANDURAH MANDURAH

6 6

4 4

Cleared

4 4

4 4 6 6

4 4

Area 8 8 Cleared

Developed

8 8

3 3

6 6

3 3

Cleared

4 4

3 3

4 4 4 4

4 4

3 3 3 3

3 3 4 4

4 4

Area

4 4

3 3 3 3

Developed

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4

4 4 4 4

SEA

4 4

Cleared 4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

5 5 3 3

4 4 4 4

4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4

5 5

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 4 4

5 5 3 3

4 4

Cleared

4 4

4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

4 SEA

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 RIZ

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4

6 6

4 4

6 6

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 6

NICKEL 6

4 4

ROAD ROAD 4 4 4

REFINERY 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 6

4 4 4 4

Cleared

4 4 4

4 4 3 3

4 4

3 3

4 4

3 3

4 4

6 6

4 4

Railway Railway 4 4 4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4 6 6

4 4

3 3

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 Area 4

3 3

4 4

3 3

4 4

4 4 3 3

4 4

3 3

4 4

Developed 4

3 3 PATTERSON PATTERSON 4

4 Area

4 4

4 4 4

4 SOURCES: Topo - DOLA, 2001 ; Aerial Photo DLI, Jan 2005 Cadastra, SEA Area Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006

3 3

Developed

4 4

Cleared

4 4

3 3

4 4

3 3 6 6

4 4

3 3

4 6 4 4

6 6

4 4

6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4

4 6 3 3

3 3

4 4

4 4 6 6

Road Road

4 4

4 4 6

6 6

3 3 6 6 6

6 4

4 6 6

4 4

6 6

4 4 6 6

6 6

3 3

4 4

SEA

6 6

4 4

6 6

4 4 4

4 6 Beach

Beach 6

4 6 4

4 6

Area

4 4

4 4 6 Developed 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6 CBH 6 6 Sound GRAIN 6 6

6 6

Cockburn 6 Rockingham Rockingham ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FIGURE 6

6 TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS

6 TERMINAL 2

2 6

HECKED: JH 15-06-09 JH HECKED: C 15-06-09 GLM/CR DRAWN: zn50 MGA DATUM: Assessment/EP2005-058F06.dgn Environmental ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Mon 15 Jun 09 Jun 15 Mon PRINTED: Cleared VEGETATION TYPES LEGEND Cleared Cockburn Developed Eg Eucalyptus gomphocephala Woodland Sound Area Road EgAr Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over NICKEL Acacia rostellifera Shrubland Railway XpAf REFINERY EgMh Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over Mon 15 Jun 09 Mh EgAr Melaleuca huegelii Shrubland Ar EgMr Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over Mh Mh Xp Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Shrubland XpAsHp PRINTED: Ar XpAf XpAf Acacia rostellifera Tall Shrubland ArHp Acacia rostellifera / Hakea prostrata Shrubland Beach Mh Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland XpAf Cleared ROAD XpAf Mh MhAr Melaleuca huegelii / Acacia rostellifera Tall Open MhAr Shrubland Ar SEA Ar MhHp Melaleuca huegelii Open Woodland over Hakea Ar prostrata Shrubland XpAsHp EgAr MrBl MrBlArMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis / Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca huegelii Low Open Woodland XpAf XpAf ROAD MhAr MrGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Gahnia trifida Woodland Eg Eg MrMhGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Melaleuca huegelii / Gahnia Developed EgAr trifida Woodland Rockingham Ar Area XpAsHp MrBl EgMh CBH MhAr MrArGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Acacia rostellifera / Gahnia trifida Shrubland GRAIN XpAf EgArXp MrBlMh MANDURAH MrBl MrBl Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis Shrubland TERMINAL EgMhAr Eg Ar MrBlMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis / Melaleuca huegelii Shrubland EgAr MrBlMh MrArMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca RIZ huegelii Shrubland HECKED: JH 15-06-09 EgAr Xp XpAsHp XpAsHp MrBl BlAr Banksia littoralis / Acacia rostellifera Low Woodland

Ar Ar Xp Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland XpAf EgMh MrMhGt Ar Ar XpAf Xanthorrhoea preissii / Avena fatua Shrubland XpAf PATTERSON XpAsHp SEA XpAsHp Xanthorrhoea preissii / Acacia saligna / Hakea prostrata MhAr Cleared MhAr Xp MrBlMh MrBl Shrubland BlArXp Developed Mh Hp Hakea prostrata Shrubland MrBlArMh MrBl MrBl Area MrMhGt EgMh MrXpGt Hp XpAf MhHp EgMr Ar Ar XpAsHp XpAsHp MrArGt MhHp EgMh metres Ar SEA ArXp Hp XpAsHp 0 100 200 300 400 500 MrBlArMh SCALE 1 : 10 000 @ A3 MhAr Ar MrBl Developed LEGEND Area EgMr Railway RIZ Boundary EgMh Cleared SEA Area Boundary Cleared BlAr Eg Developed Area Cadastral Boundary XpAsHp MrMhGt EgMr Vegetation Boundary MrBlMh MANDURAH EgAr Vegetation Survey Extent

Hp EgMr SEA ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE Ar STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL EgMr Cleared EgAr ASSESSMENT MrGt Ar EgAr ROAD VEGETATION TYPES EgAr FIGURE 7 Developed SOURCES: Aerial Photo - DLI, Jan 2005 ; Cadastra, SEA Area - Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006 Area ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F07.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 15-06-09 C DATUM: MGA zn50 Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F07.dgn ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Cleared Cleared Cockburn Developed Sound CD Area Road NICKEL CD Railway metres REFINERY G Mon 15 Jun 09 Deg 0 100 200 300 400 500 SCALE 1 : 10 000 @ A3 Parkland Buffer G-Deg (Not Surveyed) LEGEND PRINTED: Deg-G RIZ Boundary SEA Area Boundary Beach CD Cleared ROAD Cadastral Boundary Vegetation Condition Boundary CD VEGETATION CONDITION Deg (Legend Source: BUSH FOREVER Govt. of W.A.) SEA P Pristine. Ex Excellent. ROAD G-Deg VG Very Good. Developed G-VG Deg-G Deg RockinghamCBH Area G Good.

GRAIN MANDURAH Deg Degraded. CD TERMINAL Deg-G CD Completely Degraded. G-VG Deg G-Deg NOTE: For full description see text. RIZ HECKED: JH 15-06-09 Deg G-VG Deg

G to VG Deg CD

PATTERSON SEA Deg-G Cleared CD G Deg G to VG G Developed G-VG Area Deg-G VG Deg Parkland Buffer G (Not Surveyed) Deg-G G Deg SEA G Deg G Developed Area CD G CD Railway Cleared Cleared Deg Developed Deg VG Deg G to VG Area CD G-VG MANDURAHSEA CD ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE G STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL Cleared G to VG ASSESSMENT VEGETATION CONDITION G ROAD CD G FIGURE 8 Developed SOURCES: Topo - DOLA, 2001 ; Aerial Photo - DLI, Jan 2005 ; Cadastra, SEA Area - Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006 AreaCD ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F08.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 15-06-09 C DATUM: MGA zn50 Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F08.dgn ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic IG RIV H 424 282 320 403 221 Welshpool Hale 283 329 HWY 50 Manning Rd AL SWAN BANY Roa 334 331 ING d N 333 335 AN 224 51 C 387 Road ckley HIGHWAYBi 226 336 kilometres 53 227 422 CANNING High Rd Kelvin 228 HIGHWAY Railway LEACH 337 0246810Road HWY. 490 North 339 RIVER 338 456 SCALE 1 : 246200 000 @ A4

FREMANTLE Ave S

Mon 14 Sep 09 LEGEND South Street ROE O U RIVER THER Lake Railway Rockingham Industry Zone (RIZ) 59 Mills St arel Boundary

ock K FREEWAY 245 Rd oe Hwy R Strategic Environmental124 East PRINTED: PRINTED: re Rd. INDIAN Futu Assessment (SEA) Area Boundary Rockingham Road Roa 244 467 247 Ranford125 HIGHWAY

d 344 Bush Forever Site 61 Cock holson 472 OCEAN 254 Road 389 Southern R. HIGHWAY 388 464

Jan Nic Drain Canning dakot 253 340 255 burn 413 Road 256 Rd 465 260 435 Dr rton TONKIN 473 Beeliar Armadale Road 390Wa 341 429 342 Lake 262 62 391 261 Road

Road Ro ARMADALE Russell KWINANA 263 ad Rd Rd 344 Forrest 492 W COCKBURN 392 345 un 346 gong

SOUND Road Liddelow Wattleup Rd393 Road 264 Rowley Drain 267 266

ED: JH 14-09-08 268 River 449 347 Road Road Anketell Hopkinson 63 Kargotich Byford

Future Beenyup 270 Thomas

269 348 King 65 Brook

321 SOUTH Orton Road 271

Rd 351 Ave 273 Cardup 352 Wellard 272 Road ook 67 Mortimer Rd Br 353 e 361 WEST Mangles Rd 350 354 Bay Road mor

Patterson Gil 68 Drain Tonkin ERN

Railway Leipold Rd Road Dixon Railway 349 70 355 Rd ROCKINGHAM Shoalwater 358 Mundijong Road Rd Ennis Mundijong Bay Rae Light 362 Read St 360 Safety Hwy

body 367 356

Safety HIGH Bay 418 oad 71 Road Rd Bay R 369 R 365 o 368 Lowlands WAY 495 ad Road

WARNBRO Warnbro 371

Rapids SOUND 419 SERPENTINE Rowe Road Gull Avenue Rd 372 Serpentine 365 Road Karnup 74 RIVER Road 375

Jarrah Hopeland River Road River

Mandurah Sound 376 Baldivis Road 468 275 Utley Railway Stake 75 Road hill Rd 377 Road

278 277 Punrak 378 Henderson Road Road ury Ave Kings b Drive 76 379 394 20km

77 Elliot Road 426 395 BUSH FOREVER SOURCE: DEC, 2000. ailway ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F09.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: CR 14-09-08 CHECK

R ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BUSH FOEVER SITES WITHIN A 20KM RADIUS OF THE RIZ FIGURE 9 Cleared Cleared Developed Cockburn Area Road Sound NICKEL metres Railway REFINERY

Mon 14 Sep 09 0 100 200 300 400 500 SCALE 1 : 10 000 @ A3

LEGEND PRINTED: RIZ Boundary

SEA Area Boundary Beach

Cleared ROAD Cadastral Boundary FCT19 Boundary

SEA

ROAD

Developed RockinghamCBH Area

GRAIN MANDURAH TERMINAL RIZ HECKED: JH 14-09-09

PATTERSON SEA Cleared

Developed Area

SEA

Developed Area Railway

Cleared Cleared Developed Area SEA

Cleared ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXTENT OF FCT19 IN THE RIZ FIGURE 10 SOURCES: Aerial Photo - DLI, Jan 2005 ; Cadastra, SEA Area - Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006 ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F10.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 14-09-09 C DATUM: MGA zn50 Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F10.dgn ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic A. saligna FIGURE 11 and ASSESSMENT Shrubland Woodland Acacia rostellifera FAUNA HABITATS , Banksia Xanthorrhoea and and RIZ Boundary Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Area Boundary Cadastral Boundary Trapping Site Location STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE Cleared Tuart Dominated Woodland Degraded Shrubland Acacia Melaleuca Xanthorrhoea preissii 1

LEGEND FAUNA HABITATS LEGEND

AVENUE AVENUE

Road Road Road

Gentle Gentle

GILMORE GILMORE

ROAD

MANDURAH

Wellard Wellard

Cemetery Railway

SEA

ROAD ROAD

MANDURAH MANDURAH Village Holiday Rockingham Pty Ltd

Norocoat

Road Road

Road

ROAD ROAD

Day Day

Street

Road Road Wool Washing Jandakot 4

Chesterfield

Ocean

Office Office

SEA

Road Road

Lodge Lodge

Road 3 Developed Area

SEA

Road Road RIZ

Beach Beach

DIXON DIXON

Crompton Crompton

2 Street Street

NICKEL

Street ROAD REFINERY ROAD

Port

Claymore Claymore

Charles Road

Railway Railway Fused Metals

Australian

Kwinana Ward Road Dr

nia nia

irco irco Z Z

Golf PATTERSON PATTERSON

Alumina AVENUE Doral CHEMEQ Ltd BMX Way 1

ENNIS

Way

Road Road

Way Way

SEA

Beale Beale Smeaton

y Court Smeaton Hurrell

a Hurrell

Way l Way i

a Pedlar

Beach

Beach R Pickard Ave Ave Pickard Pickard

CBH

Drive Drive GRAIN TERMINAL

Depot St Municipal

Crocker

Enterprise Enterprise

Merchant Merchant Developed Area

Street Street Street Street

Sound Governor Rd Cockburn

metres

Lewington Lewington Rockingham Rockingham

100 200 300 400 500

Jecks SCALE 1 : 15 000 @ A3 Jecks

SOURCES: Aerial Photograph - DLI, Jan 2005 ; Cadastra, SEA Area Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006

HECKED: JH 14-09-09 JH HECKED: C 14-09-09 GLM/CR DRAWN: zn50 MGA DATUM: Assessment/EP2005-058F11.dgn Environmental ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Mon 14 Sep 09 Sep 14 Mon PRINTED: FIGURE 12 500 ASSESSMENT metres 100 200 300 400 SCALE 1 : 15 000 @ A3 0 RIZ Boundary Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Area Boundary Cadastral Boundary Tree Hollow Tree Hollow with Bees Present STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE IDENTIFIED TREE HOLLOWS

LEGEND

AVENUE AVENUE

Road Road Road

Gentle Gentle

GILMORE GILMORE

ROAD

MANDURAH

Wellard Wellard

Cemetery Railway

ROAD ROAD

SEA

MANDURAH MANDURAH 48 Village Holiday Rockingham 5 9 1 4 2 14 6 3 7 Pty Ltd

Norocoat

Road Road

Road 8 Road 18

Road

ROAD ROAD

Day Day

Street 11

Road Road Wool 10 Washing 20 45 Jandakot 12

Chesterfield 13 19 24 15 Ocean 22 21 16 SEA 23

Office Office 25 26

Road Road

Lodge Lodge 29

Road 44 Developed Area 42 36 35 32 33

SEA

Road Road RIZ 31 37

43 Beach Beach

DIXON DIXON

Crompton Crompton

39 Street Street

NICKEL

Street ROAD REFINERY ROAD 30 40

Port 38

Claymore Claymore

Road

Charles 52

Railway Railway Fused Metals

Australian

Kwinana Ward Road Dr

nia 49 nia

irco irco Z Z

Golf PATTERSON PATTERSON

Alumina AVENUE Doral CHEMEQ Ltd BMX 51 Way 50

ENNIS

Way

Road Road

SEA

Way Way

Beale Beale Smeaton

y Court Smeaton Hurrell

a Hurrell

Way l Way i

a Pedlar

Beach

Beach R Pickard Ave Ave Pickard Pickard

CBH

Drive Drive GRAIN TERMINAL

Depot St Municipal

Crocker

Enterprise Enterprise

Merchant Merchant Developed Area

Street Street Street Street

Sound Governor Rd

Cockburn

Lewington Lewington Rockingham Rockingham

Jecks Jecks

SOURCES: Aerial Photograph - DLI, Jan 2005 ; Cadastra, SEA Area Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006

HECKED: JH 14-09-09 JH HECKED: C 14-09-09 GLM/CR DRAWN: zn50 MGA DATUM: Assessment/EP2005-058F12.dgn Environmental ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Mon 14 Sep 09 Sep 14 Mon PRINTED: ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F13.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: CR 10-11-09 CHECKED: JH 10-11-09 PRINTED: Tue 10 Nov 09 SOURCE: UmweltEnvironmental Consultants. LEGEND Groundwater Contours RIZ Wetland RIZ Boundary MODELLED RIZPRE-DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT GROUNDWATER CONTOURS -MAY2004 ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE 0 SCALE 1:25000@A4 0 0 0 0 1000 800 600 400 200 metres FIGURE 13 ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F14.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: CR 10-11-09 CHECKED: JH 10-11-09 PRINTED: Tue 10 Nov 09 SOURCE: UmweltEnvironmental Consultants. LEGEND Groundwater Contours RIZ Wetland RIZ Boundary MODELLED RIZCONCEPTUALPOST-DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO GROUNDWATERCONTOURS -MAY2004 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE 0 SCALE 1:25000@A4 0 0 0 0 1000 800 600 400 200 metres FIGURE 14 Cleared VEGETATION TYPES LEGEND Cleared Cockburn Developed Eg Eucalyptus gomphocephala Woodland Sound Area Road EgAr Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over NICKEL Acacia rostellifera Shrubland Railway XpAf REFINERY EgMh Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over Mon 14 Sep 09 Mh EgAr Melaleuca huegelii Shrubland 3 Ar 1 EgMr Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over Mh Mh Xp Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Shrubland XpAsHp PRINTED: 2 Ar XpAf XpAf Acacia rostellifera Tall Shrubland ArHp Acacia rostellifera / Hakea prostrata Shrubland Beach Mh Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland XpAf Cleared ROAD XpAf Mh MhAr Melaleuca huegelii / Acacia rostellifera Tall Open MhAr Shrubland Ar SEA Ar MhHp Melaleuca huegelii Open Woodland over Hakea Ar prostrata Shrubland XpAsHp EgAr 4 MrBl 5 MrBlArMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis / Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca huegelii Low Open Woodland XpAf XpAf 6 ROAD MhAr 7 MrGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Gahnia trifida Woodland Eg Eg 36 EgAr MrMhGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Melaleuca huegelii / Gahnia Developed 8 trifida Woodland Rockingham Ar Area XpAsHp MrBl EgMh CBH MhAr MrArGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Acacia rostellifera / Gahnia trifida Shrubland

9 MANDURAH GRAIN XpAf EgArXp MrBlMh 10 MrBl MrBl Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis Shrubland TERMINAL EgMhAr Eg Ar MrBlMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis / Melaleuca 11 huegelii Shrubland EgAr 14 MrBlMh MrArMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca RIZ 12 huegelii Shrubland HECKED: JH 14-09-09 EgAr Xp XpAsHp XpAsHp 15 MrBl BlAr Banksia littoralis / Acacia rostellifera Low Woodland

Ar Ar 13 Xp Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland XpAf EgMh MrMhGt Ar 34 Ar XpAf Xanthorrhoea preissii / Avena fatua Shrubland XpAf PATTERSON XpAsHp SEA XpAsHp Xanthorrhoea preissii / Acacia saligna / Hakea prostrata MhAr Cleared MhAr Xp 14 MrBlMh MrBl Shrubland BlArXp 16 23 17 Hp Hakea prostrata Shrubland Developed 18 Mh 26 MrBlArMh 25 MrBl MrBl Area 20 MrMhGt 16 EgMh MrXpGt 18 Hp 28 XpAf 35 MhHp EgMr Ar Ar XpAsHp 21 19 XpAsHp 27 MrArGt MhHp EgMh metres Ar 22 24 SEA ArXp Hp 29 XpAsHp 0 100 200 300 400 500 MrBlArMh SCALE 1 : 10 000 @ A3 MhAr Ar MrBl Developed LEGEND Area EgMr Railway RIZ Boundary EgMh 38 Cleared SEA Area Boundary Cleared BlAr Eg Developed 37 Area Cadastral Boundary XpAsHp MrMhGt EgMr 33 Vegetation Boundary MrBlMh MANDURAH EgAr 30 Vegetation Survey Extent Hp EgMr SEA Wetland ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE 31 33 Ar 38 Coffey Environments STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL EgMr Cleared EgAr Wetland ID Number 32 ASSESSMENT MrGt Ar EgAr ROAD WETLANDS EgAr FIGURE 15 Developed SOURCES: Aerial Photo - DLI, Jan 2005 ; Cadastra, SEA Area - Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006 Area ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F15.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 14-09-09 C DATUM: MGA zn50 Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F15.dgn ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F16.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 14-09-09 CHECKED: JH 14-09-09 PRINTED: Mon 14 Sep 09

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION

SEA

RIZ SEA SEA

SEA

LEGEND

RIZ Boundary

SEA Boundary

kilometres

012345 ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE SCALE 1 : 100 000 @ A3 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GEOMORPHOLOGY OF THE ROCKINGHAM-BECHER PLAINAr

FIGURE 16 BASE SOURCE: Geological Survey of W.A.,1985 Mon 14 Sep 09 PRINTED: -09-09 CHECKED: JH 14-09-09

LEGEND

RIZ Boundary

SEA Area Boundary

Holocene Beachridge Sediment

Pre-Holocene Sediment (mainly Pleistocene limestone)

Radiocarbon Sample Site

Isochron C 14 years B.P.

SOURCE: Age Sequence - Searle et al, 1988 ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F17.dgn DATUM: Not Spatially Correct DRAWN: GLM/CR 14 ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGE SEQUENCE OF THE ROCKINGHAM-BECHER PLAIN FIGURE 17 Cleared VEGETATION TYPES LEGEND Cleared Cockburn Developed Eg Eucalyptus gomphocephala Woodland Sound Area Road EgAr Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over NICKEL Acacia rostellifera Shrubland Railway XpAf REFINERY EgMh Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over Mon 14 Sep 09 Mh EgAr Melaleuca huegelii Shrubland 3 Ar 1 EgMr Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over Mh Mh Xp Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Shrubland XpAsHp PRINTED: 2 Ar Acacia rostellifera Tall Shrubland XpAf XpAf ArHp Acacia rostellifera / Hakea prostrata Shrubland Beach Mh Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland XpAf Cleared ROAD XpAf Mh MhAr Melaleuca huegelii / Acacia rostellifera Tall Open MhAr Shrubland Ar SEA Ar MhHp Melaleuca huegelii Open Woodland over Hakea Ar prostrata Shrubland XpAsHp EgAr 4 MrBl 5 MrBlArMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis / Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca huegelii Low Open Woodland XpAf XpAf 6 ROAD MhAr 7 MrGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Gahnia trifida Woodland Eg 36 Eg MrMhGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Melaleuca huegelii / Gahnia Developed 8 EgAr trifida Woodland Rockingham Ar Area XpAsHp MrBl EgMh CBH MhAr MrArGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Acacia rostellifera / Gahnia trifida Shrubland

9 MANDURAH GRAIN XpAf EgArXp MrBlMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis Shrubland 10 MrBl MrBl TERMINAL EgMhAr Eg Ar MrBlMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis / Melaleuca RIZ 11 huegelii Shrubland EgAr 14 MrBlMh MrArMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca 12 huegelii Shrubland HECKED: JH 14-09-09 EgAr Xp XpAsHp XpAsHp 15 MrBl PROPOSED BlAr Banksia littoralis / Acacia rostellifera Low Woodland

Ar Ar 13 Xp Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland XpAf EgMh CONSERVATION MrMhGt Ar 34 Ar AREA XpAf Xanthorrhoea preissii / Avena fatua Shrubland XpAf PATTERSON XpAsHp SEA XpAsHp Xanthorrhoea preissii / Acacia saligna / Hakea prostrata MhAr Cleared MhAr Xp 14 MrBlMh MrBl Shrubland BlArXp 16 23 17 Hp Hakea prostrata Shrubland Developed 18 Mh 26 MrBlArMh 25 MrBl MrBl Area 20 MrMhGt 16 EgMh MrXpGt 18 Hp 28 XpAf 35 MhHp EgMr Ar Ar XpAsHp 21 19 XpAsHp 27 MrArGt MhHp EgMh metres Ar 22 24 SEA ArXp Hp 29 XpAsHp 0 100 200 300 400 500 MrBlArMh SCALE 1 : 10 000 @ A3 MhAr Ar MrBl Developed LEGEND Area EgMr Railway RIZ Boundary EgMh 38 Cleared Cleared SEA Area Boundary Developed 37 XpAsHp BlAr Eg Area Proposed Conservation MrMhGt Area Boundary EgMr MrBlMh 33 Cadastral Boundary 30 MANDURAH EgAr Vegetation Boundary Hp EgMr SEA Vegetation Survey Extent ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE 31 33 Ar STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL EgMr Cleared EgAr Wetland 32 ASSESSMENT MrGt Coffey Environments 38 Wetland ID Number Ar EgAr ROAD RIZ PROPOSED CONSERVATION AREA EgAr FIGURE 18 Developed SOURCES: Aerial Photo - DLI, Jan 2005 ; Cadastra, SEA Area - Allerding & Assoc., Nov 2006 Area ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F18.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 14-09-09 C DATUM: MGA zn50 Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F18.dgn ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F19.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: GLM/CR 14-09-09 CHECKED: JH 14-09-09 PRINTED: Mon 14 Sep 09 SOURCE: Hassell,April2009. LEGEND RIZ Boundary CONCEPTUAL LOCALENVIRONMENT SYSTEMS RIZ STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY ZONE 0 SCALE 1:27500@A4 5 0 5 1000 750 500 250 metres FIGURE 19 ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F20.dgn DATUM: Not Spatially Correct DRAWN: GLM/CR 14-09-09 CHECKED: JH 14-09-09 PRINTED: Mon 14 Sep 09 SOURCE: EDAW/AECOM, DwgNo.04VER 1,April2009. 0 0 0 0 0 1000 800 600 400 200 SCALE metres STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRYZONE WATER MANAGEMENT CONCEPT PLAN FIGURE 20 ENVI/PERT/00101AA/Strategic Environmental Assessment/EP2005-058F21.dgn DATUM: MGA zn50 DRAWN: CR 10-11-09 CHECKED: JH 10-11-09 PRINTED: Tue 10 Nov 09 SOURCE: UmweltEnvironmental Consultants. LEGEND 2.5m BGSWaterTableContour(low potentialforTEC19survival) 2.0m BGSWaterTableConotur(potential forTEC19survival) 1.8m BGSWaterTableContour(high potentialforTEC19Survival) RIZ Wetland RIZ Boundary STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT OF THEGROUND SURFACE INMAY2004 RIZ WITH WATER TABLEWITHIN 2.5m ROCKINGHAM INDUSTRY AREA 0 SCALE 1:25000@A4 0 0 0 0 1000 800 600 400 200 metres FIGURE 21 Cleared VEGETATION TYPES LEGEND Cleared Cockburn Developed Eg Eucalyptus gomphocephala Woodland Sound Area Road EgAr Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over NICKEL Acacia rostellifera Shrubland Railway Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over XpAf REFINERY EgMh Mon 14 Sep 09 Mh EgAr Melaleuca huegelii Shrubland 3 Ar 1 EgMr Eucalyptus gomphocephala Open Woodland over Mh Mh Xp Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Shrubland XpAsHp PRINTED: 2 Ar Acacia rostellifera Tall Shrubland XpAf XpAf ArHp Acacia rostellifera / Hakea prostrata Shrubland Beach Mh Melaleuca huegelii Low Woodland XpAf Cleared ROAD XpAf Mh MhAr Melaleuca huegelii / Acacia rostellifera Tall Open MhAr Shrubland Ar SEA Ar MhHp Melaleuca huegelii Open Woodland over Hakea Ar prostrata Shrubland XpAsHp EgAr 4 MrBl 5 MrBlArMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis / Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca huegelii Low Open Woodland XpAf XpAf 6 ROAD MhAr 7 MrGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Gahnia trifida Woodland Eg 36 Eg MrMhGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Melaleuca huegelii / Gahnia Developed 8 EgAr trifida Woodland Rockingham Ar Area XpAsHp MrBl EgMh CBH MhAr MrArGt Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Acacia rostellifera / Gahnia trifida Shrubland GRAIN EgArXp 9 MrBlMh MANDURAH XpAf Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis Shrubland 10 MrBl MrBl TERMINAL EgMhAr Eg Ar RIZ MrBlMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Banksia littoralis / Melaleuca 11 huegelii Shrubland EgAr 14 MrBlMh MrArMh Melaleuca rhaphiophylla / Acacia rostellifera / Melaleuca 12 huegelii Shrubland HECKED: JH 14-09-09 EgAr Xp XpAsHp XpAsHp 15 MrBl PROPOSED BlAr Banksia littoralis / Acacia rostellifera Low Woodland