Public Transport Authority Northern Suburbs Railway Alignment Butler to Yanchep Environmental Investigation November 2012 Executive summary The Public Transport Authority (PTA) is in the process of planning the early stages for an extension of the northern suburbs passenger railway from Romeo Road to Yanchep. The alignment extends from Romeo Road to the proposed Yanchep Railway station, a distance of 12.5 km, the rail reserve is 40 m wide, increasing at some station locations. The alignment covers approximately 50 ha. GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) conducted both desktop and field surveys to identify and map the environmental values of the alignment. The desktop assessment identified any environmental constraints prior to the field survey in order to which may be in, or adjoining the study area. A desktop search upon indigenous heritage revealed no registered heritage sites within 200m of the study area. However, a search of surrounding Native Title Claims indicated that the site is located within the external extent of both the Single Noongar Claim (Area 1) and Swan River People. The PTA will therefore need to consult the Native Title Claimants prior to undertaking works. The registered National Parks of Neerabup National Park (1.4km east) and Yanchep National Park (500m east) are both within the local area, however, will be further separated from the rail extension by the proposed Mitchell freeway extension. Two isolated pockets of ASS risk have been identified in association with the nearby Pipidinny Swamp and Beonaddy Swamp. Pipidinny Swamp is the closest area with associated ASS, being approximately 1km east of the mid-section of the proposed railway. These ASS risk areas are far enough to pose no significant threat to the proposed alignment construction. Fauna and flora field surveys were conducted in spring 2010 and spring 2012 and a subterranean fauna survey was conducted in spring 2010. The fauna survey was undertaken in conjunction with the flora and vegetation survey, which consisted of a Level 1 survey in consideration of the requirements of the EPA’s Guidance Statement No. 56. The conservation significant invertebrate species Pachysaga munggai / strobila was observed during the October 2012 field survey and is a Priority listed species under the DEC listing. The Graceful Sun-moth was recorded within the Northern study area in March 2011 (GHD, 2011). No Graceful Sun- moth were recorded within the southern study area. Approximately 9.3 ha of GSM habitat are recorded within both study areas Carnaby Black Cockatoo feeding was observed during the field survey and they are known to frequent the area. The study area contains approximately 9.3 ha of potential Black Cockatoo feeding habitat. The potential feeding habitat was generally in good condition with similar habitat in similar condition occurring in remnant vegetation in the surrounding area. No potential breeding trees were recorded within the study area. The study area has a high likelihood of subterranean fauna occurrence, however, the proposed project impacts are considered to pose a minimal threat to any such fauna, as no dewatering or groundwater contamination is anticipated. The implementation of a construction management plan that includes subterranean fauna will also further reduce any risk of potential impacts to any subterranean fauna inhabiting the area. The flora assessment included desktop investigations and a field survey, conducted with regard to the EPA’s Guidance Statement No. 51, where possible. No Threatened Ecological Communities or Priority Ecological Communities were identified as occurring within the study area. In addition, no Declared Rare species as listed under the WC Act or species of national conservation significance listed under the EPBC Act were recorded from the study area. No Weeds of National Significance (WONS) were recorded in the study area. i The vegetation condition within the northern and southern study area ranges from completely degraded to pristine / excellent. Vegetation within parts of the proposed alignment have been highly altered and show little to no resemblance to pre-European vegetation types. The areas that have been degraded have been exposed to a range of impacts including clearing, stock grazing, rabbits, fire and off-road vehicle tracks. Parts of the alignment contain plantations of either Eucalyptus gomphocephala and other eucalypt species or Taxandra linearifolia. There are no wetlands located within the proposed project area. The nearest wetland is located approximately 1km east of the Eglinton section of the proposed northern suburbs railway alignment. The proposed rail alignment should pose no significant environmental impact upon the nearest wetland location. The information from this study will be used to determine the environmental impacts, constraints and requirements of the railways extension to allow the PTA consideration in planning and designing. This report is subject to, and must be read in conjunction with, the limitations set out in section 1.4 and the assumptions and qualifications contained throughout the Report. Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Works ............................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 2 2. Legislation................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Desktop Heritage Assessment................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Indigenous Heritage ........................................................................................................ 4 3.2 European Heritage .......................................................................................................... 5 4. Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment .................................................................................................. 5 5. Fauna ....................................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Desktop Assessment of Fauna Values............................................................................. 6 5.2 Fauna Assessment Methodology ................................................................................... 10 5.3 Fauna Field Assessment Results ................................................................................... 11 5.4 Fauna Habitat................................................................................................................ 16 6. Preliminary Subterranean Fauna Assessment ......................................................................... 18 6.1 Assessment of subterranean fauna occurrence ............................................................. 18 6.2 Impacts to subterranean fauna ...................................................................................... 19 6.3 Management recommendations for subterranean fauna ................................................ 19 6.4 Subterranean Fauna Conclusions .................................................................................. 20 7. Flora and Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 20 7.1 Desktop Assessment ..................................................................................................... 20 7.2 Field Assessment Methodology ..................................................................................... 27 7.3 Field Assessment Results ............................................................................................. 28 8. Assessment against the Ten Clearing Principles ..................................................................... 38 9. Summary of Environmental Issues .......................................................................................... 42 9.1 Heritage ........................................................................................................................ 42 9.2 Acid Sulphate Soils ....................................................................................................... 42 9.3 Vertebrate Fauna .......................................................................................................... 42 9.4 Invertebrate Fauna ........................................................................................................ 43 9.5 Subterranean Fauna...................................................................................................... 44 9.6 Flora and Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 44 9.7 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 45 10. References ............................................................................................................................. 46 iii Table index Table 1 Key