Clearing Assessment Report – CPS 818

Printed copies are uncontrolled unless marked otherwise. Refer to iRoads for current version.

D21#189239

Clearing Assessment Report – CPS 818

Lloyd Street Bridge

February 2021

1867

Lloyd Street Bridge – February 2021

Document No: D21#189239 Page 2 of 46

Contents 1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Project Scope ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Assessment Report Scope ..................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Alternatives to clearing ........................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Measures to Avoid, Minimise, Reduce and Manage Project Clearing Impacts ....................... 7 2.5 Approved Policies and Planning Instruments ......................................................................... 9 3 SUMMARY OF SURVEYS .................................................................................................. 10

3.1.1 Summary of Biological Survey ................................................................................... 10 3.2 Dieback Survey .................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Summary of Dieback Survey ..................................................................................... 11 4 VEGETATION DETAILS ..................................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 Project Site Vegetation Description ........................................................................... 12

4.1.2 Vegetation Complexes and Representation............................................................... 13 5 ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE TEN CLEARING PRINCIPLES .......................................... 14 6 ADDITIONAL ACTIONS REQUIRED .................................................................................. 23 7 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .................................................................................... 25 8 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 26 9 CONSTRAINTS MAPPING ................................................................................................. 27 10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 34 11 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A: Vegetation Management Plan .......................................................................... 38 Appendix A1 – Principal Environmental Management Requirements (PEMR’s) ................... 39



Amendments

Report Compilation & Review

Name and Position Document Revision Date

Author: Hannah Sullivan/Annette Latto Consultant/Associate, Strategen JBS&G Rev 0 18/12/2020

Reviewer: Environmental Officer Rev 0 14/01/2021

Author: Hannah Sullivan/Annette Latto Consultant/Associate, Strategen JBS&G

Rev 1 18/1/2021


Author: Hannah Sullivan/Annette Latto Consultant/Associate, Strategen-JBS&G Rev 2 15/02/2021


Reviewer: Senior Environment Officer Rev 2 19/02/2021

Author: Environmental Officer Rev 3 23/2/2021



1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Clearing Assessment Report (CAR) is to provide a report detailing the assessment of native vegetation clearing that is proposed to be undertaken using the Statewide Clearing Permit CPS 818 issued to Main Roads Western Australia (Main Roads). The CAR outlines the key activities associated with the project, the existing environment and an assessment of native vegetation clearing. This assessment provides an evaluation of the vegetation clearing impacts associated with the project using the ten Clearing Principles, and the strategies used to manage vegetation clearing.

2 SCOPE 2.1 Project Scope Project Name: Lloyd Street Bridge Project Purpose / Components: Main Roads Western Australia (Main Roads) proposed to construct a bridge over the Helena River that connects Lloyd Street, Hazelmere with Stirling Crescent, Hazelmere. The proposed clearing undertaking using CPS 818 is: The Project will require the clearing of up to 2.91 ha of native vegetation. The proposed temporary clearing undertaking using CPS 818 is: None. Project Location(s): The Project area is located on Lloyd Street SLK 0.13 and Stirling Crescent SLK 2.90, within the local government authority boundary of the City of Swan. Start: Latitude: -31.899006 Longitude: 116.009369 End: Latitude: -31.903576 Longitude: 116.007813 The location of the proposed works is shown in Figure 1. 2.2 Assessment Report Scope The assessment area, see Figure 2, is confined to a local area of a 10 km radius.



Figure 1. Project Area



Figure 2. Assessment Area



2.3 Alternatives to clearing Alternatives to clearing for the Project were limited by the existing alignment of the connecting roads between which a bridge is proposed to be constructed. The Project has been designed to incorporate the minimum number of lanes to connect the bridge with existing roads thereby minimising the amount of clearing required. Clearing for access tracks, construction storage and stockpiling will not be required. As an alternative to temporary clearing for these purposes, they will be located within land that is already cleared. Through this minimisation, the clearing area was reduced from 5ha to 2.91 ha. Clearing of Black Cockatoo potential breeding trees was also reduced from 190 to 118 through project area minimisation. 2.4 Measures to Avoid, Minimise, Reduce and Manage Project Clearing Impacts The design and management measures implemented to avoid and minimise the clearing impacts by the project are provided in Table 1.



Table 1. Measures undertaken to Avoid, Minimise, Reduce and Manage the Project Clearing Impacts

Design or Management Measure

Applied to Current Design Discussion and Justification

Steepen batter slopes No In consultation with Traditional Owners, it has been determined that gentle sloping batters are preferred, with a gradient of approximately 1:6. The batters will be revegetated with native vegetation.

Installation of safety barriers

Yes Given construction includes batters and a bridge that has been designed in consultation with Traditional Owners, the installation of safety barriers will not result in a reduced clearing footprint or reduced impacts.

Alignment to one side of existing road

No Not applicable due to the Project being for the construction of a new bridge connecting two recently constructed roads.

Alternative alignment to follow existing road (or) to preferentially locate within pasture or a degraded areas

No The location of the bridge cannot be relocated as it is designed to connect two dead end roads.

Installation of kerbing

No The installation of kerbing is not applicable as the Project is for the construction of a bridge.

Simplification of design to reduce number of lanes and/or complexity of intersections

Yes The minimum number of lanes to connect the bridge with existing roads has been incorporated into the bridge design.

Preferential use of existing cleared areas for access tracks, construction storage and stockpiling

Yes Access tracks, construction storage and stockpiling will be located in existing cleared areas. No temporary clearing will be required.

Drainage modification Yes In consultation with Traditional Owners, a culvert will be installed to ensure the continuation of water flow in areas where fill is used.



2.5 Approved Policies and Planning Instruments The clearing of native vegetation in Western Australia is regulated under the EP Act and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004 (Clearing Regulations). In addition to the matters considered in accordance with section 51O of the EP Act (see Section 1.3), Main Roads has also had regard to the below instruments. Other Legislation of relevance for assessment of clearing and planning/other matters

• Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 (SCRM Act) • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA) (BC Act) • Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (WA) (CALM Act) • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) • Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA) (P&D Act) • Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 (WA) • Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) • Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA)

Environmental Protection Policies

• Environmental Protection (Western Swamp Tortoise Habitat) Policy 2011 Other Relevant policies and guidance documents:

• Environmental Offsets Policy (Government of Western Australia, 2011) • A guide to the assessment of applications to clear native vegetation (DEC, 2014) • Procedure: Native vegetation clearing permits (DWER, 2019) • Environmental Offsets Guidelines (Government of Western Australia, 2014) • Technical guidance – Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment

(EPA, 2016) • Technical guidance – Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact

Assessment (EPA, 2020) • Approved Conservation Advice for Calyptorhynchus banksii naso (Forest Red-tailed Black

Cockatoo) (DoE 2009) • Approved Conservation Advice for Calyptorhynchus baudinii (Baudin’s Cockatoo) (TSSC

2018a) • Approved Conservation Advice for Westralunio carteri (Carter’s Freshwater Mussel) (TSSC

2018b) • Carnaby’s Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) Recovery Plan (DPaW 2013) • Forest Black Cockatoo (Baudin’s Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus baudinii and Forest Red-tailed

Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii naso) Recovery Plan (DEC 2008) • EPBC Act Referral guidelines for three black cockatoo species: Carnaby’s cockatoo, Baudin’s

cockatoo and Forest red-tailed black cockatoo (DSEWPaC 2012) • Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million: Environmental impacts, risks and remedies (EPA 2015)



3 SUMMARY OF SURVEYS A biological survey of the Great Eastern Highway Bypass Interchanges (Roe Highway and Abernethy Road) project areas was conducted between October 2019 and May 2020 by Biota. The survey covered three project areas including the Lloyd Street Bridge project area. Section 3.1.1 contains a summary of the survey outcomes within the Lloyd Street Bridge area only. 3.1.1 Summary of Biological Survey

3.1.1.1 Vegetation and Flora A field survey was conducted by four botanists over a series of visits between early October 2019 and early May 2020. The detailed vegetation survey included quadrat sampling, mapping of vegetation types and vegetation condition (based on sampling within the survey area, and extrapolation out to a 500 m buffer ‘contextual area’). Targeted searches for significant flora were also completed, during which significant weeds (Declared Pests and Weeds of National Significance) were also recorded. Within the area of the Lloyd Street Bridge Project, approximately 2.63 ha (34.4%) comprised cleared or modified areas (planted/revegetated that includes some native species) with the remaining 5.0 ha (65.6%) being remnant native vegetation. Two vegetation types were identified within the area, described as:

• P3: Eucalyptus rudis subsp. rudis open forest over *Bromus diandrus, *Avena fatua, *Ehrharta longiflora grassland over *Fumaria capreolata herbland.

• P6: Eucalyptus rudis subsp. rudis open forest over Melaleuca rhaphiophylla low open woodland over *Ehrharta longiflora, *Bromus diandrus open grassland over *Fumaria capreolata, Cycnogeton huegelii open herbland.

• CL: Cleared Areas • CR: Commercial/Residential Mixed Use • PR: Private Property/Mixed Use

No Threatened or Priority Ecological Communities or flora species were recorded within the Lloyd Street area. Two introduced weed species were recorded within the Project area including one Declared Pest, *Solanum linnaeanum.

3.1.1.2 Fauna No significant fauna species were recorded within the Lloyd Street area. A total of 190 potential black cockatoo breeding habitat trees (diameter at breast height >500mm) were recorded, comprising Flooded Gum, Marri, and dead stags. Seven of the trees identified contained hollows, of which two were considered potentially suitable for Black Cockatoo breeding through inspection with a camera mounted on an extendable pole. No signs of use by Black Cockatoos was recorded (Biota 2020). The Lloyd St Bridge Project area contains 6.69 ha of potential black cockatoo foraging habitat consisting of 1.80 ha of ‘Scattered Eucalyptus/Marri in cleared areas’ and 4.89 ha of Flooded gum over grasslands and Wetlands/River habitat (Biota 2020). Black Cockatoo foraging was recorded within the ‘Scattered Eucalyptus/Marri in cleared areas’ habitat within the broader survey area, through foraging residue, however not in the Lloyd Street Bridge area. However, no evidence of Black Cockatoo use was recorded within Flooded gum over grasslands and Wetlands/River habitat within the broader survey area.



No evidence of roosting was recorded in the Lloyd Street Bridge area. 3.2 Dieback Survey The Great Eastern Highway Bypass Interchanges Project Phytophthora Dieback occurrence assessment was conducted in August 2020 by Glevan Consulting. The assessment covered a broader area than the current Project area. Section 3.2.1 contains the summary of the survey in the Lloyd Street Bridge area. 3.2.1 Summary of Dieback Survey Glevan Consulting conducted an assessment of the development envelope associated with the Great Eastern Highway Bypass Interchanges project for the presence of Phytophthora Dieback. The development envelope covers 158.9 hectares and includes sections of Great Eastern Highway, Tonkin Highway, Abernethy Road, Kalamunda Road and Brinsmead Road. No evidence of Phytophthora cinnamomi infestation was recorded within the Lloyd Street Bridge area. The area was mapped as Excluded as the vegetation structure is severely altered and Phytophthora occurrence assessment was not possible.



4 VEGETATION DETAILS 4.1.1 Project Site Vegetation Description The Project area is comprised of two native vegetation units totalling 2.91 ha (Figure 3). These vegetation units are described by Biota (2020) as:

• P3: Eucalyptus rudis subsp. rudis open forest over *Bromus diandrus, *Avena fatua, *Ehrharta longiflora grassland over *Fumaria capreolata herbland.

• P6: Eucalyptus rudis subsp. rudis open forest over Melaleuca rhaphiophylla low open woodland over *Ehrharta longiflora, *Bromus diandrus open grassland over *Fumaria capreolata, Cycnogeton huegelii open herbland.

All native vegetation within the Project area is in ‘Degraded’ condition (Figure 4). The Project area contains Pre-European Vegetation Associations (VA) 1001 and 1009 described as ‘medium very sparse woodland; Jarrah, with low woodland; Banksia and Casuarina’ and ‘medium woodland; Marri and River Gum’, respectively (GoWA 2019a). Tables 3 and 4 provide details of the native vegetation considered representative of these VAs within the Project area, including the remaining extent of those associations.

Table 2. Summary of Project Area’s Mapped Pre-European Vegetation Associations

Pre-European Vegetation Association(s)

Clearing Description Vegetation Condition

Comments

Vegetation Association 1001 described as a medium very sparse woodland; Jarrah, with low woodland; Banksia & Casuarina (GoWA, 2019a).

Clearing of up to 1.099 ha of native vegetation of association 1001.

Clearing of up to 1.099 ha in Degraded condition.

Vegetation description and condition determined from biological survey (Biota, 2020).

Vegetation Association 1009 described as Medium woodland; Marri & River Gum (GoWA, 2019a).

Clearing of up to 1.814 ha of native vegetation of association 1009.



Table 3. Pre-European Vegetation Representation

Pre-European Vegetation Association

Scale

Pre–European (ha) Current Extent (ha)

% Remaining

% Remaining in DBCA reserves

Veg Assoc No. 1001

Statewide 57,410.23

12,660.76

22.05 3.13

IBRA Bioregion Swan Coastal Plain

57,410.23

12,660.76

22.05 3.13

IBRA Sub-region Perth

57,410.23

12,660.76

22.05 3.13

Local Government Authority City of Swan

8,868.19

2,321.48

26.18

3.98

Veg Assoc No. 1009

Statewide 18,225.88

3,004.07

16.48 0.59

IBRA Bioregion 18,184.82 2,983.06 16.40 0.59



Pre-European Vegetation Association

Scale

Pre–European (ha) Current Extent (ha)

% Remaining

% Remaining in DBCA reserves

Swan Coastal Plain IBRA Sub-region Perth

18,183.22 2,982.33 16.40 0.59


8,519.91 378.76 4.45 0.48

4.1.2 Vegetation Complexes and Representation Vegetation Complexes within the Project area have been defined by Heddle et al. (1980) and are based on vegetation in association with landforms and underlying geology. The native vegetation complexes as described by Heddle et al. (1980) that intersect the Project area are:

• Guildford Complex (2.84 ha within the Project area); and • Southern River Complex (0.07 ha within the Project area).

Table 4. Vegetation Complexes (Heddle/Mattiske) within the Project Area

Heddle/Mattiske Veg Complex Pre-European Extent (ha) 2018 Vegetation Extent % Remaining

Guildford Complex 90,513.13 4,607.91 5.09

Southern River Complex 58,781.48 10,832.18 18.43



5 ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE TEN CLEARING PRINCIPLES In assessing whether the Project’s proposed clearing is likely to have a significant impact on the environment, the Project was assessed against the ten clearing principles (EP Act 1986, Schedule 5). Each principle has been assessed in accordance with DWER’s ‘A Guide to the Assessment of Applications to Clear Native Vegetation’ (DER 2014). The proposed clearing is at variance to principles (b), (e) and (f), is not likely to be at variance to principle (g) and is not at variance with the remaining clearing principles.

(a) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it comprises a high level of biological diversity.

Comments Proposed clearing is not likely to be at variance to this Principle

The Project is not likely to be at variance to this principle. The Project involves the clearing of up to 2.91 ha of native vegetation (Figure 3) comprised of two vegetation types described by Biota (2020) as: P3: Eucalyptus rudis subsp. rudis open forest over *Bromus diandrus, *Avena fatua, *Ehrharta longiflora grassland over *Fumaria capreolata herbland. P6: Eucalyptus rudis subsp. rudis open forest over Melaleuca rhaphiophylla low open woodland over *Ehrharta longiflora, *Bromus diandrus open grassland over *Fumaria capreolata, Cycnogeton huegelii open herbland. All native vegetation within the Project area is in a ‘Degraded’ condition and is likely to constitute similar or poorer habitat quality than that in the surrounding area (Figure 4). No Threatened or Priority Ecological Communities or Flora species are present within the Project area. No Threatened or Priority fauna species were recorded within the Project area, however the site contains habitat value for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris - EN), Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoos (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso – VU) and Quenda (Isoodon fusciventer – P4) (Biota, 2020). The Project area is within the distribution range of both Black Cockatoo species as well as within the modelled breeding range of Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (DPaW, 2013). While both species were recorded within the broader survey area (Biota, 2020) neither was recorded within the Project area. A total of 2.91 ha of native vegetation that is potentially suitable for Black Cockatoo foraging was recorded within the clearing area, comprised of Flooded gum over grasslands and Wetlands/river habitat (Figure 5). These habitat types were identified by Biota (2020) as being suitable for occasional use by black cockatoos, however no evidence of foraging was recorded during the survey within these habitat types. There are 118 potential breeding trees of a suitable species for Black Cockatoos with a DBH > 500 mm (Suitable DBH Trees); 117 Eucalyptus rudis, and one of indeterminate species within the clearing area. Of these, two (one Eucalyptus rudis and a stag contain two suitable breeding hollows.



The nearest confirmed roost sites are located approximately 4 km and 2.5 km south east of the Project area for Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos and Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoos, respectively. Potentially suitable habitat for the Priority 4 species Quenda (Isoodon fusciventer) was also identified within the broader survey area, corresponding with fauna habitat types ‘Flooded gum over grasslands’ (P6) and ‘Wetlands/River’ (P3). This constitutes 2.91 ha of potential Quenda habitat in ‘Degraded’ condition. No evidence of occupancy by the species was observed within the Project area, with the closest individual recorded 130 m east. Given the ‘Degraded’ condition of native vegetation within the Project area, the low diversity of Black Cockatoo foraging species, and high number of weed species, clearing associated with the Project is not considered to contain a high level of biological diversity. The removal of this vegetation will not result in a significant loss of biodiversity and therefore, the clearing is not likely to be at variance to this principle. Assessed outcome: The proposed clearing is not likely to be at variance to this principle.

Methodology Biota (2020) DBCA shapefiles EPA (2016) Government of WA (2013) NatureMap (Accessed October 2020)

(b) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it comprises the whole or a part of, or is necessary for the maintenance of, a significant habitat for fauna indigenous to Western Australia.

Comments Proposed clearing is at variance to this Principle

The Project area represents a relatively small area of degraded vegetation bordered by Parks and recreation, industrial, and urban land use. The Project area provides some habitat features suitable for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo, Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo and Quenda. Biota (2020) identified the three native vegetation types recorded within the Project area as being suitable for Black Cockatoo foraging, although no evidence of occupancy was recorded. Quendas were observed in fauna habitat types ‘Flooded gum over grasslands’ and ‘Wetlands/River’ in the Project area. The Carter’s Freshwater Mussel (Threatened) may also occur in the area however, a targeted assessment identified no evidence of this species ((Biota, 2020). The project area is weed-choked and turbid which would not provide suitable habitat for this species as it prefers clear water and native riparian vegetation. Black Cockatoo Evidence of occupancy for Carnaby’s and Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoos was recorded within the broader survey area, however not within the Project area (Biota, 2020). Foraging habitat includes 2.91 ha of habitat types occasionally used for foraging by black cockatoos; ‘Flooded gum over grasslands’ and ’Wetlands/River’ (Biota, 2020). The native vegetation within the footprint contains 118 Suitable DBH Trees (117 Eucalyptus rudis and one of indeterminate species) (Biota 2020). Two of these trees (one E. rudis and a stag) have potentially suitable hollows for Black Cockatoo breeding. Within the Peel-Perth region, foraging and water resources within 6 km, as well as overlapping foraging within 12 km, is required to support roosting and breeding sites and



maintain habitat connectivity so that movement can be facilitated through the landscape (EPA, 2019). The nearest confirmed roost used by Carnaby’s and Forest Red-tailed black cockatoos is located 3 km and 2.5 km away from the Project area, respectively (Peck et al. 2019). To estimate the impact of Project clearing on Black Cockatoos in the local area, the quantity of foraging habitat within 6 km and 12 km of the Project area was quantified based on the suitable habitat mapping undertaken by DBCA (2018) within the current extent of remnant vegetation (DPIRD, 2020). Foraging habitat within the local area is estimated at 11,332.52 ha and 1,412.80 ha within 12 km and 6 km, respectively. Clearing as a result of the Project therefore constitutes a 0.03% and 0.21% reduction in foraging habitat within 12 km and 6 km, respectively. Furthermore, a high proportion of potential Black Cockatoo foraging habitat in the local area is protected within DBCA managed reserves. 40.3% and 39.9% of foraging habitat is located within DBCA managed reserves within 12 km and 6 km of the Project area, respectively. Key DBCA managed land within 6 km of the Project area containing potential foraging habitat include:

• Beelu National Park (154 ha); • Greenmount National Park (174 ha); • John Forrest National Park (135 ha) • Gooseberry Hill National Park (32 ha); and • Talbot Road Nature Reserve (68 ha).

The maintenance of ecological linkages is also necessary to facilitate the movement of Black Cockatoos between habitat patches. The Project is located within a mapped Regional Ecological Linkage; however, as the proposed clearing will leave a gap in native vegetation hosting potential foraging species no wider than 200m, significant fragmentation of the linkage will not occur. In the ‘Parks and Recreation’ zoned land to the east and west of the Project area (DPLH, 2020), an additional 984 Suitable DBH Trees were recorded which will be retained (Biota, 2020). This indicates that the surrounding area will continue to support the movement of, and provide foraging habitat for, local Black Cockatoo populations. The Project area does not support known Black Cockatoo roosting or breeding, is restricted to a relatively narrow patch of habitat (180 m X 500 m) and is in a local area supporting foraging habitat as identified in the wider survey. The clearing area contains up to 2.91 ha of suitable foraging habitat for Black Cockatoos as well as 118 Suitable DBH trees, two of which contain potentially suitable hollows for breeding. Quenda The Quenda was identified within the broader survey area with the closest record (diggings) approximately 130 m from the Project area boundary (Biota, 2020). The native vegetation types within the Project area, corresponding to mapped fauna habitat types ‘Flooded gum over grasslands’ and ‘Wetlands/River’ are considered potentially suitable for Quendas, with evidence of occupancy reported by Biota (2020) within those habitat types in the broader study area (Figure 6). No evidence of occupancy was recorded within the Project area. The Project area does not contain habitat that is considered to significant habitat for Quenda. It is unlikely that the clearing will impact habitat connectivity as there will be vegetation remaining in the area and connectivity will be available under the bridge once constructed. Assessed outcome: The proposed clearing is at variance to this principle.

Methodology Biota (2020)



DBCA Shapefiles DBCA website EPA (2016)

(c) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it includes, or is necessary for the continued existence of, rare flora.

Comments Proposal is not at variance to this Principle

The Project is not considered at variance to this principle, as no flora species listed as Threatened under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) were recorded within the Project area and none are considered likely to occur. The desktop assessment undertaken by Biota (2020) found a total of 24 Threatened flora species with the potential to occur within the study area (within 5 km of the broader survey area). Conospermum undulatum (listed as Threatened under the BC Act) was recorded within the broader survey area. Individuals recorded within the survey area were within vegetation type P7 described as: ‘Eucalyptus marginata subsp. marginata, Banksia attenuata, Allocasuarina fraseriana and Banksia menziesii low open woodland over Xanthorrhoea preissii, Allocasuarina humilis open shrubland over Dasypogon bromeliifolius, Hibbertia hypericoides, Bossiaea eriocarpa, Banksia dallanneyi var. dallanneyi low open shrubland over Mesomelaena pseudostygia, Schoenus efoliatus very open sedgeland over Alexgeorgea nitens scattered herbs.’ No suitable habitat for the species exists within, or in close proximity to, the Project area. The nearest suitable habitat is located approximately 1 km east, on the eastern side of Roe Highway. No other Threatened flora species have been recorded in the project area (Biota 2020). Assessed outcome: The proposed clearing is not at variance to this principle.

Methodology Biota (2020) DBCA shapefiles Florabase (Accessed October 2020)

(d) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it comprises the whole or a part of, or is necessary for the maintenance of a threatened ecological community.

Comments Proposed clearing is not at variance to this Principle

No threatened ecological communities (TEC) listed under the BC Act were recorded within the Project area. Two TECs listed under the BC Act were recorded within the broader survey area, with these being:

• SCP20a: Banksia attenuata woodlands over species rich dense shrublands (nearest patch 1.5 km southeast)

• SCP20c: Shrublands and woodlands of the eastern side of the Swan Coastal Plain (nearest patch 1.7km south).



Based on the associations between the TEC and vegetation mapping by Biota (2020), SCP20a tends to be associated with mapped vegetation types P1, P5 and P7 while SCP20c tends to be associated with mapped vegetation types P1 and P2. The Project area does not contain any of these vegetation types, and based on the species composition of each, it is considered that none of the vegetation types within the Project area (P3, P6 and P8) possess similarities to the TECs present within the broader survey area. Based on the above, clearing for the Project is not considered to be at variance to this principle. Assessed outcome: The proposed clearing is not at variance to this principle.

Methodology Biota (2020) DBCA shapefiles

(e) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it is significant as a remnant of native vegetation in an area that has been extensively cleared.


The Project area is mapped as Vegetation Associations (VA) 1001 and 1009 described as ‘medium very sparse woodland; jarrah, with low woodland; banksia & casuarina’ and ‘mosaic of Medium forest; jarrah-marri / Low woodland; banksia / Low forest; teatree / Low woodland; Casuarina obesa’, respectively. The Project proposes to clear up to 1.10 ha of VA 1001 (which has over 22% vegetation remaining) and 1.81 ha of VA 1009 (which has over 16% vegetation remaining). This totals 2.91 ha of native vegetation, which is in Degraded condition. The Project will require the clearing of 2.84 ha of Guildford complex vegetation and 0.07 ha of Southern River complex. The national objectives and targets for biodiversity conservation Australia have been set to prevent clearance of ecological communities with less than 30% of their pre-1750 (Pre-European) extent, below which species loss appears to accelerate exponentially (Commonwealth of Australia, 2001). Given that the Project area is within the constrained Swan Coastal Plain area, retention objective of 10% apply (EPA, 2016). The pre-1750 extent and proportion currently remaining for each vegetation complex is provided in the table below. Summary of Project Area’s Mapped Pre-European Vegetation Complexes

Pre-European Vegetation Complexes

Clearing Description Vegetation Condition

Comments

Guildford Complex

Clearing of up to 2.84 ha of native vegetation of Guildford Complex.



Southern River Complex

Clearing of up to 0.07 ha of native vegetation of Southern River Complex.



Pre-European Vegetation Representation



Pre-European Vegetation Complex

Scale

Pre–European (ha)

Current Extent (ha)

% Remaining % Remaining in DBCA reserves

Guildford Complex


90,513.13 4,607.91 5.09 0.33

MRS Region Perth

24,300.38 1,219.79 5.02 0.95


6,333.29 440.26 6.95 16.75

Southern River Complex


58,781.48 10,832.18 18.43 1.37

MRS Region Perth

31,146.06 4,359.94 14.00 0.75


8,627.35 1,424.15 16.51 0.54

As shown in the tables above, the Guildford Complex is currently under-represented within the Swan Coastal Plain, Perth Metropolitan Region, and within the City of Swan, with 5.09%, 5.02%, and 6.95% of the pre-European extent remaining, respectively (GoWA 2019b). At all three scales, the Complex is below the EPA (2016) retention target of 10% in constrained areas. Despite the vegetation being in Degraded condition, native vegetation representing the Guildford complex comprises 2.84 ha (97.5%) of the total clearing area. The Southern River Complex is currently above the 10% retention target of the EPA (2016) with 18.43%, 14.0%, and 16.5% of its pre-European extent remaining in the Swan Coastal Plain, Perth Metropolitan Region, and City of Swan, respectively. Given the Guildford Complex is under-represented, clearing of the Guildford vegetation complex is considered at variance with this principle. Assessed outcome; The proposed clearing is at variance to this Principle.

Methodology Aerial photography Biota (2020) EPA (2016) Government of Western Australia (2017) Perth Biodiversity Project (2013)



Shepherd (2009)

(f) Native vegetation should not be cleared if it is growing in, or in association with, an environment associated with a watercourse or wetland.


Interrogation of DBCA and DWER hydrological and wetland datasets determined that the Project area is intersected by a Conservation Category Wetland (CCW) (UFI 15440) associated with the Helena River. As such, the Project is located within the Development Control Area designated under the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 and subject to State Planning Policy 2.10 Swan-Canning River System. A CCW is considered a significant wetland (DER 2014). The Project will necessitate the clearing of 2.28 ha of native vegetation associated with this CCW and therefore the clearing is at variance to this principle. Assessed outcome: The proposed clearing is at variance with this principle.

Methodology Biota (2020) DWER and DBCA shapefiles

(g) Native vegetation should not be cleared if the clearing of the vegetation is likely to cause appreciable land degradation.


The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) provides a series of soil degradation risk mapping at the sub-system level. The Project area is located within the Pinjarra soil system. It is described as a poorly drained coastal plain with variable alluvial and aeolian soils, and with variable vegetation including Jarrah, Marri, Wandoo, Paperbark sheoaks, and Eucalyptus rudis (DPIRD, 2020). The table below summarises the soil degradation risk within the Project area.

Aspect Degradation risk

Wind Erosion High to extreme risk

Waterlogging Moderate to very high risk

Water Erosion High to extreme risk

Salinity Moderate to high risk

Flood Risk Moderate to high risk Wind and water erosion, as well as waterlogging pose the greatest risk of land degradation to the Project area. It is unlikely that the Project will cause appreciable land degradation given that the area of clearing will remain bound by vegetation to the east and west, and will be managed through the installation of gently sloping batters with a low gradient, which will be revegetated or landscaped. Further measures to minimise land degradation through potential wind and water-driven erosion will be implemented through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Assessed outcome: The proposed clearing is not likely to be at variance to this principle.

Methodology Natural Resource Management SLIP Soil Systems (Accessed September 2020)



(h) Native vegetation should not be cleared if the clearing of the vegetation is likely to have an impact on the environmental values of any adjacent or nearby conservation area.


A number of conservation areas exist within 6 km of the Project area, including: • Beelu National Park • Gooseberry Hill National Park • Greenmount National Park • John Forrest National Park • Talbot Road National Park • Nature Reserve R 49079 • Nature Reserve R 48325 • Swan River Trust area • Numerous DBCA-managed reserves on Crown land

The Project area does not overlap any nearby conservation areas, with the nearest Department-managed reserve located 1 km south east and nearest Nature Reserve (R 49079) located 3 km south. These conservation areas are separated from the Project by Roe Highway and Great Eastern Highway Bypass, respectively. The Project is, however, located within a mapped Regional Ecological Linkage that connects vegetation associated with the Helena River with nearby formal and informal reserves including Beelu and Gooseberry Hill National Parks, respectively (Figure 7). The retention of vegetation to the east and west of the Project area will act to maintain the ecological linkage, with terrestrial species able to pass under the bridge following the temporary disturbance caused by construction. Assessed outcome: The proposed clearing is not likely to be at variance to this principle.

Methodology DBCA shapefiles EPA (2016)

(i) Native vegetation should not be cleared if the clearing of the vegetation is likely to cause deterioration in the quality of surface or underground water.


The Project area is located within a Conservation Category Wetland and is intersected by the Helena River (Figure 8). The Project will not significantly alter the hydrology of the area. The Project has been designed to minimise impact to surface and groundwater through minimising clearing, gently sloping batters to allow for revegetation and landscaping, and the installation of culverts to ensure the continuation of water flow in areas where fill is used. These measures have been devised in consultation with Whadjuk Traditional Owners and informed by the outcomes of flood modelling and are therefore considered to provide the best possible outcomes for hydrological management. During clearing and construction works, sediment management measures will be in place to prevent erosion and sedimentation of the Helena River. These measures are likely to include: sediment fences, hay bales and silt curtains. The small scale clearing is unlikely to cause deterioration in the quality of surface or underground water quality. Assessed outcome:



The proposed clearing is not likely to be at variance to this principle. Methodology DWER and DBCA shapefiles

EPA (2016) Results of stakeholder consultation

(j) Native vegetation should not be cleared if clearing the vegetation is likely to cause, or exacerbate, the incidence or intensity of flooding.

Comments Proposed clearing is not at variance to this Principle

The Project proposes to clear up to 2.91 ha of native vegetation within a 500 m wide area between two recently constructed roads largely within an existing floodway (Helena River). The removal of such a small, localised area of vegetation is unlikely to increase the incidence or intensity of flooding. The Project has been designed to include the installation of culverts to ensure the continuation of water flow in areas where fill is used. A waterways assessment will be conducted by Main Roads to ensure that the new bridge structure does not cause excessive backwater during and post-construction. The NRM SLIP identifies a moderate to high risk of flooding in the area. However, given the narrow (180 m X 500 m) area over which clearing will be required and drainage elements to limit impacts on surface water flow, it is expected that clearing will not exacerbate the incidence or intensity of flooding. Assessed outcome: The proposed clearing is not at variance to this principle.

Methodology Natural Resource Management SLIP Soil Systems (Accessed November 2020)



6 ADDITIONAL ACTIONS REQUIRED Table 5 summarises what further pre-clearing impact assessment and vegetation management is required in accordance with CPS 818. Table 5. Summary of Additional Management Actions Required by CPS 818

Impact of Clearing Yes/No or NA Further Action Required

1. The CAR indicates that the clearing is ‘At Variance’ or ‘May be at Variance’ with one or more of the Clearing Principles. Where the clearing is at variance or may be at variance to Clearing Principle (f) and no other Clearing Principle, and the area of the proposed clearing is less than 0.5 hectares in size and the Clearing Principle (f) impacts only relate to:

(i) a minor non-perennial watercourse(s); (ii) a wetland(s) classed as a multiple use management category wetland(s); and/or (iii) a wetland that is not a defined wetland;

the preparation of an Assessment Report, as required by condition 6(e), is not required.

Yes 1. Submissions will be sought from relevant parties, including the LGA, in accordance with Condition 8 of CPS 818/15 published on the website.

2. A VMP is required to be approved by DWER. The VMP must be approved prior to undertaking clearing of the area to which the VMP is related. A VMP has been completed – see Appendix A.

3. An offset proposal for approval by DWER is required where clearing is ‘at variance’. The offset proposal must be approved prior to undertaking clearing of the area to which the offset is related. This project is proposing to provide funds to the DWER financial offset fund.

2. Clearing is at variance or may be at variance with Clearing Principle (g) land degradation, (i) surface or underground water quality or (j) the incidence of flooding.

No No further action required.

3. The project involves clearing for temporary works (as defined by CPS 818).


4 a. Project is within Region that: - Has rainfall greater than

400mm and - Is South of the 26th parallel and - Works are in ‘Other than dry

conditions’ and - Works have potential for

uninfested areas to be impacted

Yes

4a. Refer to 4b.



Impact of Clearing Yes/No or NA Further Action Required

4b. Does the proposed works require clearing within or adjacent to DBCA estate in non-dry conditions?

No Standard dieback actions will be implemented in line with Condition 10 of CPS 818/15.

5. Main Roads has been notified by DWER or an environmental specialist that the area to be cleared is susceptible to a pathogen other than dieback


6. The vegetation within the area to be cleared and/or the surrounding vegetation in a good or better condition and weeds likely to spread to and result in environmental harm to adjacent areas of native vegetation that are in good or better condition




7 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION Main Roads will undertake stakeholder consultation in accordance with CPS 818/15 Condition 8. This section of the CAR will be updated once submissions have been received from Stakeholders and DWER.



8 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Main Roads will avoid clearing native vegetation where possible. Where clearing cannot be avoided then this clearing is kept to a minimum. A VMP has been developed to manage and minimise vegetation clearing for the Project (refer to Appendix A).



9 CONSTRAINTS MAPPING





4











10 REFERENCES Biota Environmental Sciences (Biota). (2020). Great Eastern Highway Bypass Interchanges (Roe

Highway and Abernethy Road) Biological Survey. Unpublished report prepared for Main Roads Western Australia.

Beard, J. S. (1981). Swan, 1:1 000,000 vegetation series: explanatory notes to sheet 7: the vegetation

of the Swan area. University of Western Australia Press. Nedlands, Western Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation

2001 – 2005. Available from: https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/FullTextFiles/020395.pdf. Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA). (2007 - 2019). NatureMap.

Department of Parks and Wildlife and WA Museum. Available from: https://naturemap.dbca.wa.gov.au/. Accessed October 2020.

Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions (DBCA). (2018). Carnaby’s Cockatoo areas

requiring investigation as feeding habitat in the Swan Coastal Plain (SCP) IBRA Region (DBCA-057) shapefile. Available from https://services.slip.wa.gov.au/public/rest/services/SLIP_Public_Services/Plants_and_Animals/MapServer/19.

Department of the Environment (DoE). (2009). Approved Conservation Advice for Calyptorhynchus

banksii naso (Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo). Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/67034-conservation-advice.pdf

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). (2008). Forest Black Cockatoo (Baudin’s

Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus baudinii and Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii naso) Recovery Plan. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/48e4fc8c-9cb7-4c85-bc9f-6b847cf4c017/files/wa-forest-black-cockatoos-recovery-plan.pdf

Department of Environmental Regulation. (2014). A Guide to the Assessment of Applications to

Clear Native Vegetation Under Part V Division 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002). Biodiversity Action Planning. Action

planning for native biodiversity at multiple scales; catchment bioregional, landscape, local. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria.

Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW). 2013. Carnaby’s Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) Western Australian Wildlife Management Program No. 52. Department of Parks and Wildlife October 2013 Recovery Plan. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/calyptorhynchus-latirostris-recovery-plan. Accessed September 2020.

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH). 2020. Region scheme maps. Available from: https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/mapping/region-scheme-maps#mrs.

https://naturemap.dbca.wa.gov.au/

https://services.slip.wa.gov.au/public/rest/services/SLIP_Public_Services/Plants_and_Animals/MapServer/19

https://services.slip.wa.gov.au/public/rest/services/SLIP_Public_Services/Plants_and_Animals/MapServer/19

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/48e4fc8c-9cb7-4c85-bc9f-6b847cf4c017/files/wa-forest-black-cockatoos-recovery-plan.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/48e4fc8c-9cb7-4c85-bc9f-6b847cf4c017/files/wa-forest-black-cockatoos-recovery-plan.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/calyptorhynchus-latirostris-recovery-plan

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/calyptorhynchus-latirostris-recovery-plan

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/mapping/region-scheme-maps#mrs



Accessed October 2020.

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD). (2019). Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act 2007. Available from https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/bam/biosecurity-and-agriculture-management-act-2007.

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD). (2020a). Native Vegetation Extent (DPIRD-005) shapefile. Available from: https://services.slip.wa.gov.au/public/rest/services/SLIP_Public_Services/Environment/MapServer/18. Accessed October 2020.

Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD). (2020b). NRInfo for Western

Australia. Accessed October 2020. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities (DSEWPaC).

(2012). EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for Three Threatened Black Cockatoo Species. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/895d4094-af63-4dd3-8dff-ad2b9b943312/files/referral-guidelines-wa-black-cockatoo.pdf

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). 2015. Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million: Environmental

Impacts, Risks and Remedies. Interim strategic advice of the Environmental Protection Authority to the Minister for Environment under section 16(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Available from: https://www.epa.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/Publications/Perth-Peel-s16e-interim-advice-2015-web.pdf

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). (2016). Technical Guide – Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation

Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment (eds. K Freeman, G Stack, S Thomas and N Woolfrey). Perth, Western Australia.

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). (2019). EPA Technical Report: Carnaby’s Cockatoo in

Environmental Impact Assessment in the Perth and Peel Region – Advice of the Environmental Protection Authority under Section 16(j) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, EPA, Western Australia.

Government of Western Australia. (2019a). 2018 Statewide Vegetation Statistics incorporating the

CAR Reserve Analysis (Full Report). Current as of March 2019. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Perth, Western Australia. https://catalogue.data.wa.gov.au/dataset/dbca-statewide-vegetation-statistics

Government of Western Australia. (2019b). 2018 South West Vegetation Complex Statistics. Current

as of March 2019. WA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Perth. https://catalogue.data.wa.gov.au/dataset/dbca

Heddle, E. M., Loneragan, O. W., and Havel, J. J. (1980) Atlas of Natural Resources Darling System,

Western Australia. Department of Conservation and Environment. Peck, A., Barrett, G., & Williams, M. (2019). The 2019 Great Cocky Count: a community-based survey

for Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris), Baudin’s Black-Cockatoo

https://services.slip.wa.gov.au/public/rest/services/SLIP_Public_Services/Environment/MapServer/18

https://services.slip.wa.gov.au/public/rest/services/SLIP_Public_Services/Environment/MapServer/18

https://catalogue.data.wa.gov.au/dataset/dbca-statewide-vegetation-statistics

https://catalogue.data.wa.gov.au/dataset/dbca



(Calyptorhynchus baudinii) and Forest Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso). Available from: https://birdlife.org.au/documents/GCC_report_2019_final.pdf.

Perth Biodiversity Project (2013) Local Biodiversity Program 2013 Native vegetation by vegetation

complex dataset for the South West of Western Australia. WALGA, viewed: http://pbp.walga.asn.au/Publications.aspx Accessed October 2020.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC). (2018a). Conservation Advice for Calyptorhynchus

baudinii Baudin’s Cockatoo. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/769-conservation-advice-15022018.pdf

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC). (2018b). Conservation Advice for Westralunio

carteri Carter’s Freshwater Mussel. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/86266-conservation-advice-15022018.pdf

Western Australian Herbarium. (1998-). FloraBase – The Western Australian Flora. Department of

Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Available from: https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/. Accessed October 2020.

http://pbp.walga.asn.au/Publications.aspx%20Accessed%20October%202020

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/769-conservation-advice-15022018.pdf




https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/



11 APPENDICES

Appendix Title

Appendix A Vegetation Management Plan

Appendix A1 Principal Environmental Management Requirements



Appendix A: Vegetation Management Plan

LLOYD STREET BRIDGE Purpose and Scope

This Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared by Main Roads for the purpose of managing native vegetation clearing impacts associated with the Lloyd Street Bridge. Main Roads Western Australia (Main Roads) propose to construct a bridge over the Helena River that connects Lloyd Street, Hazelmere with Stirling Crescent, Hazelmere. In specified circumstances, Main Roads VMP is required to be approved by Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) as a condition of Main Roads Statewide Clearing Permit CPS 818. Action

Appendix B1 contains the standard Principal Environmental Management Requirements (PEMRs) that will be utilised for all Projects that involve clearing to avoid, mitigate and manage the environmental impacts of the Project.

Timeframes

Actions shall be undertaken in accordance with those described in the relevant PEMR and the Project Specific Environmental Management Requirements. Responsibilities

It is the responsibility of the Superintendent’s Contract Management Team that the requirements are implemented by the Contractor. This shall be done by adhering to the Environmental Measurement and Evaluation Checklist.



Appendix 2.1: Vegetation Management VMP Requirement Standard Management Action Specific Management

Action Clearing

Refer to Table 1: Clearing PEMR

• Specification 204 Environmental Management • Construction Environmental Management Plan • Specification 301 Vegetation Clearing and

Demolition • Environment Measurement and Evaluation

Checklist (for release of HOLD POINTS) Contract Tender Documents available at https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/technical-commercial/tender-preparation/

Not Applicable

Dieback Management

Refer to Table 2: Dieback PEMR

• Specification 204 Environmental Management • Construction Environmental Management Plan Contract Tender Documents available at https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/technical-commercial/tender-preparation/

Not Applicable

Erosion and Sedimentation Control

Refer to Table 3: Erosion and Sedimentation Control PEMR


Not Applicable

Fauna

Refer to Table 4: Fauna PEMR


Not Applicable

Machinery and Vehicle Management

Refer to Table 5: Machinery and Vehicle Management PEMR


Not Applicable

Mulch and Topsoil Management

Refer to Table 6: Mulch and Topsoil Management

• Specification 204 Environmental Management • Construction Environmental Management Plan • Specification 301 Vegetation Clearing

Not Applicable

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/technical-commercial/tender-preparation/












VMP Requirement Standard Management Action Specific Management Action

• Specification 304 Revegetation and Landscaping

Contract Tender Documents available at https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/technical-commercial/tender-preparation/

Pegging and Flagging

Refer to Table 7: Pegging and Flagging PEMR

• Specification 204 Environmental Management • Construction Environmental Management Plan • Specification 301 Vegetation Clearing and

Demolition


Not Applicable

Water Drainage Management

Refer to Table 8: Water Drainage PEMR

• Specification 204 Environmental Management • Construction Environmental Management Plan

Not Applicable

Weed Management

Refer to Table 9: Weed Management PEMR

• Specification 204 Environmental Management • Construction Environmental Management Plan


Not Applicable









Appendix A2 – Principal Environmental Management Requirements (PEMR’s) Table 1: Clearing

STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRE WORKS 1. The Contractor must prepare, implement and maintain processes to ensure that

the movement of all vehicles, plant and machinery does not occur outside of the Limits of Vegetation Clearing. This must include all turnaround areas.

2. The Contractor must minimise vegetation clearing and the area of disturbance on ground by utilising existing cleared area where possible.

DURING WORKS 1. The Contractor must report any damage to vegetation beyond the Limits of

Vegetation Clearing as an Environment Incident. 2. The Contractor must ensure Movements are confined to the Limits of Vegetation

Clearing during the works 3. The Contractor must undertake the clearing in accordance with the Fauna PEMR.

POST WORKS 1. NIL

Table 2: Dieback Management

STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRE WORKS 1. Contractor’s Pre-starts must detail the requirements from the DMP/HMP, where

relevant, dieback management areas and the requirements of each area, maps of infested and uninfected locations, and hygiene requirements

2. Where relevant a copy of the DMP/HMP must be onsite. This plan will include maps of management areas and obligatory control actions

3. Prescribe where vehicles, machinery and plant are going to be stored/parked during the works.

4. Use the Plant, Vehicle and Equipment Hygiene Checklist or equivalent Hygiene form to check that all machinery and vehicles are clean on entry (i.e. free of soil and vegetation).

DURING WORKS

1. If required, locations of dieback infested or dieback free areas and hygiene control locations marked on site in accordance with contract HMP or DMP.

2. Hygiene works to be undertaken as per the HMP or DMP, where required. 3. Restrict movement of machines and other vehicles to the Limits of Vegetation

Clearing. 4. Ensure no known weed affected soil, mulch, fill or other material is brought into the

Limits of Vegetation Clearing. 5. Ensure cleared materials are stockpiled or disposed at waste at the locations

approved by the Superintendent.



POST WORKS 1. Record that the Project was undertaken in dry soil conditions (unless an approved

DMP authorises otherwise). 2. Use the Plant, Vehicle and Equipment Hygiene Checklist to check that all

machinery and vehicles are clean on exit (i.e. free of soil and vegetation).

Table 3: Erosion and Sedimentation Control

STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRE WORKS 1. The Contractor must develop, implement and maintain processes and procedures

to ensure that: • The Contractor is responsive to and addresses incidents of erosion and

sedimentation within and adjacent to the work areas. • Prevent water and wind soil erosion within and adjacent to the works areas. • Prevent the sedimentation and siltation of watercourses located within and

adjacent to the works area. • Ensure that sedimentation and siltation of drainage lines due to the removal of

riparian vegetation is avoided, minimised and mitigated. • Ensure that loose surfaces and recently cleared areas are protected from

wind and soil erosion. • Minimise exposed soil working surfaces or protect them from stormwater

erosion. • Ensure material such as gravel, crushed rock and excavated material is

stockpiled away from drainage paths and covered to prevent erosion. • Ensure that water quality monitoring is undertaken when turbidity and

sedimentation is an issue.

DURING WORKS 1. Implement, monitor and adhere to the sedimentation and erosion processes

developed to address the requirements in the pre-works.

POST WORKS 1. If required, the Contractor must continue to monitor water quality until the

turbidity/sedimentation dissipates. 2. The Contractor must ensure that disturbed areas are stabilised as soon as is

practicable after construction activities are completed.

Table 4: Fauna

STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRE WORKS 1. The Contractor must ensure that fauna management requirements are

communicated to the crew undertaking the clearing works during the induction and pre-start meeting.



2. Where active nests, burrows or dens are identified, works must not proceed until the Contractor obtains the Superintendents approval of the management of active nests, burrows or dens adheres to the Superintendents advice.

DURING WORKS 1. The Contractor must undertake the clearing in the following manner to allow

fauna to move out of the clearing area; i. Prior to the clearing activities commencing, use machinery to tap large trees with habitat hollows to encourage any animals evacuate. ii. Undertake the clearing in one direction and towards areas of native vegetation to allow the animals to escape to adjacent habitat.

2. The Contractor must ensure that all onsite personnel undertake visual monitoring and are vigilant to the presence of fauna. Any sightings of fauna, including injury or fatality, must be reported as an Environmental Incident.

3. The Contractor must ensure that; i. No pets, traps or firearms are brought into the Project area. ii. Fauna are not fed iii. Fauna are not intentionally harmed or killed iv. Fauna that venture into the work area are encouraged to leave in a manner that does not harm the animal or operator (loud noise, slowly approaching in a vehicle etc.)

4. The Contractor must ensure that in the event that sick, injured or orphaned native wildlife are located on the Project site, the WILDCARE Helpline ((08) 9474 9055) will be contacted for assistance. The Contractor must maintain records of any animal taken to a wildlife carer.

POST WORKS 1. The Contractor must provide any records of fauna impact to the Superintendent.

Table 5: Machinery and Vehicle Management

STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRE WORKS 1. The Contractor must ensure that all areas associated with the storage, parking,

servicing, wash down and refuelling of all vehicles, plant and machinery is located within the Limits of Clearing and approved by the Superintendent.

2. The Contractor must ensure that all vehicles, machinery and plant are clean on entry (i.e. free of all soil and vegetation material) and comply with the requirements of 204.B.32.

3. The Contractor must ensure that vehicle servicing and refuelling will be undertaken at designated areas approved by the Superintendent.

4. The Contractor must ensure that all staff suitably qualified and competent to undertake works, especially refuelling activities.

5.

DURING WORKS

1. The Contractor must maintain records of checking all vehicles, machinery and plant are clean on entry.



POST WORKS

Table 6: Mulch and Topsoil Management

STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRE WORKS 1. The Contractor must ensure that the movement of soil and vegetation is only

undertaken in dry conditions unless otherwise approved and / or directed by the Superintendent.

2. The Contractor must ensure that poor quality topsoil and mulched vegetation does not contaminate the good quality topsoil and vegetation.

DURING WORKS 1. The Contractor must ensure that all machinery used in the removal of weed-

infested topsoil must be cleaned down before and between operations to prevent the introduction and spread of weeds.

2. The Contractor must ensure the movement of large equipment over topsoil materials is avoided to minimise compaction.

3. The Contractor must ensure that Dieback and weed infected topsoil and mulch vegetation must be handled separately to minimise the risk of spreading dieback and weed species across the site and stockpiles.

4. The Contractor must ensure that stockpiling operations must occur in a manner to ensure that the properties of the topsoil are not degraded and the topsoil made unsuitable for use in revegetation.

POST WORKS

Table 7: Pegging and Flagging

STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 1. Pegging must be done in accordance with the requirements detailed in Specification

301. 2. The Contractor must clearly communicate, either at the pre-start meeting or equivalent,

to the crew undertaking the clearing works, through clear maps and other additional means, what the Pegging represents.

DURING WORKS 1. The Contractor must peg the Limits of Clearing by PINK flagging tape. 2. The Contractor peg/demarcate vegetation proposed to be retained is demarcated by

WHITE flagging tape. 3. The Contractor must ensure that the vegetation demarcated with PINK and WHITE

flagging tape is consistent with the approved clearing areas.

POST WORKS 1. The Contractor remove and dispose of appropriately any demarcation, pegging or

flagging once Project works are completed.



Table 8: Water Drainage Management

STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRE WORKS 1. Use pollution control and containment strategies for Project activities in Public

Drinking Water Source Areas (PDWSAs) / Underground Water Pollution Control Areas (UWPCAs) and liaise with the DWER where necessary

DURING WORKS

1. Existing natural drainage paths and channels along the road or the vicinity of the Project area will not be unnecessarily blocked or restricted.

2. Temporary drainage systems may be installed to carry surface water away from the areas where excavation and foundation construction work is taking place or from any other area where the accumulation of water could cause delay or damage to the work.

3. Maintain these drainage systems in proper working order at all times. 4. Runoff from disturbed areas must be managed to minimise adverse impacts on

surrounding vegetation, watercourses and properties. 5. Booms and silt fences must be used when working over or adjacent to areas of

surface water in order to protect the quality of surface water from construction impacts.

POST WORKS 1. Water quality monitoring to be undertaken (if turbidity/ sedimentation is an issue). 2. Prior to backfilling the completed pipe work certify that the entire system is flushed

clean and tested 3. Disturbed areas will be stabilised soon after construction activities are completed. 4. Culvert and drainage structures will be free of all grass, weeds, silt and debris

Table 9: Weed Management STANDARD MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS PRE WORKS 1. The Contractor must remove or kill any weeds growing in Project area that are likely to

spread and result in environmental harm to adjacent areas of native vegetation that are in good or better condition.

2. The Contractor must develop, implement and maintain procedures to identify and control declared and invasive weed species within the Contract areas, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent.

3. The Contractor must prepare a weed control program, for nominated weed species for control and disposal, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent.

4. The Contractor must undertake weed management in Stockpiles as directed by the Superintendent.

5. Contractor’s Pre-starts must detail the hygiene requirements from the HMP.

DURING WORKS 1. The Contractor must implement the weed control procedures and management plan

and record and manage records of its implementation.



2. The Contractor must treat nominated weed infestations as many times as necessary to control and eradicate the weed species in accordance with the approved weed control program

3. The contractor must ensure that no known weed, pest or diseased affected soil, mulch, fill or other material is brought into the Site.

POST WORKS

1. The relevant Vegetation Maintenance Record Sheets available at: https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Contracting/Pages/ReportingForms.aspx must be completed and sent to the Superintendent.

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Documents/Vegetation%20Maintenance%20Record%20Sheets.RCN-D17%5E23695328.XLSX

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Contracting/Pages/ReportingForms.aspx

https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BuildingRoads/Contracting/Pages/ReportingForms.aspx