Docstoc

BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY

Document Sample
BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY Powered By Docstoc
					BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY
         (Final Report)




Western Australian Land Authority
          (LandCorp)




        November 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Area (HVWRA) consists of
approximately 1,422ha of land located midway between Fremantle and
Rockingham, in the south-west corridor of the Perth Metropolitan Region (study
area).

The Fremantle-Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy (FRIARS) identified
the Fremantle-Rockingham region, focusing on the Hope Valley-Wattleup area,
as the best location for future development of industrial land within the Perth
Metropolitan Region. This judgment was based on numerous studies and the
long-term advantages of the area, including integration with existing industry,
infrastructure accessibility, and strong inter-regional links.          Furthermore,
implementation of the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project (HVWRP)
will result in a land use solution to the environmental issues that face the HVWRA
and the region as a whole.

An outcome of the EPA’s assessment (Bulletin 1133) of the HVWRP Master Plan
and subsequent Minister for the Environment’s Statement No.667 was the
requirement to develop a Biodiversity Strategy for the study area.

In summary, the Ministerial Condition requires the preparation of a Biodiversity
Strategy which shall:

    •   identify key natural areas and ecological linkages between the western
        and eastern chain of the Beeliar Regional Park;
    •   identify processes and policies to ensure integration of biodiversity
        consideration at subsequent stages of planning;
    •   include biological site studies to determine key natural areas and
        ecological linkages;
    •   provide for the protection of a significantly larger area of open space in
        the southern portion of the HVWRA;
    •   include a schedule of actions;
    •   include an implementation and monitoring program; and
    •   include a process for periodical review of the Biodiversity Strategy.

Therefore, the purpose of the Biodiversity Strategy is to provide a guiding
structure to ensure that environmentally sensitive areas are protected and
where possible enhanced through identified plans and management strategies.
The overall objective of the Biodiversity Strategy is to:

“To identify areas required for biodiversity conservation and enhancement and
propose mechanisms for their protection and management.”

Further to the desktop review of information available for the study area a
wetland boundary assessment was undertaken by RPS, a Vegetation and Flora
Survey and Condition Assessment was undertaken by Dr Arthur Weston, and a
Fauna Assessment was completed by Bamford Consulting Ecologists. Outcomes




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page i of vii
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
of the desk top review and site assessments were incorporated together to
formulate Key Natural Areas for the study area. These areas include:


•   Existing Parks and Recreation reserves identified in the Master Plan;
•   Conservation and Resource Enhancement management category wetlands
    and their associated buffers;
•   Vegetation in Very Good to Excellent Condition;
•   Remnant vegetation areas to promote linkages and fauna habitat areas;
    and
•   Vegetation connecting Conway Road Swamp, Hendry Road Swamps and
    Long Swamp.

Due to the highly fragmented and degraded nature of the remnant vegetation
within the HVWRA and a large proportion of the HVWRA being allocated to
extractive industries, the opportunity to retain areas of significant remnant
vegetation and maintain a continuous ecological link through the HVWRA is
very limited.

Section 7.0 of this strategy develops the strategic and biodiversity management
objectives and the framework and mechanisms required within the planning
process to ensure that future development within the HVWRA is guided towards
local scale implementation of the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy.

The following strategic actions have been identified to assist in the local scale
implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy:

    •   Develop a framework for the implementation, management and
        monitoring of potential areas identified for protection.
    •   Develop an Overall Landscape Plan for the HVWRA.
    •   Develop a Planning Policy with the purpose of: guiding future
        developments within 200m to 50m of Conservation Category and
        Resource Enhancement wetlands (within and adjacent to the HVWRA) to
        ensure that their activities and operations are compatible with the
        ecological values of the adjacent wetland; and assessing proposed
        developments and their compatibility with the ecological values of the
        adjacent wetland.
    •   In consultation with the Town of Kwinana and Department of Enviornment
        and Conservation (DEC), investigate options to incorporate Long Swamp
        within the Beeliar Regional Park.
    •   Review and update the HVWRP Master Plan, HVWRP Environmental
        Strategy (C2.4.3), Proposed Planning Policy 1.3 Landscaping, the HVWRP
        Planning Strategy and the guidelines provided in the Hope Valley
        Wattleup Redevelopment Area Quarry Landscape Report to reflect the
        objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy and incorporate the Strategic and
        Management Actions (where relevant) listed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this
        strategy.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page ii of vii
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
It is well recognised that the HVWRP represents a long-term commitment by the
State government to address environmental concerns within the south-west
metropolitan corridor.       The HVWRP represents part of a package of
environmental and environmental health measures to improve the quality of the
environment within this corridor. In order to meet these commitments, a cross-
agency approach to Government is required.

For each environmental component identified in Section 7.0 there are separate
actions required to ensure the long-term management and viability of the Key
Natural Areas and proposed ecological links and corridors.

Section 7.0 of the document also identifies the implementation as well as the
periodical review that will be undertaken to ensure that the objectives of the
Biodiversity Strategy are met. The ongoing implementation, progress and status
of the actions listed in the Management Strategy will be reviewed as part of the
yearly consolidation review for the HVWRP Master Plan.

Following this review, an annual report will be prepared on the progress and
status of the actions listed in Part B of the strategy.

It should be noted that implementation of the HVWRP is also guided and
controlled by a Technical Advisory Group, which the Western Australian
Planning Commission (WAPC) and the DEC sit on. Therefore, the WAPC and
DEC also have responsibilities in guiding the implementation of the HVWRP.

As redevelopment and implementation proceeds within the HVWRA, WALA will
have particular responsibilities to ensure that the Act is carried forth. However,
redevelopment areas will be subject to a normalisation process where particular
areas no longer fall under the Act or WALAs responsibility. Any implementation
actions identified under the Strategy will only be applicable for the period that
WALA has responsibility for that area as defined under the Act.

In conclusion, implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy will lead to:

    •   management and protection of Key Natural Areas identified for
        conservation;
    •   developing primary and secondary linkages by utilising current and
        proposed rail and road corridors.
    •   the long-term protection of the western and eastern wetland chains in
        the Beeliar Regional Park;
    •   the long-term protection of the wetlands located within and adjacent
        the HVWRA;
    •   protection of a north-south and east-west ecological link between Long
        Swamp, Hendy Road Swamp (east) and Conway Road Swamp.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page iii of vii
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
                                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                                                           Page
                                                                                                                                            No
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................I
1.0        INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
   1.1     LOCATION ..........................................................................................................................1
   1.2     PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................1
   1.3     PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THE BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY .......................................................2
      1.3.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................2
      1.3.2 Objective....................................................................................................................3
   1.4     BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY APPROVAL PROCESS ........................................................................3
   1.5     BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY LINK WITH WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ........................................5
2.0        HOPE VALLEY WATTLEUP REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ...................................................6
   2.1         INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................6
   2.2         MASTER PLAN .....................................................................................................................7
   2.3         PLANNING STRATEGY .........................................................................................................10
   2.4         PRECINCTS ........................................................................................................................10
   2.5         STRUCTURE PLAN ...............................................................................................................10
   2.6         SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................11
   2.7         PLANNING POLICIES AND DESIGN GUIDELINES .....................................................................11
   2.8         RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY AND HVWRP PLANNING MECHANISMS .........11
3.0        STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION....................................................................................13
   3.1     STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP .................................................................................................13
      3.1.1 Issues Raised During Stakeholder Workshop .......................................................13
      3.1.2 Stakeholder Workship Outcomes .........................................................................13
   3.2     ONGOING CONSULTATION ................................................................................................14
4.0        RELEVANT POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................15
   4.1     LOCAL GOVERNMENT BIODIVERSITY PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN
   REGION 15
      4.1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................15
      4.1.2 Implications ..............................................................................................................15
   4.2     DRAFT BUSHLAND POLICY FOR THE PERTH METROPOLITAN REGION STATEMENT OF PLANNING
   POLICY 2.8 ....................................................................................................................................16
      4.2.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................16
      4.2.2 Implications ..............................................................................................................16
   4.3     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (SWAN COASTAL PLAIN LAKES) POLICY 1992 ........................17
      4.3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................17
      4.3.2 Implications ..............................................................................................................17
   4.4     WRC WETLANDS POSITION STATEMENT ...............................................................................17
      4.4.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................17
      4.4.2 Implications ..............................................................................................................18
   4.5     EPA WETLANDS POSITION STATEMENT .................................................................................18
      4.5.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................18
      4.5.2 Implications ..............................................................................................................19
   4.6     WETLAND CONSERVATION POLICY FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA ................................................19
      4.6.1 Implications ..............................................................................................................19
   4.7     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (PEEL INLET–HARVEY ESTUARY) POLICY 1992 .........................20
      4.7.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................20
      4.7.2 Implications ..............................................................................................................20




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                                                  Page iv of vii
Biodiversity Strategy                                          Revision        Final Report
Prepared by RPS                                                Date            November 2007
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
                                                                                                                                        Page
                                                                                                                                         No
5.0        EXISTING ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................21
   5.1     CLIMATE ...........................................................................................................................21
   5.2     GEOMORPHOLOGY, SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY ....................................................................21
   5.3     GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................22
      5.3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................22
      5.3.2 Groundwater Catchments for Wetlands ............................................................22
      5.3.3 Threats to Groundwater.........................................................................................23
      5.3.4 Implications ..............................................................................................................24
   5.4     SURFACE WATER AND WETLANDS .......................................................................................25
      5.4.1 Surface Water Overview........................................................................................25
      5.4.2 Wetland Overview ..................................................................................................25
      5.4.3 Wetland Boundary Assessment.............................................................................27
      5.4.4 Threats to Surface Water and Wetlands .............................................................28
      5.4.5 Wetland Buffers .......................................................................................................28
      5.4.6 Implications ..............................................................................................................29
   5.5     VEGETATION AND FLORA ...................................................................................................29
      5.5.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................29
      5.5.2 Bush Forever Sites ....................................................................................................30
      5.5.3 Vegetation and Flora Assessment........................................................................30
      5.5.4 Vegetation Complexes..........................................................................................31
      5.5.5 Vegetation Units......................................................................................................31
      5.5.6 Floristic Community Types and Threatened Ecological Communities ...........33
      5.5.7 Significant Flora .......................................................................................................34
      5.5.8 Significant Remnant Vegetation ..........................................................................34
      5.5.9 Implications ..............................................................................................................34
   5.6     FAUNA..............................................................................................................................35
      5.6.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................35
      5.6.2 Fauna Conservation Significance ........................................................................35
      5.6.3 Fauna Assessment...................................................................................................37
      5.6.4 Amphibians ..............................................................................................................37
      5.6.5 Reptiles......................................................................................................................38
      5.6.6 Birds ...........................................................................................................................38
      5.6.7 Mammals..................................................................................................................40
      5.6.8 Invertebrates............................................................................................................42
      5.6.9 Patterns of Fauna Persistence in the Urban Environment.................................43
      5.6.10    Implications..........................................................................................................44
6.0        KEY NATURAL AREAS AND ECOLOGICAL LINKAGES AND CORRIDORS....................45
   6.1     KEY NATURAL AREAS .........................................................................................................45
      6.1.1 Identifying Key Natural Areas................................................................................45
      6.1.2 Constraints to Identifying Key Natural Areas ......................................................45
      6.1.3 Protection and Maintenance of Key Natural Areas .........................................46
      6.1.4 Reserve Viability ......................................................................................................48
      6.1.5 Assessment and Retention of Key Natural Areas...............................................49
      6.1.6 Design Guidelines....................................................................................................49
      6.1.7 Wetland and Bushland Management Plans ......................................................50
      6.1.8 Future Development near Wetlands ...................................................................50
      6.1.9 Stormwater Management and Wetland Water Requirements.......................52




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                                                Page v of vii
Biodiversity Strategy                                        Revision        Final Report
Prepared by RPS                                              Date            November 2007
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
                                                                                                                                        Page
                                                                                                                                         No
  6.2     ECOLOGICAL LINKAGES AND CORRIDORS...........................................................................53
     6.2.1 Identifying Ecological Linkages and Corridors for the HVWRA........................53
     6.2.2 Design Principles for Verge Planting along Corridors ........................................55
     6.2.3 Landscaping ............................................................................................................55
7.0        MANAGEMENT STRATEGY............................................................................................57
   7.1     OUTLINE............................................................................................................................57
      7.1.1 Overarching Objective ..........................................................................................57
      7.1.2 Strategic Biodiversity Objective and Actions .....................................................57
      7.1.3 Biodiversity Management Objectives and Actions ...........................................58
      7.1.4 Implementation.......................................................................................................58
      7.1.5 Periodical Review and Audit.................................................................................59
      7.1.6 Roles and Responsibilities.......................................................................................59
   7.2     STRATEGIC ACTIONS ..........................................................................................................60
   7.3     MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ....................................................................................................63
      7.3.1 Wetlands...................................................................................................................63
      7.3.2 Significant Remnant Vegetation ..........................................................................66
      7.3.3 Ecological Linkages and Corridors.......................................................................68
8.0        CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................69
9.0        REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................70




                                                          LIST OF TABLES

 Table                                                                                                                               Page
  No.                                                                                                                                 No.

      1                    Summary of the Characteristics of Relevant Wetlands                                                          26

      2                    Viability of Reserve Sizes                                                                                   48


      3                    Examples of Compatible and Incompatible Land Uses                                                            51
                           within 200m Zone of Influence for Adjacent Wetlands




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                                                Page vi of vii
Biodiversity Strategy                                        Revision        Final Report
Prepared by RPS                                              Date            November 2007
                                             LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
  No.

   1                 Site Location

   2                 Geomorphology and Topography

   3                 Geology

   4                 Groundwater Levels and Flow

   5                 Areas and Sources of Potential Contamination

   6                 Vulnerability of Groundwater Contamination

   7                 Wetlands

   8                 Wetlands and Wetland Buffers

   9                 Bush Forever Sites and Regional Linkages

   10                Vegetation Units and Condition

   11                Vegetation Units and Condition in and near Wetland Areas

   12                Key Natural Areas and Linkages


   13                Extractive Industries within HVWRA


   14                Land Ownership within HVWRA


                                        LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A           Ministerial Statement No. 667

Appendix B           Section 7 and Maps of HVWRP Master Plan

Appendix C           Proposed Wetland Boundary Changes

Appendix D           Vegetation and Flora Assessment (Weston, 2005)

Appendix E           Fauna Assessment Report (Bamford, 2005)



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                             Page vii of vii
Biodiversity Strategy                          Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                                Date       November 2007
1.0     INTRODUCTION


1.1     Location

The Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Area (HVWRA) consists of
approximately 1,422ha of land located midway between Fremantle and
Rockingham, in the south-west corridor of the Perth Metropolitan Region (Figure
1). The closest point is located approximately 40km south of the Perth Central
Business District.

The existing Wattleup town site is centrally located within the HVWRA, with the
Hope Valley townsite located at the southern end of the HVWRA. The subject
land borders Coogee and Beeliar to the north, Mandogalup to the east, Postans
and Kwinana Beach to the south, and Naval Base and Henderson to the west.

The northern half of the HVWRA is located within the City of Cockburn, and the
southern half is located within the Town of Kwinana.

The HVWRA is situated adjacent to the Beeliar Regional Park, with areas
abutting the study site for most of its length (north-south) on the west, and lie
close to the boundary on the east. Long Swamp within the HVWRA is being
considered for protection within the Beeliar Regional Park, but remains partly in
private ownership.

The Beeliar Regional Park protects and conserves the wetlands and associated
vegetation and fauna assemblages of the Cockburn Wetlands. Closest to the
study site are the Brownman Swamp and Lake Mt Brown immediately to the
west, and Thomsons Lake and Banganup Lake to the east (Figure 1). Much of
the Beeliar Regional Park has high conservation value due to its rich diversity
and complexity of ecosystems which are limited in distribution across the Swan
Coastal Plain (APP, 2003).

In addition to these conservation areas, there is vegetation recognised in Bush
Forever as being of regional significance abutting the HVWRA in the east, with
some other Bush Forever sites located close to the boundaries of the study area.



1.2     Project Background

The Western Australian Land Authority (LandCorp) prepared the Hope Valley-
Wattleup Redevelopment Project (HVWRP) Master Plan in accordance with
Hope Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Act 2000.

The HVWRP Master Plan was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority
(EPA) by LandCorp in February, 2003 in accordance with Section 18 of the Hope
Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Act 2000. The EPA set the level of assessment
at “Assessed: Environmental Review Required” in May, 2003. Instructions for the




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 1 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
preparation of the Environmental Review were subsequently released by the
EPA and an Environmental Review was prepared to satisfy and address these
instructions.

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) reported its advice and
recommendations in Bulletin 1133 to the Minister for the Environment on the
environmental issues relevant to the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment
Project in May, 2004. The EPA concluded that it is unlikely that the EPA’s
objectives would be compromised following implementation of the HVWRP
Master Plan, provided that the conditions recommended by the EPA were
incorporated into the HVWRP Master Plan.

Following a two week appeal period, the Minister for the Environment received
a total of 16 appeals relating to the EPA’s report and recommendations in
Bulletin 1133. The Minister for the Environment determined these appeals in
November 2004 and issued Ministerial Statement No.667.

The Ministerial Statement identifies the requirement to prepare a Biodiversity
Strategy and Water Management Strategy for the Redevelopment Area prior to
finalisation of any precinct structure plan.



1.3     Purpose and Structure of the Biodiversity Strategy


1.3.1 Overview

The purpose of the Biodiversity Strategy is to provide a guiding structure to
ensure that environmentally sensitive areas are protected and where possible
enhanced through identified plans and management strategies.                  The
Biodiversity Strategy has been developed in accordance with Condition 2 of
Ministerial Statement No.667, which is provided as Appendix A to this report, and
incorporates the biodiversity principles identified in the State Sustainability
Strategy (Government of Western Australia, 2003).

Land use with the HVWRA is diverse, and includes. wetland areas, remnant
bushland, residential development, extractive industries in the form of sand and
limestone operations, landfill sites, nurseries, flower and vegetable market
gardens and future industrial development.

The Biodiversity Strategy provides background information regarding fauna,
fauna habitat, flora, vegetation and related biophysical attributes and a clear
management direction regarding the protection of natural areas from future
development.

For the purposes of this strategy, Biodiversity means:

“the variety of life forms, the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, the
genes they contain, the ecological functions they perform and the ecosystems



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 2 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
they form. It is usually considered at three levels: ecosystem diversity, species
diversity and genetic diversity” (EPA, 2004a).

The Biodiversity Strategy focuses on ecosystem diversity, which is defined as the
variety of habitats, biotic communities and ecological processes (CALM, 2004a).

1.3.2 Objective

As part of a Stakeholder Workshop undertaken in February, 2004 (further detail
on this workshop is provided in Section 3.0 of this report), an overarching
objective for the Biodiversity Strategy was proposed for consideration by the
stakeholders. This was revised and the following objective was agreed to by the
stakeholders.

“To identify areas required for biodiversity conservation and enhancement and
propose mechanisms for their protection and management.”



1.4     Biodiversity Strategy Approval Process

The following flowchart (overleaf) highlights the key components of the
Biodiversity Strategy and the steps that this study has involved to date, and the
steps to finalisation and adoption.

A major component to the Biodiversity Strategy is that it is developed in
consultation with major stakeholders including the Department for Planning and
Infrastructure, (then) Department of Environment (now Department of
Environment and Conservation and Department of Water), (then) the
Department for Conservation (now the Department of Environment and
Conservation) and Land Management, the Town of Kwinana and the City of
Cockburn. Stakeholder consultation is discussed further in Section 3.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 3 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
                           Develop Methodology and Objective




             Vegetation &                     Wetland               Fauna
           Flora Assessment                  Assessment           Assessment




                      Identify areas for biodiversity conservation
                                   and enhancement




                           Prepare Draft Biodiversity Strategy




                 WALA submits Draft Biodiversity Strategy to WAPC




                              WALA seeks agency comments




                              WALA reports to WAPC and
                       advertises Biodiversity Strategy for public
                                      submissions



                    WALA reviews public submissions and submits
                     Final Draft of Biodiversity Strategy to WAPC




                          WAPC endorses Biodiversity Strategy




                        Biodiversity Strategy adopted as part of
                             Master Plan Planning Strategy




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                             Page 4 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                          Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                                Date       November 2007
1.5       Biodiversity Strategy Link with Water Management Strategy

Further to Section 1.2, and as a requirement of the Ministerial Statement for the
HVWRP, a Water Management Strategy is required to be developed in
association with the Biodiversity Strategy for the HVWRA.

A Water Management Strategy has been developed for the HVWRA and should
be read in conjunction with the Biodiversity Strategy. The Water Management
Strategy includes the following sections:

      •   environmental values and beneficial uses of the water resources and
          water-related issues;
      •   strategic and local water management objectives;
      •   strategies, initiatives and processes applying to water management;
      •   summary of technical information sources relevant to the hydrology;
      •   strategy to manage major flooding;
      •   implementation and monitoring program; and
      •   process for periodical review of the WMS.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 5 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
2.0       HOPE VALLEY WATTLEUP REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT


2.1       Introduction

The Fremantle-Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Strategy (FRIARS) identified
the Fremantle-Rockingham region, focusing on the Hope Valley-Wattleup area,
as the best location for future development of industrial land within the Perth
Metropolitan Region. This judgment was based on numerous studies and the
long-term advantages of the area, including integration with existing industry,
infrastructure accessibility, and strong inter-regional links.

Furthermore, implementation of the HVWRP will result in a land use solution to
the environmental issues that face the HVWRA and the region as a whole.

To facilitate this integrated development, the Hope Valley Wattleup
Redevelopment Act 2000 provides for a number of mechanisms to facilitate
development in the area, namely:

      •   preparation and approval of a Master Plan;
      •   development control mechanisms; and
      •   the functions of the Responsible Authority.

Redevelopment of the HVWRA over the next 30 years will allow transition of the
existing land uses within the area to more compatible uses.

The relevant mechanisms identified by the Act and Master Plan are summarised
below (please note, this diagram should be read in conjunction with the Act
and Master Plan to clarify the relationship between mechanisms):



                                               Hope Valley Wattleup
                                              Redevelopment Act 2000


              Master Plan Map
                                             Master Plan December 2004
                 Precincts




                Planning Strategy               Structure Plans           Planning Policies



                                               Design Guidelines
                                                 and Policies




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                             Page 6 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                          Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                                Date       November 2007
2.2      Master Plan

The Master Plan sets out the planning framework for redevelopment in the area
and is made pursuant to the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Act 2000. It
is a key mechanism in planning, promoting and coordinating the development
and redevelopment of land in the area.

The Master Plan provides a long-term framework for the development of a
regional industrial location of strategic importance and provides the basis for
development control within the project area.

The purpose of the Master Pan is to identify the aims and intentions for the
Redevelopment Area; set aside land reserved for public purposes; define
precincts; control and guide land use and development; set out procedures for
the assessment and determination of planning applications; make provision for
the administration and enforcement of the Master Plan and address other
matters set out in the First Schedule to the Town Planning and Development Act
1928.

The aims of the Master Plan are to -

  (a)  protect the Kwinana Industrial Area;
  (b)  protect significant heritage in the Redevelopment Area;
  (c)  conserve areas of local and regional environmental significance;
  (d)  minimize sources of pollution;
  (e)  distribute the cost of common infrastructure;
   (f) ensure the development and use of land within the Redevelopment Area
       comply with accepted standards and practices;
  (g) ensure that future development and use of land within the
       Redevelopment Area occur in a proper and orderly way;
  (h) promote sustainable development;
   (i) facilitate development generally in accordance with the Master Plan
       Report and Planning Strategy.

Section 7 of the Hope Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Project (HVWRP) Master
Plan (see Appendix B) contains a number of stringent environmental provisions
which relate to the protection and proper management of the natural and
social environment within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. This is
supported by Section 7.1 of the Master Plan which provides a statement of
environmental intent for any future development within the HVWRA.

It should be noted that the environmental provisions within Section 7 of the
Master Plan were developed and negotiated by the Environmental Impact
Assessment Division of the (then) Department of Environmental Protection.
Subsequently, the environmental provisions are very stringent in nature and are
unlike any scheme provisions within Western Australia.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 7 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Section 7.2 of the Master Plan sets out the environmental objectives and states
the following.

Land in the Redevelopment Area is intended to be developed and managed f
in such a manner as to:

      (a) prevent any potential adverse environmental impacts, including those
          related to health and amenity, extending beyond the Redevelopment
          Area;
      (b) facilitate the establishment of a transitional buffer between the relevant
          residential and heavy industrial areas;
      (c) support the protection of sensitive environments and areas of
          environmental significance within and outside the Redevelopment
          Area, including Beeliar Wetlands, Cockburn Sound, Long Swamp and
          Bush Forever sites;
      (d) ensure that the aquifer is managed in a sustainable manner and that
          groundwater quality is protected and improved;
      (e) provide for on-site retention and infiltration of uncontaminated storm-
          water;
      (f) prevent accidental loss or release of effluent or waste from premises;
      (g) appropriately store, transport and use all dangerous and hazardous
          goods in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and
          regulatory requirements;
      (h) protect the water quality of Cockburn Sound by ensuring that no
          inappropriate level of nutrient load or other contamination leaves the
          Redevelopment Area and enters the Sound;
      (i) dispose of sewage and compatible wastes by connecting to a
          comprehensive sewerage system, or utilising an accepted alternative
          treatment system only when no comprehensive sewerage system is
          available;
      (j) ensure no significant net increase of emissions, such as noise, dust,
          particulates, odour, other air emissions, litter or light, occur in or extend
          beyond the Redevelopment Area;
      (k) ensure that the generation or release of any emissions is kept within
          acceptable health levels;
      (l) maintain and/or enhance linkages between fauna habitats and
          vegetation communities - such as remnant vegetation, reserves and
          wetlands - to facilitate connectivity, accessibility and interaction of
          species;
      (m) implement and support environmental best practice;
      (n) prevent the contamination of soil and water that exceeds allowable
          ecological or health levels;
      (o) prevent contaminated soil or water interacting with and entering
          surface or groundwater flows and extending beyond the
          Redevelopment Area boundary;
      (p) minimise the impact of surface runoff so as to protect and maintain the
          integrity, functions and environmental values of natural catchments,
          hydrological systems and wetlands, within and adjacent to the
          Redevelopment Area;




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 8 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
        (q) prevent unacceptable levels of individual, societal or environmental
            risk;
        (r) protect, maintain and enhance air quality;
        (s) promote energy-efficient practices and processes;
        (t) minimise land use incompatibility; and
        (u) optimise development potential in an environmentally acceptable
            way.

To achieve these objectives Section 7.3 (Environmental Development
Requirements) of Master Plan contains specific provisions which address the
following environmental issues as they relate to land use and development:

    •    Site Contamination (Section 7.3.1)
    •    Water Resource Management (Section 7.3.2)
    •    Wetlands (Section 7.3.3)
    •    Air Quality (Section 7.3.4)
    •    Noise (Section 7.3.5)
    •    Land Use Compatibility and Risk (Section 7.3.6)

Further to this, Section 7.4 of the Master Plan lists the environmental information
required to support any application within the Redevelopment Area, and
demonstrate how future development will meet the environmental provisions
and objectives of the Master Plan.

In brief, the Redevelopment of the Hope Valley Wattleup area (WALA, 2003):

    •    Will provide the basis for initiating land use change in the policy area for
         the Environmental Protection (Kwinana) (Atmospheric Wastes) Policy
         1999 and thereby removing the potential for future land use conflicts
         within the buffer area, and taking account of adjoining land uses;

    •    Will protect, consolidate and support the Kwinana Industrial Area (KIA)
         through the development of appropriate industrial and related uses
         between the KIA and adjacent areas;

    •    Will provide for a diversity of mutually advantageous industrial land uses in
         a regional setting containing similar uses, meeting demand in a location
         where existing infrastructure can be upgraded efficiently;

    •    Will provide significant employment opportunities over time, within the
         developing metropolitan South-West Corridor and adjoining regions; and

    •    Will require the progressive removal of uses inappropriate to the intended
         development of the location for industrial purposes, most notably
         residential land use.

The timing for redevelopment is dependent on a number of independent
external factors, including provision of services, timing of land acquisition or
“take-up rates”, existing extractive mineral licences, topography etc. However,




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 9 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
LandCorp has suggested that redevelopment is expected to be over the period
of 30 years or more.



2.3     Planning Strategy

The Master Plan refers to the Planning Strategy (Part 2 - Planning Strategy,
Polices and Design Guidelines framework). The Planning Strategy describes the
direction for land use planning for the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment
Area (HVWRA).

Provisions of the Master Plan will prevail over the Planning Strategy where there is
inconsistency.



2.4     Precincts

The HVWRA is divided into 14 precincts (Figure 1) which are shown on the Master
Plan Map.

The Planning Strategy outlines the intent of these distinct precincts each of
which provides for development supporting the project’s objectives and builds
an integrated industrial development for the long-term.

The precincts provide greater clarification in terms of the range of uses
envisaged for the area. The precincts are supported by a precinct table within
the Master Plan, which identifies the uses permitted in the Redevelopment Area
in the various precincts.



2.5     Structure Plan

Each precinct identified in the Master Plan requires a structure plan.

The Structure Planning process includes detailed site and context analysis as well
as how the planning for the structure plan area is to be integrated with the
surrounding land, ensuring a comprehensive and integrated strategic
approach.

The Structure Plans are likely to show street block layouts, transportation
corridors, open space and parklands and the pattern and disposition of land
uses.    The Structure Plans will also identify conservation and environmental
values and sites and features of Aboriginal and European heritage value.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 10 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
2.6      Subdivision and Development

Suitable lot size will be informed by factors including topography, environmental
constraints, infrastructure, relationship with adjoining land uses and the range of
proposed industrial activity.

All development within the HVWRA requires the prior approval of the WAPC. A
person must not commence or carry out any development without first having
applied for and obtained planning approval from the WAPC. The Master Plan
also provides guidance in terms of applications for planning approval and the
procedure for dealing with applications, enforcement and administration.



2.7      Planning Policies and Design Guidelines

Prior to development, each precinct will be comprehensively 'structure planned'
with associated planning policies and design guidelines prepared to ensure the
ultimate sustainability and success of the HVWRA.

The WAPC is to have due regard to the provisions of a Planning Policy and or
Design Guideline and objectives before making its determination.



2.8      Relationship between Biodiversity Strategy and HVWRP Planning
         Mechanisms

The Biodiversity Strategy develops the biodiversity management objectives and
actions which are to be applied to guide future development towards the local
scale implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy for the following areas:

•     Wetlands
•     Significant Remnant Vegetation
•     Ecological Linkages and Corridors

The Biodiversity Strategy identifies the strategic and local biodiversity
management objectives, actions and implementation mechanisms as the basis
for more detailed site-specific investigations and assessments at the precinct
planning, subdivision and development stages.

The relevant mechanisms identified by the Act and Master Plan as well as the
Biodiversity Strategy’s relationship to these planning mechanisms summarised
below (please note, this diagram should be read in conjunction with the Act
and Master Plan to clarify the relationship between mechanisms):




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 11 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
                                                                Biodiversity                       Wetland Planning Policy
        Biodiversity Strategy                                Planning Policy 1.9                    (Section 7.2, Action 4)



             Overall Landscape Plan:
               Ecological Linkages                       Precinct Structure
              (Section 7.2, Action 5)                     Planning Stage


Provide for Key Natural Areas (incl.                 Provide for Ecological Linkages        Provide for protection of CCW and
wetlands and buffers) to be protected:               identified in Overall Landscape        REW and associated buffer within and
                                                     Plan (Section 7.3.3, Action 1):        adjacent to HVWRA (Section 7.3.1,
•      Assessment to determine viability,                                                   Action 1):
       management, final boundary and                •    Design Guidelines to
       design of Key Natural Area (Section                provide future protection and     •    Design Guidelines for constructing
       7.3.2, Action 1).                                  maintenance of proposed                and operating near wetlands
•      Public Open Space (POS) or                         linkages and corridors                 (Section 7.3.1, Action 5).
       reservation (Section 7.3.2, Action 2).             (Section 7.3.3, Action 2)         •    Design Guidelines to minimise
•      Design Guidelines to provide future           •    Incorporate fauna                      impacts of surface run-off near
       protection and maintenance of                      underpasses for new                    wetlands(Section 7.3.1, Actions 6
       proposed reserve (Section 7.3.2,                   transport routes intersecting          and 7).
       Action 3).                                         proposed linkages (Section        •    Identify requirement for Wetland
•      Identify requirement for Bushland                  7.3.3, Action 4).                      Management Plan (Section 7.3.1,
       Management Plan (Section 7.3.2,                                                           Action 2).
       Action 4).
•      Address translocation of Quenda, if
       required (Section 7.3.2, Action 5).




                                                             Precinct
                                                         Subdivision Stage



      Provide POS or reservation                Bushland                           Wetland                Translocation of Quenda
         for Key Natural Areas             Management Plan                   Management Plan              (if required) imposed as
    (including wetlands & buffers)       (Section 7.3.2, Action 4)         (Section 7.3.1, Action 2)        subdivision condition
       (Section 7.3.2, Action 2)                                                                          (Section 7.3.2, Action 5)




                                                         Development Stage


          Individual Industry:                                                New Transport Networks:
          •    Assessment to ensure future development                        •   Future construction of transport networks to
               within 200m of wetlands (Wetlands Planning                         have regard for WRC (2002) Review of Best
               Policy) is compatible with values of adjacent                      Practice for Road Design and Construction
               wetland (Section 7.3.1, Action 3).                                 through Sensitive Wetland Environments
          •    Adjacent development to be consistent with                         (Section 7.3.1, Action 4).
               Bushland/Wetland Management Plan                               •   Endeavour to incorporate fauna underpasses
          •    Landform Restoration and Rehabilitation Plan                       in design for new transport routes which
               as condition of approval for all future extractive                 intersect proposal ecological linkages and
               industries (Section 7.3.3, Action 3).                              corridors (Section 7.3.3, Action 4).




        Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                                       Page 12 of 73
        Biodiversity Strategy                                   Revision    Final Report
        Prepared by RPS                                         Date        November 2007
3.0       STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION


3.1       Stakeholder Workshop


As discussed in Section 1.3.2, a Stakeholder Workshop was held for the HVWRP
Biodiversity Strategy in February, 2005. Stakeholder groups that attended the
Workshop were:

      •   City of Cockburn (CoC)
      •   Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI)
      •   (then) Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM)
      •   (then) Department of Environment (DoE)
      •   Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR)
      •   (then) EPA Service Unit
      •   LandCorp
      •   Water Corporation

Subsequent to the workshop, personal communications with these stakeholders
have also been undertaken. Upon completion of the Biodiversity Strategy, the
Strategy will be released for public comment, where feedback including
comments of support as well as suggested changes or additions to be
considered, will be requested.

3.1.1 Issues Raised During Stakeholder Workshop

Issues raised during the February Workshop included the following:

      •   Wetland Boundaries, buffers and management
      •   Vegetation (Threatened Ecological Communities, Declared Rare Flora)
      •   Ecological Linkages
      •   Southern Park and Recreation Area
      •   Interface with the Beeliar Regional Park and Bush Forever Sites
      •   Fauna Management
      •   Further studies
      •   Consistency with Government Policy
      •   Schedule of action, timing and responsibility (Essential Environmental
          Services, 2005)

Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this report addresses the above issues.

3.1.2 Stakeholder Workship Outcomes

The objective and process for development of the Biodiversity Strategy was
agreed by workshop attendees. A schedule for liaison, which identified points




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 13 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
of contact within each agency (Essential Environmental Services, 2005), was
also agreed.

3.2       Ongoing Consultation

A major component of the Biodiversity Strategy has been ongoing consultation
with major stakeholders including the Department for Planning and
Infrastructure, the Department of Environment and Conservation, Town of
Kwinana and City of Cockburn.

Subsequent to the stakeholder workshop, personal communications with these
stakeholders have also been undertaken.

In November 2005, the Biodiversity Strategy was referred to DPI and (then) DoE
for preliminary comment.

In February 2006 the Strategy was then referred to the City of Cockburn, Town of
Kwinana, Department of Conservation and Land Management for wider
stakeholder comment. Comments were received and the Strategy was
amended in parts to reflect some of the suggested changes.

In December 2006, the completed Biodiversity Strategy was released for public
advertising and comment. Submissions were received from the following
stakeholders:

      •   Town of Kwinana
      •   Department of Environment and Conservation
      •   Department of Industry and Resources
      •   Landform Research

Subsequently, the Biodiversity Strategy was amended to reflect some of the
suggested changes and in March 2007 the Biodiversity Strategy was lodged with
the WAPC for endorsement.

Following its review and consultation with some of the key stakeholders, the
WAPC provided its endorsement in August 2007 subject to some minor
amendments.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 14 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
4.0       RELEVANT POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS


4.1       Local Government Biodiversity Planning Guidelines for the Perth
          Metropolitan Region


4.1.1 Overview

The Perth Biodiversity Project (PBP) has developed the Local Government
Biodiversity Planning Guidelines for the Perth Metropolitan Region (2004). As part
of these guidelines Ecological Criteria to identify locally significant natural areas
(i.e. that are not included in Bush Forever) have been developed.

These criteria assist in identifying natural areas that are of greatest value for
biodiversity conservation. The ecological criteria have been designated a level
of priority, either Essential or Desirable criteria. These ecological criteria (to
identify locally significant natural areas) are an adaptation of the Bush Forever
criteria and the local significance criteria proposed in the Urban Bushland
Strategy.

Overall, the ecological criteria for local biodiversity planning are grouped under
the following themes:

      •   Representation of ecological communities.
      •   Diversity.
      •   Rarity.
      •   Maintaining ecological processes of natural systems- connectivity.
      •   Protect wetlands, streamlines and estuarine fringing vegetation and
          coastal vegetation (Perth Biodiversity Project, 2004).

4.1.2 Implications

The Biodiversity Planning Guidelines aim to achieve similar principles as the Draft
Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy
No. 2.8 (WAPC, 2004) (see following section). These guidelines are aimed to
assist Local Government in the development of Local Biodiversity Strategies.

The ecological criteria identified in the previous sub-section could therefore be
used by Local Governments as a tool to measure and assess future land
development proposals within the HVWRA to ensure that their local biodiversity
objectives and strategies are being considered and addressed by future
development within the HVWRA.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 15 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
4.2       Draft Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of
          Planning Policy 2.8

In July, 2004 the WAPC released the Draft Statement of Planning Policy No 2.8:
Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region. The aim of this policy is to
provide a statutory policy and implementation framework that will ensure
bushland protection and management issues in the Perth Metropolitan Region
(PMR) are appropriately addressed and integrated with broader land use
planning and decision-making, to secure long-term protection of biodiversity
and associated environmental values.

4.2.1 Overview

The policy recognises the protection and management of significant bushland
areas which have been identified for protection through endorsed strategy as a
fundamental consideration in the planning process. The policy also supports the
preparation of local bushland protection strategies by all local governments in
the PMR to enable the identification of locally significant bushland sites for
protection and management outside Bush Forever.

The policy applies to all bushland areas within the PMR, including any proposal or
decision that is likely to have an adverse impact on regionally significant
bushland within Bush Forever protection area and all areas of native vegetation
(including private land) outside Bush Forever within the PMR.

Each planning proposal should be considered on its merits with particular regard
to the presumption against clearing of bushland containing:

      •   Threatened Ecological Communities and/or listed under the Environment
          Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) 1999
      •   Threatened plant communities.
      •   Declared Rare or specially protected fauna.
      •   Environmental Protection Policy (EPP) wetlands and buffer areas.
      •   Vegetation complexes where less than 10% of original extent currently
          remains.
      •   Wetland dependent vegetation.
      •   System 6 areas, DEC conservation estates, and Parks and Recreation
          reserves in the MRS outside the Swan Coastal Plain portion of the PMR.

4.2.2 Implications

The purpose of the policy is to guide and inform agencies, authorities and
landowners on bushland protection and management issues that are to be
taken into account and given effect to by the WAPC and Local Governments
when considering a planning proposal or in undertaking decision making. The
WAPC, WALA and Local Government will have regard for this policy when
accessing development applications.



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 16 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
4.3       Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992

The Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 was
gazetted on 18 December, 1992. The purpose of this policy is to protect the
environmental values of lakes on the Swan Coastal Plain.

4.3.1 Overview

Under the Lakes EPP, activities causing the degradation or destruction of lakes
are prohibited, these activities (unless authorized to do so under any other
written law before the day on which the EPP is approved) include the following:

      •   Filling of lakes with materials.
      •   Excavation or mining operations in lake.
      •   Discharge or disposal of effluent into lakes.
      •   Drainage of water into or out of lakes.

If a person or persons cause the destruction or degradation of lakes, in certain
cases, will be required to rehabilitate or re-establish the lake.

4.3.2 Implications

The EPP identifies that one wetland (Long Swamp) is registered within the study
area.



4.4       WRC Wetlands Position Statement


4.4.1 Overview

In 2001, the (then) WRC released a Position Statement on wetlands, which was
prepared to clarify the WRC’s position on the management and protection of
wetlands within the Swan Coastal Plain. The statement identifies wetland
evaluation and management categories and objectives, which are as follows:

      •   Conservation Category Wetlands: Highest priority wetlands. Objective is
          preservation of wetland attributes and functions through various
          mechanisms including reservation in National Parks, Crown reserves and
          state owned land, protection under EPPs and wetland covenanting by
          landowner. Any activity that may lead to further loss or degradation is
          opposed.

      •   Resource Enhancement Wetlands: Priority wetlands. Objective is for
          management, restoration and protection towards improving their
          conservation value. These wetlands have to potential to be restored to




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 17 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
           conservation category. Protection is recommended through a number
           of mechanisms.

      •    Multiple Use Wetlands: Use, development and management should be
           considered in the context of ecologically sustainable development and
           best management practice (WRC, 2001).

4.4.2 Implications

The above wetland management categories provide a guide to future landuse
planning within the HVWRA to ensure that wetlands located within and outside
the HVWRA are protected and maintained in the long term. Additionally,
proposed land uses in close proximity to these wetlands are required to be
compatible with the management category of that wetland.



4.5        EPA Wetlands Position Statement


4.5.1 Overview

The purpose of the Position Statement is to define those environmental values
and functions of wetlands that the EPA considers to be important. It also
provides a set of principles for the protection of wetlands that can be used
when addressing wetland impacts and management. These environmental
values and function of wetlands include:

      1.   Primary production
      2.   Recreational and landscape amenity
      3.   Hydrological balance
      4.   Water quality protection
      5.   Wildlife habitat

The Position Statement also identifies the EPA statement goals, which are to:

      •    protect the environmental values and functions of wetlands in WA;
      •    protect, sustain and where possible, restore the biological diversity of
           wetland habitats;
      •    protect the environmental quality of the wetland ecosystems of WA
           through sound management in accordance with the concept of ‘wise
           use’……regardless of land use or activity; and
      •    have, as an aspirational goal, no net loss of wetlands values and
           functions.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 18 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
4.5.2 Implications

Ecologically sustainable development, ‘wise use’ concept, ecosystem
management approach, inter-generational equity and precautionary principle
need to be considered when assessing the use of wetlands, their management
and when considering environmental impacts of a proposal on the area (EPA,
2004b).



4.6      Wetland Conservation Policy for Western Australia

In 1997, a wetlands conservation policy for Western Australia was released by
the State Government. The Policy provides a statement of policy with principles
objectives with respect to conservation and a strategy for the policy’s
implementation. The five principles are as follows:

      1. To prevent the further loss or degradation of valuable wetlands and
         wetland types and promote wetlands conservation, creation and
         restoration.
      2. To include viable representatives of all major wetland types and key
         wildlife habitats and associated flora and fauna within a State-wide
         network of appropriately located and managed conservation reserves
         which ensure the continued survival of species, ecosystems and
         ecological functions.
      3. To maintain, in viable wild populations, the species and genetic diversity
         of wetlands-dependent flora and fauna.
      4. To maintain the abundance of waterbird populations, particularly
         migratory species.
      5. To greatly increase community awareness and appreciation of the many
         values of wetlands and the importance of sound management of the
         wetlands and their catchments in the maintenance of those values
         (Government of Western Australia, 1997).

4.6.1 Implications

Future redevelopment is required to be consistent with the principles outlined
above and ensure that environmental best management practices are
adopted and implemented.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 19 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
4.7     Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet–Harvey Estuary) Policy 1992


4.7.1 Overview

Located south-east of the HVWRA is the catchment area for the Peel Inlet -
Harvey Estuary which has a history of poor water quality. The objective of the
Environmental Protection (Peel Inlet – Harvey Estuary) Policy 1992 (EPP) is to
reduce the input of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, into the Peel-Harvey
Estuary through a number of means, which includes appropriate land
management by landowners in the policy area.

The EPP placed limits on phosphorus exports from each of the major catchments
of the Estuary. However the EPP has proven difficult to implement and the
phosphorus targets have not been translated into meaningful land use planning
tools.

The EPP is currently being revised as part of the development of a broader
Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) for the Peel-Harvey. Also as part of the
WQIP process, the Department of Water (DoW) has undertaken predictive
modelling of phosphorus and nitrogen exports from each of 216 sub
catchments, grouped into 17 “reporting catchments”. The report of the
modelling study is due to be released in late March 2006.

Preliminary advice from the DoW (C. Zammit, pers. comm.) is that the revised
EPP will continue to impose numerical limits on nutrient exports based on the
long-term targets set for the Swan-Canning Cleanup Program (Swan River Trust,
2003), with long-term winter median concentration targets of 0.1mg P/L and
1.0mg N/L across the whole catchment, together with individual load limits
developed for each reporting catchment.

4.7.2 Implications

Existing drainage patterns, land use and nutrient export will need to be
examined as the basis for evaluating the impacts of changing land use, and
possible management techniques for nutrient control and engineering solutions
for stormwater disposal following development will be derived.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 20 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
5.0     EXISTING ENVIRONMENT


5.1     Climate

The HVWRA experiences a Mediterranean climate with cool wet winters and hot
dry summers. The average maximum and minimum temperatures during the dry
period (October – March) range from 31.4º C to 9.5 º C respectively. The
average maximum and minimum temperatures during wet periods on average
range from 25.8 º C to 7.0 º C respectively (Jandakot, Bureau of Meteorology,
2004).



5.2     Geomorphology, Soils and Topography

The HVWRA is situated on the Swan Coastal Plain, within the Spearwood Dune
System which comprises north-south elongated aeolian sand dunes, with
intervening swales and wetlands which are generally elongated in a north-south
orientation.

The superficial formations comprise of quaternary sediments from the shallow
geological units of the HVWRA. The geomorphology at the site mainly consists
of the Spearwood Dunes (Ed2) (see Figure 2). The HVWRA is underlain by sands
and limestone of the Tamala Formation (Figure 3).

Conway Road Swamp is characterised by Sand (S7) derived from Tamala
Limestone, which is pale yellowish brown, medium to course grained sub-
angular quartz, trace of feldspar, moderately sorted of residual Aeolian origin
(Gozzard, 1983) (Figure 3).

Hendy Road Swamps are also characterised by Sand (S7) and with site
topography of approximately 2m AHD.

Silt (M6) derived from swamp deposits have been mapped for Long Swamp
(Gozzard, 1983). Silt is characterised by brownish grey, calcareous in part soft,
some fine sand content in places of lacustrine origin (Figure 3).

The topography of the HVWRA is undulating with slope gradients generally
varying between 3° and 10°, the exception being along the centre of the study
area where gradients tend to be less than 3° and the freight railway is aligned
(Figure 2).   The topography in the immediate vicinity of the Conway Road
wetland ranges from 10mAHD to 2mAHD over 150m, where 2mAHD is the lowest
point (wetland area) in the landscape.        The topography increases to
approximately 18mAHD at Hendy Road Swamps (east and west of the wetland
area) over a distance of 150m, while at Long Swamp the lowest point is
approximately 2mAHD, the topography up to 150m around the wetland
increases to 10mAHD.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 21 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
5.3     Groundwater


5.3.1 Overview

Groundwater flow in the study area is generally in a westerly direction towards
Cockburn Sound, although small local directional variations do occur.
Groundwater depth decreases in a westerly direction from approximately 12m
AHD at Mandogalup Road to approximately 1m AHD at the Rockingham
Road/Cockburn Road intersection (Figure 4).

The HVWRA is underlain mainly by superficial limestone, marl and cemented
sand deposits (the superficial aquifer), which hosts useable quantities of potable
to brackish quality water (Arup, 2002).

Recharge of the superficial aquifer is by rainfall, plus some upward leakage from
the underlying Leederville aquifer. Although limestone has a very low intrinsic
permeability (hydraulic conductivity), the presence of karstic features, such as
dissolution cavities and cavernous flow tubes, imparts a complex permeability
distribution through the limestone (Arup, 2002).

In general, the limestone has an estimated bulk permeability of about 5 to 10
m/day, but where cavernous flow tubes are intersected bore permeabilities
could be well in excess of 1,000 m/day (WAWA, 1993). Sand deposits in the
area tend to have more uniform hydraulic properties than limestone, with
permeabilities generally ranging between 5 to 20m/day (Arup, 2002).

These permeabilities, coupled with the regional groundwater flow to the west,
provide a conduit for groundwater under the HVWRA to travel to Cockburn
Sound as a diffuse source (Arup, 2002).

The water table at any location can fluctuate by up to 1m in response to
seasonal rainfall recharge and natural flow and pumping discharge (Arup,
2002). The varied depth to groundwater across the HVWRA is shown in Figure 4.
The north-east of the study area and beneath a dune on Postans Road has
depth to groundwater of approximately 30m. In contrast there are four low-
lying areas in the south of the HVWRA with shallow depth to groundwater (less
than 5m).

5.3.2 Groundwater Catchments for Wetlands

In terms of the groundwater catchments of the wetlands, the study area is
located outside of the EPA’s (1998) Groundwater Environmental Management
Area for Thomsons Lake (which corresponds to the groundwater catchment for
this important wetland) and Banganup Lake, and is on (or slightly in) the
boundary of the groundwater catchment for the Wattleup/Pearse Road
wetland and Wattleup Lake. Groundwater flow in the study area is generally in




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 22 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
a westerly direction towards the coast (Figure 4), although small local
directional variations do occur.

Wetlands are discussed further in Section 5.4 of this report.

5.3.3 Threats to Groundwater

Groundwater contamination resulting from various activities has been an on-
going environmental issue.        Problems associated with groundwater
contamination include adverse effects of pollution on wetlands, public water
supplies, and production bores (Davidson, 1995).

A desktop Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) (WALA, 2003) was conducted with
reference to the procedures advocated in the Department of Environmental
Protection Guidelines for Contaminated Sites Management Series to assess the
potential for soil and groundwater contamination within the site. The PSI
involved a review of the following information sources to identify potential areas
and sources of potential contamination within the HVWRA:

    •   (Then) Department of Environment (DoE) Site Legaci Database
    •   City of Cockburn Environmental Constraints Maps
    •   HVWRP Master Plan

Areas and sources of potential soil and groundwater contamination in the
HVWRA are shown in Figure 5 and include:

    •   Animal-based industries including poultry farms, piggeries and feedlots
    •   Municipal waste landfill sites
    •   Horticultural properties including market gardens
    •   Unsewered residential areas
    •   Petrol stations
    •   Electricity generation solid waste (fly-ash) disposal sites
    •   Pipelines (oil, fly-ash, shellsand)
    •   Cement works

In addition, Alcoa’s bauxite refining residue ponds are located outside (east) of
the HVWRA, but groundwater contamination plumes are reported to be
travelling in a north-westerly direction into the south-east of the HVWRA.

The vulnerability of groundwater to all sources of contamination depends on the
contaminant, the lithology of the soil, depth of groundwater, and the climate.
Davidson (1995) has developed a generic map of vulnerability of groundwater
based on the factors discussed above. For the HVWRA, most of the site has a
moderate vulnerability to groundwater contamination.

Long Swamp has a very high vulnerability as it is a sand, peat, and clay wetland
area with a depth to watertable less than 3m (Figure 6).




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 23 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Another threat to groundwater is over allocation and extraction of groundwater
from local aquifers. , It is acknowledged that at the present time:

•   groundwater in the area is nearly fully allocated to the limit set by the
    sustainable yield of the relevant aquifers; and

•   the CGA Sub-Regional Allocation Strategy adopts a precautionary
    approach to water allocation to ensure that the groundwater resource and
    its beneficial uses are sustained in the long term.

As a result, this means that there is currently no additional allocation of
groundwater which can be approved for new land-users, if aquifer abstraction
is to be limited to the sustainable yield.

Groundwater issues and threats are discussed in further detail in the HVWRP
Water Management Strategy.

5.3.4 Implications

Land use and groundwater management within the HVWRA is required to be
managed so as to:

    •   minimise risk to groundwater quality;
    •   improve current recharge quality for the long term benefit of local water
        quality; and
    •   reduce discharges of nitrogen and other contaminants to the Cockburn
        Sound.

With respect to groundwater availability, it is recognised that:

    •   there is a need to target the protection and improvement of
        groundwater quantity at a strategic level;
    •   the availability of groundwater supplies will be an important resource for
        new land-uses within the area;
    •   there will be a need to facilitate fair and equitable access to
        groundwater supplies for important land use development proposals.

Please refer to the HVWRP Water Management Strategy for further detail on
how groundwater quantity and quality will be protected and managed within
the HVWRA as redevelopment proceeds.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 24 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
5.4       Surface Water and Wetlands


5.4.1 Surface Water Overview

The study area is not characterised by defined surface water conveyance
structures; there are no streams, creeks, drains or other significant water
channels. Recharge to sandy soils, and subsequently the local aquifer, appears
to be the main response to rainfall.

The Town of Kwinana (ToK) has advised that a piped drainage system may exist
along Garden Road in Hope Valley (north east of Conway Road Swamp).
However the current status of the drainage system i.e. whether it has been
removed or where discharge points are, is unknown. There are two drainage
sumps located along Hoyle Road. The majority of road drainage in the townsite
runs off road verges and infiltrates within the road reserves.

5.4.2 Wetland Overview

The site is relatively well drained by both surface and subsurface processes as a
result of porous surface soils. However, in isolated areas where topography is
low, wetlands occur as surface expressions of the local unconfined aquifer
(groundwater table), and therefore may be connected by groundwater on a
regional basis.

The Swan Coastal Plain Wetland Atlas (Hill et al., 1996) published by the (then)
Water and Rivers Commission, delineates and maps the wetland types and
condition of all known wetlands on the Swan Coastal Plain, and also assigned
one of three management categories based on relative environmental
attributes.

The following three wetland areas were defined by this publication:

      •   Conway Road Swamp, which is located near the corner of Anketell Road
          and Conway Road;
      •   Hendy Road Swamps (east and west), which is located near the corner
          of Anketell Road and Abercrombie Road; and
      •   Long Swamp, which is located adjacent to Hope Valley Road.

Figure 7 presents the current wetland mapping for the study area. Long Swamp
is protected under the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes)
Policy 1992 (Figure 7).

Lake Wattleup and Wattleup/Pearse Road Wetland are located adjacent to
the eastern boundary of the study area. Lake Wattleup is a Resource
Enhancement wetland while the Wattleup/Pearse Road Wetland is a 50/50 split
of Conservation and Multiple Use.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 25 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Thomsons Lake and Banganup Lake are also located east of the study area,
and Brownman Swamp is located west of the study area and Rockingham
Road and are a component of the Beeliar Regional Park.

For DEC wetland category objectives, refer to Section 4.6.1 and Table 1 for
wetlands within and adjacent to the study area.

                                                           TABLE 1
                                   Summary of the Characteristics of Relevant Wetlands

                                  WETLAND                         Management                         EPP
                                                    Type                              Area (ha)
                             (Current WRC Code)                    Category                         Wetland
   WITHIN STUDY AREA




                                Long Swamp
                                                  Sumpland        Conservation           14.3        Yes
                                  (17 Sc)

                                                                   Multiple Use
                             Hendy Road Swamps                    and Resource       1.5 and 2.0
                                                  Damplands                                           No
                              (19 Dm and 20 Dr)                   Enhancement        respectively
                                                                   respectively

                             Conway Road Swamp                     Resource
                                                  Dampland                                2.1         No
                                   (12 Dr)                        Enhancement

                             Anderson Rd Swamp
                                                  Sumpland        Conservation           25.3        Yes
                                   (8 Sc)
   *ADJACENT TO STUDY AREA




                              Brownman Swamp
                                                  Sumpland        Conservation           48.0        Yes
                                   (6 Sc)

                               Lake Mt Brown
                                                  Sumpland        Conservation           15.5        Yes
                                  (13 Sc)

                                                                  Conservation
                             Wattleup/Pearse Rd
                                                  Sumpland        and Multiple            4.3        Yes
                                  (22 Sc/m)
                                                                     Use

                                Wattleup Lake                      Resource
                                                    Lake                                 10.9        Yes
                                   (24 Lr)                        Enhancement



Whilst there is no direct hydrological connection between these wetlands, an
indirect connection may be considered to exist in that the wetlands are all
surface expressions of the local groundwater.

Wetlands which are nominated for inclusion in the List of Wetlands of
International Importance under the Ramsar Convention 1971 are considered to
be internationally significant. Of the wetland located within and adjacent to
the HVWRA Thomsons Lake is the only wetland known to be listed as a Ramsar
wetland.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                                       Page 26 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                                  Revision     Final Report
Prepared by RPS                                        Date         November 2007
Wetlands listed within the Australian Nature Conservation Authority’s Directory of
Important Wetlands in Western Australia and on the Australian Heritage
Commission’s Register of the National Estate list of wetlands are considered to
be of national significance. The entire Beeliar Regional Park has been placed
on the Interim List of the Register of the National Estate.

No wetlands within the site are included in Bush Forever. However, the Beeliar
Regional Park, which includes the wetlands west of Rockingham Road, is in Bush
Forever Site No. 346, Thomsons Lake in Site No. 391, Banganup Lake is in Site No.
392, and Wattleup/Pearse Road sumpland and Wattleup Lake are in Site No.
393.

Additionally, the Department of Enviornment and Conservation (DEC) has
advised of the potential for Long Swamp to be included within the Beeliar
Regional Park.

5.4.3 Wetland Boundary Assessment

As part of the requirements of the Ministerial Condition for a Biodiversity Strategy,
a detailed wetland boundary assessment of Long Swamp, Conway Road
Swamp and Hendy Road Swamp (east) was undertaken in March, 2005. The
DEC protocol for re-evaluation of a wetland management category was used
as a guide for this wetland boundary assessment.

Hendy Road Swamp (west) was excluded from this assessment due to its
management category being classified as Multiple Use. Section 5.4.6 of this
report discusses the treatment of this wetland area and management category
in further detail.

In early April 2005 the wetland boundary assessment was submitted to the DEC’s
Wetlands Program, who are the custodians for the database and mapping of
wetland management categories within the state. The wetland boundary
assessment proposed changes to the wetland boundaries for Long Swamp,
Conway Road Swamp and Hendy Road Swamp (east), which are illustrated in
Appendix C.

Following the DEC’s consideration of the wetland boundary assessment and
subsequent discussions with the DEC, extensions to the wetland boundary for
Long Swamp and north of Hope Valley Road were accepted. The rationale for
the extensions to the wetland boundary for Long Swamp were due to the
wetland vegetation extending beyond the current DEC wetland boundary in
three sections on the western side.

However, the wetland boundary for Conway Road Swamp and Hendy Road
Swamp (east) remains the same.

Figure 8 presents the revised wetland boundaries for the southern portion of the
HVWRA.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 27 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
5.4.4 Threats to Surface Water and Wetlands

There are many existing natural and human induced threats to wetlands within
and adjacent to the study area. These include weed invasion and the
introduction of feral animals, pollution through stormwater discharge, road
construction, frequent fires, grazing by livestock, intrusion of contaminated
groundwater, and recreational activities.

The wetlands within the study area are not pristine and have been historically
impacted by existing land uses adjacent to the wetlands such as market
gardening, agriculture, and extractive industry. These factors and lack of
management of the wetland areas has, over time, contributed to the
degradation of Conway Road Swamp, Hendy Road Swamp (east and west)
and Long Swamp. For example, plant deaths and the unhealthy condition of
some plants in the inner and central sections of Long Swamp have been
recently observed. This may have been caused by increased levels of salinity in
the swamp (Weston, 2005). The types and condition of the wetland vegetation
in the southern portion of the HVWRA is discussed further in Section 5.5 of this
report.

Hope Valley Road (a major 2-lane road), its road reserve and associated
infrastructure services currently intersect the southern section of Long Swamp.

5.4.5 Wetland Buffers

 A wetland buffer is defined as the area from the boundary of wetland
dependent vegetation and extends outward ending at the interface with
another land use. The buffer zone will vary in size and nature depending upon
the specific purpose for which it was established (WRC, 2000).

The purpose of wetland buffers is to protect wetlands from potential impacts
while providing a safeguard and maintaining ecological processes and
functions within the wetland and wherever possible, in the buffer. The required
distances for wetlands depend on the adjacent land use, 50 metres being the
minimum buffer distance applied for Conservation category wetlands (WRC,
2001).

Three wetlands occur within the southern portion of the study area, with four
located immediately adjacent to the study area (Figure 8). Given future
industrial land uses, a 50m buffer has been allocated to all Conservation and
Resource Enhancement wetlands located within and adjacent to the HVWRA
(Figure 8). Section 6.0 of this Strategy also identifies these three wetlands
(including a 50m buffer) as being Key Natural Areas within the HVWRA.

Hendy Road Swamp (west) is classified as a Multiple Use management category
wetland by the DEC. Multiple Use wetlands are considered to be wetlands with
few important ecological attributes and functions.       A recent vegetation




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 28 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
assessment undertaken by Dr Arthur Weston for the HVWRA supports this
classification, with the wetland being identified as being worse than completely
degraded and having a large population of the weed *Gomphocarpus
fruticosus and no native vegetation (Weston, 2005).

Whilst no buffers are subsequently proposed around Hendy Road Swamp (west)
due to its ecological condition, the wetland will be contained within an east-
west linkage which connects Conway Road Swamp to Hendy Road Swamp
(west). The proposed treatment of this wetland area is thus consistent with
current government policy on Multiple Use wetlands.

The Hill et al. (1996) generic 200m “zone of secondary influence” to
Conservation and Resource Enhancement wetlands within and adjacent to the
project area is presented in Figure 8. This includes Long Swamp, Hendy Road
Swamp (east) and Conway Road Swamp.

The 200m zone from the north-eastern tip of Lake Mt Brown extends into the
study area by up to 100m. Along the eastern edge of the HVWRA, the 50m
buffer and 200m zone from the Wattleup/Pearce Road Swamp extends into the
study area. The 200m zone from the north-western corner of the Wattleup Lake
also extends into the study area.

5.4.6 Implications

Future land use planning within the HVWRA, will need to ensure that only
compatible land uses are located with the 200m zone of influence of the
wetlands located within and adjacent to the HVWRA, and that the wetland and
its associated 50m buffer is maintained and protected from future
development.

Section 6.1.8 of this Strategy provides further detail relating to the mechanisms
that are to be utilised and implemented to ensure that compatible land uses
are located within the 200m zone of influence of the wetlands located within
and adjacent to the HVWRA.



5.5     Vegetation and Flora


5.5.1 Overview

Vegetation within the HVWRA has been subjected to long-term degradation
processes such as weed invasion, altered water regimes, fire and development,
which have resulted in only isolated pockets of vegetation remaining. Remnant
vegetation on site is generally in Good to Completely Degraded condition (refer
to Section 5.5.3 of this report), and to date has had little to no management.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 29 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
5.5.2 Bush Forever Sites

The Bush Forever (Government of Western Australia, 2000) report is the
culmination of Perth’s Bushplan Project; a long-running initiative which aimed to
identify and protect areas of regionally significant bushland and associated
wetlands on the Swan Coastal Plain in the Perth Metropolitan Region.

The HVWRA does not directly include any Bush Forever sites; however the
project area is located immediately adjacent to small portions of three Bush
Forever Sites on the eastern side of the project area (Bush Forever Sites 267, 392
and 393). The adjacent Bush Forever sites and additional Bush Forever sites that
lie in close proximity to the project area are listed below and shown in Figure 9.
These are:

    •   Bush Forever Site No. 267 – Mandogalup Road Bushland, Hope Valley;

    •   Bush Forever Site No. 346 – Brownman Swamp, Lake Mt Brown and
        Adjacent Bushland, Henderson/Naval Base;

    •   Bush Forever Site No. 391 – Thomsons Lake Nature Reserve and Adjacent
        Bushland, Beeliar;

    •   Bush Forever Site No. 392 – Harry Waring Marsupial Reserve, Wattleup
        (adjacent to Site No. 391);

    •   Bush Forever Site No. 393 – Wattleup Lake and Adjacent Bushland.
        Wattleup/Mandogalup is also located in the eastern proximity of the
        project area.

    •   Bush Forever Sites No. 268 – Mandogalup Road Bushland, Mandogalup,
        No. 349 Leda and Adjacent Bushland, Leda and No. 269 – The Spectacles
        are situated further from the project area, to the east and south
        respectively.

5.5.3 Vegetation and Flora Assessment

As part of the requirements of the Ministerial Condition for a Biodiversity Strategy,
a vegetation and flora survey, condition assessment and rare flora search was
undertaken by Dr Arthur Weston (Appendix D).

The principal purpose of this study was to identify the location of key natural
areas to be protected in the HVWRA including ecological linkages, wetlands
and wetland buffers, and other areas considered to be significant due to the
representation of ecological communities (including Threatened Ecological
Communities), diversity of species, rarity of species, and maintaining ecological
processes or systems.

The objectives of the vegetation and flora assessment were to:



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 30 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
    •    Describe and map vegetation units of the HVWRA;
    •    Assess and map the condition – or range of conditions – of the
         vegetation;
    •    Provide results of searches for Declared Rare, Priority, other significant
         flora, for Threatened Ecological Communities and for possible habitats for
         them, and
    •    Compare the values, types and condition of the study area’s native
         vegetation and flora with those of vegetation and flora in nearby areas,
         particularly Bush Forever sites, and review the local and regional
         significance of the study area’s vegetation.

The required three stages of a Level 2 survey were undertaken:

    •    Background research or ‘desktop’ study,
    •    Reconnaissance survey, and
    •    Detailed survey.

The field work (survey) components of the study, included establishment and
sampling of three quadrats. The species lists compiled for the quadrats were
analysed using PATN data analysis package.

5.5.4 Vegetation Complexes

The HVWRA supports remnant vegetation belonging to the Karrakatta Complex
– Central and South, and the Cottesloe Complex – Central and South.

Vegetation of the Karrakatta Complex – Central and South is described by
Heddle et al. (1980) as an open forest of Tuart-Jarrah-Marri, with Jarrah and
Marri replacing Tuart as while progressing eastwards. Banksia attenuata, B.
menziesii, B. grandis and Allocasuarina fraseriana are also common tree species.

The Cottesloe Complex – Central and South is characterised by a closed heath
on limestone areas with shrubs such as Melaleuca huegelii, Acacia species,
Grevillea preisii and Trymalium ledifolium. The deeper sands support a mosaic of
Tuart, Jarrah and Marri. Banksia species are also common.

Assessments made in 1998 and quoted in Bush Forever (Government of Western
Australia, 2000) estimated that 18% of Karrakatta Complex – Central and South
and 36% of Cottesloe Complex – Central and South of the original extent of
these vegetation complexes remained uncleared at that time.



5.5.5 Vegetation Units

The vegetation units and their condition within the HVWRA are illustrated in
Figure 10. The most common and widespread units of upland vegetation in the




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 31 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
HVWRA are Tuart Woodland and Open Woodland, Jarrah – Sheoak – Banksia
Low Woodland and Low Open Forest and Acacia rostellifera, balga
(Xanthorrhoea preissii) and Dryandra sessilis heaths, shrublands and scrubs. Tuart
is an emergent in most low woodlands and low open forests where it is not a
dominant, especially in western and central parts of the HVWRA, and often
balga (Xanthorrhoea preissii) is often the principal, if not the only, understorey
shrub taller than one metre (Weston, 2005).

A re-assessment of the vegetation condition for Karrakatta Complex – Central
and South within the HVWRA was undertaken by Dr Weston in April 2006.
Regarding the Ashley Road - Postans Road - Sayer Road area vegetation, its
condition has been re-assessed at a larger scale, which has given more weight
to the overstorey and to even minimal and patchy occurrence of native plants
in the understorey than the previous assessment (Figure 10).

The original assessment of Degraded for the vegetation abutting the junction of
Ashley Road with Postans Road is still maintained, largely because the basic
vegetation structure is severely impacted by disturbance. In vegetation with a
relatively intact overstorey and more natives in the understorey, a higher rating
has been assessed. With few exceptions, however, lower ratings than those
shown on Figure 1 of EPA Statement 667 and Figure 5 of EPA Bulletin 1133 has
been given.

The vegetation classification differs from that used for the vegetation condition
figure used in the EPA Bulletin and Ministerial Statement. The vegetation
assessment for the strategy gave more weight to the occurrence of Tuart, even
when its density is at the lower end of the Open Woodland range, because it is
taller than the other dominants. The classification was based on several visits to
the Ashley Road - Postans Road - Sayer Road area, and searched for DRF
plants, as well as plants of other significant flora, at the same time.

Most of the upland vegetation is weedy to very weedy, in Completely
Degraded to Degraded condition. A few stands have some vegetation in them
assessed as Good. Heaths on limestone and shallow soil over limestone tended
to be in better condition than other upland vegetation. (Weston, 2005).

The wetlands within the southern portion of the HVWRA are Long Swamp, Hendy
Road Swamp (east and west) and Conway Road Swamp (Figure 11). Hendy
Road Swamp (west) is worse than Completely Degraded, and has a large
population of the weed *Gomphocarpus fruticosus and no native vegetation.
The vegetation of the other three wetlands is Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low
Woodland to Low Open Forest, usually over Gahnia trifida and Baumea juncea
Sedgelands.    Also, there are stands dominated by alien species, most
commonly the rush *Juncus acutus, and in Long Swamp, there are stands of the
native succulents Sueda australis, Halosarcia pergranulata and Wilsonia
backhousei. (Weston, 2005)

The vegetation of Long Swamp ranges from Excellent to Completely Degraded.
Conway Road Swamp vegetation ranges from Very Good to Completely




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 32 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Degraded, and of the vegetation Hendy Road Swamp (east) from Good to
Completely Degraded (Weston, 2005).

5.5.6 Floristic Community Types and Threatened Ecological Communities

The significance of Threatened Ecological Communities (TEC) was identified in
the HVWRP Environmental Review (WALA, 2003) through the potential for Floristic
Community Type (FCT) 26a – Melaleuca huegelii – M. systena shrublands on
limestone ridges to occur within the study area.

Parts of the Tamala Limestone within the HVWRA with remnants of native
vegetation were surveyed by Dr Arthur Weston during March 2004 in order to,
principally:

    •    determine the potential or likelihood of FCT 26a occurring there, and
    •    in the case of parts of the southern portion of the HVWRA which are
         vegetated, are on Tamala Limestone and are on higher terrain,
         undertake a detailed survey for TEC 26a.

As an outcome of this initial TEC assessment, three sites in the HVWRA with
‘massive’ outcropping limestone and with either Melaleuca huegelii or M.
systena, or both, were identified as having the potential to be FCT 26a (Weston,
2004).

As part of the 2005 flora and vegetation assessment undertaken by Dr Arthur
Weston, three permanent quadrats were established at these three potential
FCT 26a sites. The PATN analysis and assessment of the flora from these quadrats
concluded that the vegetation of these three sites corresponds to FCT 24 (Griffin
and Associates, 2005).

The following nine FCTs have been analysed or inferred as occurring, or as
possibly occurring in the HVWRA (Weston, 2005):

    •   FCT 16 – Highly saline seasonal wetlands
    •   FCT 17 – Melaleuca rhaphiophylla – Gahnia trifida seasonal wetlands
    •   FCT S5 - Acacia saligna wetlands
    •   FCT 21a - Central Banksia attenuata – Eucalyptus marginata woodlands
    •   FCT 24 - Northern Spearwood shrublands and woodlands
    •   FCT 25 - Southern Eucalyptus gomphocephala–Agonis flexuosa
        woodlands
    •   FCT 26b - Woodlands and mallees on limestone
    •   FCT 27 - Species poor mallees and shrublands on limestone
    •   FCT 28 - Spearwood Banksia attenuata or Banksia attenuata – Eucalyptus
        woodlands.

None of the above FCTs is currently listed on the DEC’s TEC database (Weston,
2005).




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 33 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
5.5.7 Significant Flora

No species of Declared Rare or Priority Flora was found in the HVWRA, nor was
any habitat found that would be suitable for any of the taxa listed in Table 2 of
Appendix D, except possibly the Priority 4 species Dodonaea hackettiana.

One species listed in Bush Forever (2000, Volume 2, Table 13) as significant,
Lechenaultia linarioides, was found at one location, Site 34, but it may be at
others. It is listed as ‘p - considered to be poorly reserved’ (Weston, 2005).

5.5.8 Significant Remnant Vegetation

Weston (2005) notes that four types of remnant native vegetation have
particular conservation significance due to their condition and where they
occur:

    •    Any stand that is in Excellent or Very Good condition and is large enough
         for that condition to be maintained;

    •    Any wetland vegetation overstorey and/or understorey with remnant
         native species;

    •   Stands that are in belts forming linkages between one or both of the
        other two types, particularly if they are in Bush Forever sites; and

    •   Vegetation that is in an inadequately protected vegetation complex, in
        the case, Karrakatta Complex – Central and South.

Section 5.7.1 of this strategy develops the criteria to identify Key Natural Areas,
where practicable, the above has been incorporated into the development of
these criteria.

5.5.9 Implications

No significant flora or Threatened Ecological Communities within the HVWRA
were identified.

Vegetation of the Karrakatta Complex – Central and South is described by
Heddle et al. (1980) as an open forest of Tuart-Jarrah-Marri, with Jarrah and
Marri replacing Tuart as while progressing eastwards. Banksia attenuata, B.
menziesii, B. grandis and Allocasuarina fraseriana are also common tree species.
Bush Forever indicates that only 18% of this complex from the original extent
remains and that this complex has only 8% proposed for protection, which is
under the target 10% for complexes within the Swan Coastal Plain portion of the
Perth Metropolitan Region (Government of Western Australia, 2000).




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 34 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
However, due to the highly fragmented and degraded nature of the remnant
vegetation within the HVWRA and a large proportion of the HVWRA being
allocated to extractive industries, the opportunity to retain areas of significant
remnant vegetation within this complex is very limited. It is also understood that
the cut and fill requirements of the land to accommodate the proposed form of
development will significantly modify natural ground levels.

5.6     Fauna


5.6.1 Overview

The HVWRA is strategically placed between the eastern and western sections of
Beeliar Regional Park and is thus an unreserved part of a network of
conservation lands in the region.

The study area is substantially developed and therefore much of the native
vegetation has been cleared. Despite the level of development and clearing,
there are some remnants of native vegetation scattered through the project
area, as well as large areas of cleared but un-utilised land, some of which
supports regenerating native vegetation. The main areas of such cleared land,
some with scattered trees and regenerating shrubs, are in the north, centre and
south of the project area.

5.6.2 Fauna Conservation Significance

The conservation status of fauna species is assessed under Commonwealth and
State Acts such as the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act (EPBC Act) 1999 and the Western Australian Wildlife
Conservation Act 1950. The significance levels for fauna used in the EPBC Act
are those recommended by the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, 2001). The WA Wildlife Conservation Act
1950 uses a set of Schedules but also classifies species using some of the IUCN
categories. These categories and Schedules are described in Appendix E.
The EPBC Act also lists migratory species that are recognised under international
treaties such as the China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA), the
Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the Bonn Convention
(The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals).

The list of migratory species under the EPBC Act has been revised to include
species only, thus excluding family listings (Department of the Environment and
Heritage, pers comm.). Those species listed in JAMBA are also protected under
Schedule 3 of the WA Wildlife Conservation Act.

There is a separate list of marine species under the EPBC Act, but this only
applies to land and waters under Commonwealth management and therefore,
marine listings have not been included (Bamford, 2005).




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 35 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
The Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH, formerly Environment
Australia) has also supported the publication of reports on the conservation
status of most vertebrate fauna species: reptiles (Cogger et al. 1993), birds
(Garnett and Crowley 2000), monotremes and marsupials (Maxwell et al. 1996),
rodents (Lee, 1995) and bats (Duncan et al. 1999).

The Threatened Species and Communities Section of Environment Australia has
also produced a list of Threatened Australian Fauna (Environment Australia
1999), although this list is effectively a precursor to the list produced under the
EPBC Act. These publications also use the IUCN categories, although those used
by Cogger et al. (1993) differ in some respects because this report pre-dates
categories reviewed by Mace and Stuart (1994) and revisited since by IUCN
(2001).

DEC has produced a supplementary list of Priority Fauna for Western Australia,
being species that are not considered Threatened under the WA Act but for
which the Department feels there is cause for concern. Some Priority species,
however, are also assigned to the IUCN Conservation Dependent category.
Levels of Priority are described in Appendix E.

Fauna species included under conservation acts and/or agreements are
formally recognised as of conservation significance under state or federal
legislation. Species listed only as Priority by DEC, or that are included in
publications such as Garnett and Crowley (2000) and Cogger et al. (1993), but
not in State or Commonwealth Acts, are also of recognised conservation
significance (Bamford, 2005).

In addition, species that are at the limit of their distribution, those that have a
very restricted range and those that occur in breeding colonies, such as some
waterbirds, can be considered of conservation significance, although this level
of significance has no legislative or published recognition and is based on
interpretation of distribution information.      The (then) WA Department of
Environmental Protection (2000) used this sort of interpretation to identify
significant bird species in the Perth Metropolitan Area as part of Bush Forever.

On this basis, and as part the approach for a fauna assessment for the HVWRA
(which was developed in consultation with DEC) three levels of conservation
significance are recognised (Bamford, 2005):

    •    Conservation Significance            (CS)      1:   Species      listed      under   State   or
         Commonwealth Acts.

    •    Conservation Significance (CS) 2: Species not listed under State or
         Commonwealth Acts, but listed in publications on threatened fauna or as
         Priority species by DEC.

    •    Conservation Significance (CS) 3: Species not listed under Acts or in
         publications, but considered of at least local significance because of their
         pattern of distribution. This includes species listed as significant in the Perth
         area in Bush Forever.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                            Page 36 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision    Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date        November 2007
5.6.3 Fauna Assessment

As part of the Ministerial Condition for a Biodiversity Strategy, and in consultation
with the DEC, an approach to the fauna assessment for the study areas was
prepared by Bamford Consulting Ecologists and RPS. The Fauna Assessment
Report is provided as Appendix E.

The key components of the assessment were (Bamford, 2005):

    •   Description of fauna habitats in the project area.
    •   Review of available data in order to prepare a vertebrate species list for
        the project area.
    •   Identification of fauna species of conservation significance, and their
        habitats, in the project area.
    •   Discussion of the persistence of fauna in the project area and the role of
        linkages, and how these relate to the project area.
    •   Discussion of management for particular species, groups of species and
        habitats.

The following is a summary of Bamford's (2005) findings. However, please refer
to the Fauna Report in Appendix E for a full list of the fauna species listed as
potentially occurring within the area.

5.6.4 Amphibians

Nine frog species are expected to occur in the project area. With the
exception of the Turtle Frog, which breeds terrestrially in sandy soils, all are likely
to breed in Long Swamp and any other wetlands in the area. Most are
therefore also likely to occur mainly around wetlands, but the Moaning Frog and
Pobblebonk range widely in upland environments outside the breeding season.

In the Perth area, frogs are notable for their persistence where breeding habitat
around wetlands is retained, but they are sensitive to loss of riparian vegetation,
changes in water quality and changes in hydrological cycles. The Moaning
Frog and Pobblebonk are sensitive to loss of access to upland habitats and the
Turtle Frog is sensitive to loss of upland habitat. Therefore, the frog assemblage is
likely to be richest in the vicinity of Long Swamp but the Turtle Frog, Moaning
Frog and Pobblebonk are probably widespread, particularly where upland
vegetation remains.

The one frog species of conservation significance, the Quacking Frog (CS3) has
a scattered distribution on the Swan Coastal Plain but is known from Spectacle
Swamp (Bamford Consulting database), so may be present in Long Swamp.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 37 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
5.6.5 Reptiles

41 reptile species expected to occur in the project area. The South-West Cool
Skink,

 Glossy Swamp Egernia, Tiger Snake and Long-necked Tortoise are associated
with wetlands or wetland fringing vegetation, while the Barking Gecko is most
likely to be found where there is limestone exposed at the surface. Other
species also have specific habitat requirements but these are less clearly
associated with broad landscape types.

For almost all reptile species, however, native vegetation is important, and in the
Perth area reptiles generally display a high degree of persistence even in small
remnants of native vegetation. Exceptions may be some of the fossorial snakes
(Brachyurophis and Neelaps) that How and Shine (1999) suggest require large
areas of continuous habitat for long-term persistence. In contrast, a few reptile
species survive in degraded habitats with little remnant vegetation. These
include the Fence Skink, West Coast Ctenotus, the three species of Lerista,
Dwarf Skink, Bobtail and Dugite.

These patterns of persistence among reptiles means that within the project area,
reptile species richness is likely to be greatest where native vegetation remains,
with the size of the remnant having only a small positive influence on the
number of species present.

The reptile species listed as of CS3 are either close to the limit of their distribution
in the region, or have scattered distribution on the coastal plain. The Bold-
striped Lerista and Black-striped Snake are of CS2, both being listed as Priority 3
by DEC.

5.6.6 Birds

The mobility of birds means that a large number of species can be recorded at
a site over time, but with respect to the biodiversity strategy, what is important
are the species that regularly rely on the project area (Bamford, 2005). 118 bird
species are considered to use the project area regularly.

Forty of the listed species are waterbirds and most of these would rely on Long
Swamp and seasonally-inundated pasture, although waterbirds include at least
4 species that forage either at the waste disposal facility, and/or on lawns,
pasture and market gardens. During the site inspection, Australian Pelicans
were observed circling over the waste disposal facility (Bamford, 2005).
Waterbirds are indicated on Table 4 (wb).

Of the 78 landbird species, 33 would utilize modified environments, with the
remaining 45 species (almost 40% of the total avifauna) being reliant upon
native upland vegetation. Most of the species listed as dependent upon native




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 38 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
upland vegetation are also listed as CS3 because they are classified as having
declined in the Perth urban area by Bush Forever (2000).

Persistence of birds in the urban environment is a complex issue, however,
because the mobility of most species allows them to traverse urban areas to
select habitat patches they can utilise. Species most at risk in the urban area
are those that rely on native vegetation and have poor powers of dispersal.
Such species suffer from local extinction even in reserves of moderate size, and
therefore rely on linkage between reserves.

Species most reliant on linkage between remnants are the Splendid Fairy-wren,
White-browed Scrubwren, Weebill, Inland Thornbill, Western Thornbill, Yellow-
rumped Thornbill, Scarlet Robin, Varied Sittella, and Grey Shrike-thrush. The
requirements of these species can be used as an indicator of the degree of
linkage or connectivity required to retain as much of the avifauna of an area as
possible. Of this suite of species, the Western Thornbill and Grey Shrike-thrush
seem to be most reliant on large tracts of native vegetation, and appear to be
poor at dispersing.

In contrast, most of the other species have been observed dispersing through
an urban garden, despite this being 200m from the next available habitat (M.
Bamford pers. obs). This dispersal required crossing several roads and a sterile
urban landscape of houses, concrete and lawns. The Splendid Fairy-wren has
been observed utilizing a 5m wide strip of acacia over weeds to travel between
woodland remnants at Alfred Cove in Melville.

With respect to species listed as CS3, important features of the project area are
remnant native upland vegetation and some degree of connectivity between
the remnants. This does not need to be direct connectivity, as it would appear
that roads and unfavourable habitat for distances of 100-200m are not
insurmountable for most species.

Effective linkage may be as simple as a narrow strip of bushes. For example, a
road verge planted to create a simple version of eucalypt/banksia woodland
could be effective, even if the vegetation was discontinuous because of
driveways and crossroads. What would be important would be for the
vegetation structure to consist of shrubs creating a thicket beneath an
overstorey of trees. Ideally, all shrubs and trees would be of local species.

The Masked Owl (Priority 3) is listed as CS2 may be present mongst the Tuarts in
the west of the project area, as it roosts and nests in hollows of these trees.
However, it appears to be very rare in the region, as there are few records and
targeted surveys undertaken by Bamford Consulting in the region in 2004 failed
to locate any birds.

The Great Egret, Fork-tailed Swift and Rainbow Bee-eater are listed as CS1 and
listed migratory under the EPBC Act. They are not listed as threatened and are
generally widespread. The Great Egret is very likely to occur regularly at Long
Swamp, the Fork-tailed Swift is likely to be an infrequent visitor that is largely




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 39 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
aerial and therefore independent of proposed developments, while the
Rainbow Bee-eater is likely to be a regular breeding visitor. It commonly nests in
burrows on cleared slopes but is not limited by nesting habitat in the Perth
region.

The remaining two species of CS1 are the Peregrine Falcon (Schedule 4 of the
WA Wildlife Conservation Act) and Carnaby’s Cockatoo (Endangered under
both the EPBC and WA Acts). The Peregrine Falcon is very likely to be present in
the project area, and if a pair is resident, they may nest in a horizontally aligned
tree hollow in a lage Tuart. As part of the fauna assessment and their ground
truthing to inspect fauna habitats within the HVWRA, Bamford Consulting
Ecologists did not find any actual or potential Peregrine Falcon nests.

Carnaby’s Cockatoo is likely to feed on banksias in the area at any time of the
year, although particularly in summer and autumn, and a few pairs may nest in
Tuart hollows in spring.    Cooper et al. (2002) found that 11 Slender Banksia
cones provide sufficient food to support one Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo for one
day. Population estimates for Carnaby's cockatoo range from 11,000 to 60,000
(Cale 2003). Therefore, the mean number of inflorescences per Firewood (B.
menziesii) and Slender (B. attenuata) Banksia was 6.5 and 6.7 respectively. This
suggests that 1ha of the banksia woodland in the Project Area, at a mean
density of 500 mature stems/ha, (2:1 ratio of B. attenuata and B. menziesii)
would produce 3,340 cones/year. This would support 0.83 Black-Cockatoos per
hectare per year or 33 birds for 40ha of banksia woodland that would be
cleared as a result of future industrial development, representing 0.05% to 0.3%
of the estimated population of the species.

However, because of its status as Endangered under the EPBC Act, any
significant impact of a proposal upon Carnaby’s Cockatoo would require the
project to be referred to the federal Department of the Environment and
Heritage.

5.6.7 Mammals

The project area probably has a depauperate mammal fauna, in common with
much of the Perth region. Of the 21 mammal species identified as potentially
occurring within the HVWRA, six are introduced and over half the native species
are bats.

Bats are all tree-roosting species that could shelter anywhere trees provide
hollows or crevices in which they can hide, but for most species it is not known to
what extent their foraging activities are also confined to woodland. The White-
striped Bat and Gould’s Wattled Bat regularly forage in cleared areas and even
over houses, but the remaining species may be restricted to remnant native
vegetation. The White-striped Bat, Gould’s Wattled Bat, Southern Forest Bat and
Lesser Long-eared Bat were recently (January 2005) recorded at Little Rush Lake
in Beeliar Regional Park (Bamford Consulting database), while the Western False




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 40 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Pipistrelle has been recorded in Harry Waring Marsupial Reserve adjacent to the
project area (Hosken and O’Shea 1994).

Of the six remaining native species, the Rakali is semi-aquatic and may occur at
Long Swamp. It is present at The Spectacles and persists around some suburban
wetlands, such as Lake Goollelal in the northern suburbs (Bamford Consulting
database). The Quenda is abundant in the general region both in dense
vegetation around wetlands and in banksia woodland, and it survives even
where the native understorey is partly replaced by grasses. It is therefore likely
to be widespread in the project area.

The Grey Kangaroo and Brush Wallaby may both be present in the project area
and are present nearby in eastern branch of Beeliar Regional Park. It is not
known if they are present in the western area around Mt Brown. For both
species, however, roads, fences and development may limit their ability to
move through the area. While the Grey Kangaroo forages in open areas and
can make use of limited shelter, the Brush Wallaby appears to be more
dependent upon large areas of dense understorey for shelter and individuals
appear to stay within an area of a few hectares. These factors mean the Brush
Wallaby only persists in large tracts of suitable vegetation, so its long-term
survival in fragmented landscapes is questionable.

The Brush-tailed Possum is probably present throughout the project area where
there are suitable trees that provide large hollows, but the status of the Honey
Possum is more difficult to ascertain. It was present around The Spectacles and
as far north as Murdoch University in the 1980s, and survives in large tacts of
banksia woodland at Jandakot airport (Bamford Consulting database), but
woodland in the project area and adjacent may now be too fragmented for
the species.

In general, native mammals survive poorly in the urban landscape and require
large areas of continuous habitat. Exceptions are species with specialised
habitat requirements, such as the Rakali, and mobile species such as at least
some of the bats. In contrast, the introduced species thrive in the sort of
landscape present in the project area. Some of these introduced species
interact with native species, with the Fox and Cat in particular being of concern
as predators.

The Honey Possum is considered to be of CS3 because it has declined
throughout Perth although, as noted above, it may now be absent from the
project area. Most of the bat species could also be listed as CS3 on the basis of
decline in the Perth area, as could the Grey Kangaroo, but there is little
information available on the bats to demonstrate that they have declined. The
Grey Kangaroo, like the Brush-tailed Possum, displays a surprising ability to persist
in urban areas.

The Quenda, Brush Wallaby, Western False Pipistrelle and Rakali are all listed as
Priority 4 by DEC and therefore are CS2. With the exception of the Brush
Wallaby, all are almost certainly present in the project area. As noted above,




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 41 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
the Rakali is probably confined to Long Swamp, but individuals need to be able
to disperse through woodland with dense understorey in order to move
between wetlands. If the species is present in Mt Brown Lake and Brownman
Swamp to the west, the project area needs to be able to support dispersing
individuals for the long-term survival of populations in the western branch of
Beeliar Regional Park.

The Quenda may be widespread in the project area where there is suitable
dense, low vegetation, and is present in both the eastern and western branches
of Beeliar Regional Park. The project area is therefore important for movement
to occur between the two sectors of the regional park, although the sectors are
probably sufficiently large that Quenda populations in each can be self-
sustaining. The Western False Pipistrelle may also be present throughout the
area where there is woodland, but its ability to disperse is greater than for
terrestrial mammals for which roads and fences are significant barriers.

If the Brush Wallaby were present in both parts of Beeliar Regional Park, the
project area would be of particular significance as it would provide linkage
between the two wallaby populations. The site inspection indicated that
habitats within the project area were probably too small and fragmented and
support resident Brush Wallabies, but they could support animals moving
between the sectors of the regional park. Such movement would be important
for the persistence of Brush Wallabies in the largely isolated western branch of
the regional park.

There are no mammal species of CS1 expected to occur in the project area
because such species are regionally extinct.

5.6.8 Invertebrates

Two species of native bees, a moth and a cricket were included in the results
from DEC’s Threatened Fauna Database.

The Graceful Sun-Moth (Synemon gratiosa) and the bee (Neopasiphe simplicior)
are listed under Schedule 1 of the WA Wildlife Conservation Act. The sun-moth
occurs from Wanneroo to Mandurah and is under great pressure from habitat
loss due to urban development. No information was provided as to its habitat,
but its distribution suggests that it occurs in banksia woodland. N. simplicior has
been recently recorded only around Lake Forrestdale and Armadale Golf
Course. It may therefore not occur as far west as the Hope Valley area,
although invertebrates are often not sampled extensively. It has been collected
from the flowers of a number of shrub species, including Goodenia filiformis,
Lobelia tenulor, Angianthus preissianus and Velleia sp..

The remaining invertebrate species are of Conservation Significance level 2,
being listed as Priority by DEC. The cricket (Throscodectes xiphos) is known only
from Jandakot, around Cutler Road, and is listed as Priority 1. The bees
(Leioproctus douglasiellus) and (Hylaeus globuliferus) are listed as Priority 3. The




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 42 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
habitat of the cricket is unknown but the two bees have been collected from
flowers: (L. douglasiellus) from flowers of Goodeniaceae shrubs and K.
globuliferus from flowers of grevillea and banksia. The two bees are very likely to
be present in the eucalypt and banksia woodlands of the Hope Valley area,
while the cricket may be present.

5.6.9 Patterns of Fauna Persistence in the Urban Environment

The following information has been adapted from Bamford (2005) which
summarises the occurrence and areas where fauna maybe present.

Frogs

    •   Persist around wetlands.
    •   Hydrocycle important for some species.
    •   Upland species persist even when habitat degraded.
    •   Physical barriers (eg. fences) to movement between wetlands and
        uplands are significant, but frogs will move across cleared ground.
    •   Probably low level of interaction between frog populations in the project
        area and Beeliar Regional Park.

Reptiles

    •   High level of persistence even in small remnants.
    •   The persistence of many species in small remnants means that linkage
        may not be critical at least in the short term. Note however, that most
        reptiles do not appear to move far as individuals, so to achieve gene
        flow between remnants may require sufficient habitat in a linkage to
        support individuals.
    •   Habitat condition may be important for some species with cleared areas
        supporting few species.
    •   A few species depend upon large areas of remnant vegetation.
    •   Probably very low level of interaction between reptile populations in the
        project area and Beeliar Regional Park.

Birds

    •   A significant proportion of the avifauna sensitive to habitat
        fragmentation; remnant size and linkage important.
    •   Linkage can probably be narrow (road verge) and discontinuous.
        Minimum requirements would be for an overstorey and understorey of
        preferably local plant species, with the understorey forming thickets >2m
        wide, and with most gaps in the linkage <50m to accommodate
        driveways and crossroads.
    •   Species of conservation significance associated with nesting hollows in
        Tuarts and foraging in banksia woodland.
    •   A large proportion of the avifauna is wetland dependent.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 43 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
    •   A high level of interaction likely between bird populations in the project
        area and Beeliar Regional Park, with the persistence of some species in
        the project area reliant on linkage with the regional park.

Mammals

    •   Low levels of persistence with very depauperate assemblage.
    •   Terrestrial species require linkage via more or less continuous habitat,
        particularly understorey. Verge planting to create a simple version of
        eucalypt/banksia woodland as suggested for birds might be effective for
        mammals such as the Quenda over distances of a few hundred metres.
        However, mammals are prone to being trapped on roads so both the
        road along which a linkage may be created and crossroads are a threat.
        Aerial species (bats) require old trees for shelter.
    •   Long Swamp may be particularly important for several mammal species.
    •   Introduced species are a significant component of the fauna and may
        interact with some native species.
    •   Species of conservation significance around Long Swamp, in understorey
        vegetation of upland habitats and utilizing roosting hollows in trees.
    •   A high level of interaction likely between mammal populations in the
        project area and Beeliar Regional Park, with the persistence of some
        species in the project area and in the west of the regional park reliant on
        linkage through the project area.

5.6.10 Implications

Due to vegetation being highly fragmented within the HVWRA a continuous
ecological link (north-south, east-west) through the site is not possible. In order
to link remnant bushland areas, there will be an emphasis on utilising road and
railway corridors as primary and secondary linkages. The fauna most likely to
utilise these linkages will be birds and mammals.

Terrestrial mammal species require linkages by means of a continuous habitat
with the understorey still relatively intact (Bamford, 2005) and therefore, there
may be limited use of the primary and secondary linkages by some of these
mammals. Instead it is anticipated that highly mobile fauna species such as
some birds and bats will utilise these linkages through the HVWRA.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 44 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
6.0       KEY NATURAL AREAS AND ECOLOGICAL LINKAGES AND CORRIDORS


6.1       Key Natural Areas


6.1.1 Identifying Key Natural Areas

Incorporating the outcomes of the subsections in Section 5 of this strategy and
the requirements of Condition 2 Ministerial Statement No. 667, Key Natural Areas
have been identified for the HVWRA (Figure 12).

The Key Natural Areas include and incorporate the following environmental
components:

      •   Existing Parks and Recreation reserves identified in the Master Plan.

      •   Conservation and Resource Enhancement management category
          wetlands and an associated 50m buffer.

      •   Vegetation in Very Good to Excellent Condition (In accordance with
          Bush Forever vegetation condition rating).

      •   Remnant vegetation areas to assist linkages and habitat areas.

      •   Vegetation connecting Conway Road Swamp, Hendy Road Swamp
          (east) and Long Swamp.



6.1.2 Constraints to Identifying Key Natural Areas

Extractive Industries

Much of the HVWRA is currently subject to or proposed for future extraction of
basic raw materials (Figure 13). The HVWRA contains both key and priority
extraction areas. As defined in the WAPC’s Statement of Planning Policy (SPP)
No. 2.4: Basic Raw Materials, Key Extraction Areas are recognised regional
resources providing for the long-term supply of basic raw materials. Priority
areas are those locations of regionally significant resources have been
recognised for basic raw materials extraction.

Extractive industries and their access to raw material resources in the HVWRA
are protected under Statement of Planning Policy 2.4. Extractive industry
licenses constrain the redevelopment of some sites for up to ten years and in the
case of Cockburn Cement, 32 years.

Therefore, in light of the above the identification of the Key Natural Areas for the
HVWRA took into consideration approved and existing development approvals




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 45 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
for extractive industries within the HVWRA (Figure 13) and excluded these areas
from this study.

Karrakatta Complex – Central and South

In acknowledgement of the fact that redevelopment of the HVWRA will occur
over a lifespan of 30 years or more, only viable areas of Karrakatta Complex –
Central and South vegetation identified as being in Good or better condition
was included in the criteria for identifying Key Natural Areas.

As stated in Section 5.5.5 of this document, a re-assessment of the vegetation
condition for this vegetation complex within the HVWRA was undertaken by Dr
Weston in April 2006. Subsequently, some areas of this vegetation complex
were identified as being in Good or better condition.

However, as part of a preliminary structure planning exercise WALA
commissioned a study into precincts 3 and 6 (which contained these areas of
Karrakatta Complex – Central and South) for the development of a Food
Processing Precinct. The preliminary study identified that the cut and fill
requirements of the land to accommodate the proposed form of development
will significantly modify natural ground levels. Therefore, due to the required
Finished Floor Levels for any future industrial development within the HVWRA the
opportunity to retain this vegetation complex was considered improbable.



6.1.3 Protection and Maintenance of Key Natural Areas

The need to redevelop some 1400 hectares to cater for mixed industrial and
commercial uses was identified through a series of studies, culminating in the
Fremantle Rockingham Industrial Area Regional Study (FRIARS) in 2000. As a
result, the HVWRP represents a long-term commitment by the State government
of more than 30 years.

Within this framework there is a need to find a solution which responds to the
environmental constraints and pressures that face the HVWRA and still meets
the State Government’s long-term commitment to cater for mixed industrial and
commercial uses within the south-west metropolitan corridor. The following
provides a strategic response and sets in place the next steps that need to be
undertaken to protect and maintain the Key Natural Areas identified in the
HVWRA.

However, in order for WALA to undertake the strategic actions identified below
and ensure that future development is guided towards the local scale
implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy, there is a need for an inter-
government agency response to the biodiversity issues that face the HVWRA.
That is, a cross-agency approach to government is required regarding its policy
position on carrying out and funding the strategic actions outlined below in
order to protect and maintain the Key Natural Areas identified in the HVWRA .




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 46 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Interim Implementation, Maintenance and Monitoring of Key Natural Areas

In recognition of the 30 year lifespan of the HVWRP and that there will be a
number of precincts which will not be redeveloped within the immediate future,
a framework for the interim implementation, maintenance and monitoring of
these Key Natural Areas prior to structure planning will be developed by WALA.

This framework shall address:

    •   Management Measures i.e. fencing, weed control, revegetation,
        wetland and buffer maintenance
    •   Key Performance Indicators
    •   Timeframes
    •   Responsibility

This framework shall be reviewed two years following its implementation.

Funding and Partnership Opportunities

To ensure that the Biodiversity Strategy is successfully implemented the provision
of funds will need to be identified and utilised. Funding for conservation areas
particularly for major public land areas within the Metropolitan Area is often
sourced from Commonwealth and State grants. For local (usually fragmented)
conservation areas funding is usually dependent on developer contribution and
Local Government Authorities.

There are several funding opportunities/programs that can be utilised by state
and particularly local government (in association with community groups), these
include:

    •   National Heritage Trust through Landcare, Bushcare, Rivercare and
        Coastcare.
    •   Lotterywest Grants - Gordon Reid Foundation which covers heritage and
        conservation and Local Government Authorities.
    •   Perth Biodiversity Project provides funding to local government and
        community groups working in partnership for on ground works and
        capacity building initiatives.
    •   Green Corps Program is a program which provides training for
        participation in conservation based projects. The Green Corps Program is
        in association with Job Future and Green Australia. State and Local
        Government cab also be sponsors for the Green Corp Program.
    •    Minster of the Environment’s Community Conservation Grants provides
        grants for projects involving conservation of fauna and/or flora, land
        rehabilitation for environmental benefit, and assistance for nature
        conservation projects.

Partnerships between developer/industry and State and Local government will
assist in the management of conservation areas both in the short-term and long-
term. Creating a sense of ownership of conservation areas for proposed




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 47 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
industry/developers and future employees will also contribute to the viability of
these conservation areas.

6.1.4 Reserve Viability

Guidelines for viability assessment and determining reserve areas have been
developed by the Perth Biodiversity Project, which has identified some minimum
targets for corridors, widths and reserve sizes.

These cover the following topics; size, shape, perimeter to area ratio, condition
and connectivity, which are highlighted below (WALGA, 2004):

Size of Reserve:

    •   A 1ha area can retain viable reptile populations (if fire and predation are
        controlled).
    •   Local Significant Natural Areas (LSNAs) should be greater than 4ha. This
        would depend on areas being no smaller or less viable than a 200m by
        200m square, the core area is about 2ha, assuming edge effects extend
        50m into the area. In the metropolitan area edge effects are typically
        observed to extend at least 25m into natural areas.
    •   Areas less then 50m wide will ultimately contain mostly edge habitat of
        low viability.

Table 2 presents the viability of reserve areas and their associated management
costs.

                                               TABLE 2
                                     Viability of Reserve Sizes
              SIZE                              VIABILITY                 MANAGEMENT COSTS
 Greater then 20ha                            Higher Viability           Lower Management Costs
 Greater then 10ha but less than
 20ha
 Greater than 4ha but less than
 10ha
 Greater than 1 ha but less than
                                              Lower Viability            Higher Management Costs
 4ha
                                                                           Very High Management
 Less than 1ha                               Very Low Viability
                                                                                   Costs
Source: Adapted from Perth Biodiversity Project (2004:63)



Shape of reserve:

    •   Compact circles, squares and squat rectangles have the greatest
        viability, while long thin shapes and irregular shapes have a lower
        viability.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 48 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
    •   Long thin shape with large proportion of area less than 50m wide is
        considered to have very low viability.
    •   Studies have indicated that native vegetation that acts as a link between
        larger viable natural areas needs to be at least 25-50m wide for many
        bird species.

Perimeter to area ratio:

    •    Perimeter to area ratio is determined by size and shape and is a useful
         indicator to whether an area is viable. A perimeter to area less then 0.01
         is high viability while a ratio value greater than 0.04 indicates a lower
         viability.

6.1.5 Assessment and Retention of Key Natural Areas

In recognition of the 30 year lifespan of this project and the changing
landscape within the HVWRA, an assessment of the Key Natural Areas identified
in Figure 12 will be undertaken as part of the structure planning for that precinct.

The purpose of this assessment will be to determine the environmental values
within the Key Natural Areas identified in Figure 12, in order to determine

•    the viability and management effort of the proposed reserve using criteria
     identified in Section 6.1.4 of the Biodiversity Strategy; and
•    the final boundary and design for proposed reserve within Structure Plan
     area.

6.1.6 Design Guidelines

As part of structure planning for each precinct, design guidelines will be
prepared in support of the Structure Plan. There are essentially two levels of
Design Guidelines that may apply to the HVWRP. These are:

1. Design Guidelines and Policies prepared at the Master Plan level. Cl 2.2 of
   the HVWRP Master Plan provides for either the WAPC or WALA to prepare
   Design Guidelines for the Master Plan (ie. to address any design guideline
   requirements at a regional level). Either WAPC or WALA (whoever didn't
   prepare the Design Guideline) is the approval authority.

2. Design Guidelines required at the Structure Plan level. Design Guidelines will
   undoubtedly be prepared in conjunction with and form part of a Structure
   Plan, which under the Master Plan can be prepared by a developer or
   WALA. The WAPC is the agency responsible for approving a Structure Plan
   (incl. any Design Guidelines contained therein).




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 49 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
The purpose of these design guidelines is to elaborate on the provisions
provided within the Structure Plan and ensure that future subdivision and lot
development is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Structure Plan.

Therefore, to ensure the local scale implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy
the design guidelines should be guided by the relevant biodiversity
management objectives and actions set out in Section 6.2 of this document.

As part of the development approval process Individual applications for will
need to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the design
guidelines.

6.1.7 Wetland and Bushland Management Plans

In recognition of both the specific biodiversity management objectives
adopted within this strategy, and the requirement to comply with requirements
set out in Condition 2 of Ministerial Statement No. 667, Wetland Management
Plans and Bushland Management Plans for the Key Natural Areas identified for
future protection and conservation will be prepared.

The purpose of the management plans will be to:

    •   address the relevant biodiversity management objectives; and
    •   identify the framework for implementing these management plans such
        as, management, monitoring, timing, maintenance, contingency
        planning, roles and responsibilities.

Future structure planning for the areas which contain a Key Natural Area will
identify and set in place the requirement to prepare these management plans
as a condition of subdivision.

Individual applications for future development adjacent to these proposed
conservation areas will need to have regard for these management plans.

With respect to Long Swamp, there is an existing Draft Revegetation
Management Plan which was prepared by the Town of Kwinana and therefore,
this strategy recommends as a strategic action that this management plan be
reviewed, updated and finalised to ensure the ongoing protection and
management of Long Swamp from future industry.

6.1.8 Future Development near Wetlands

Incorporating the information discussed in Section 5.4.5 and current government
policies, no development is to occur within any Conservation or Resource
Enhancement management category wetland and its associated 50m buffer
within and adjacent to the HVWRA, unless approved by the DEC/EPA and other
relevant government authority.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 50 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Development outside the 50m wetland buffer for Conservation and Resource
Enhancement wetlands within and adjacent to the HVWRA should be based on
the developments associated risk to the environment. To assess the risk (high,
medium or low) for any future development, including its operations and
activities, the following should be considered:

    •   Type of development and its operational activities i.e. whether it would
        be considered to be a prescribed premises under Part V of the
        Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Regulations 1987.
    •   Developer and operators past track record of environmental incidences.
    •   Proposed management for development and operations for example
        operational Environmental Management System (EMS).
    •   Storage, handling and management of dangerous goods and chemical
        based substances on site.
    •   Development containment i.e. closed system where no discharges on
        and/or off site.

Following the outcomes of assessing any future development against the above
criteria:

    •   Low risk developments (i.e. commercial industry-office buildings) can
        occur adjacent to and beyond the 50m wetlands buffer.
    •   Medium risk developments can occur at and beyond the 200m zone of
        secondary influence (i.e. light industry).
    •   No high risk development (i.e. medium to heavy industry) within 200m
        upstream from wetland the wetland boundary and within 200m
        downstream from the wetland boundary.

The following table provides an indication as to what would be considered low,
medium and high risk industrial land uses within the 200m zone of influence foran
adjacent wetland.

                                               TABLE 3
             Examples of Low, Medium and High Risk Industrial Land Uses
                within 200m Zone of Influence of Adjacent Wetlands

                                         Industrial Land Use
           Low Risk                          Medium Risk                       High Risk
Civic Use                           Bulk Goods Handling              Fuel Depot
Commercial                          Distribution Centre              Industry – General
Convenience Store                   Industrial – Light               Industry – Hazardous
Lunch Bar                           Laundry (Industrial)             Motor Vehicle Repair and/or
                                                                     Wash
Medical Centre                      Market                           Resource Recovery
Office Building                     Motor   Vehicle,     Boat     or Salvage Yard
                                    Caravan Sales
Recreation                          Storage                            Service Station
Showroom                            Trade Display                      Transport Depot




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 51 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
In order to implement the above criteria a Planning Policy for the HVWRA will be
developed as a strategic action, with the purpose of:

    •    Guiding future developments within 200m to 50m of the wetland
         boundary for Conservation Category and Resource Enhancement
         wetlands (within and adjacent to the HVWRA) to ensure that their
         activities and operations are compatible with the ecological values of
         the adjacent wetland; and

    •    Assessing proposed developments and their compatibility with the
         ecological values of the adjacent wetland and in accordance with the
         criteria identified in Section 6.1.4 of this Strategy.T

Therefore the above criteria and proposed Planning Policy will be used to assist
in the appropriate allocation of industry types within 200m to 50m of the
adjacent wetland.

6.1.9 Stormwater Management and Wetland Water Requirements

Specific principles applying to current drainage design to be applied within the
HVWRA are as follows:

    •    No direct stormwater discharge into Long Swamp or into any other
         wetlands identified within or adjacent to the HVWRA.      However,
         undulating topography may impinge upon placement and type of
         drainage mechanisms and hence stormwater management may be
         considered within 200m of the wetland, but outside the 50m buffer.
         Stormwater management shall also be designed to maintain or attempt
         to restore the wetland’s natural water regime.

    •    Creation of parkland, greenbelts and the retention of remnant
         vegetation near wetlands, along transport corridors and between
         development cells, which act as habitat corridors and buffers, will be
         used for surface water retention and onsite infiltration (please note there
         will be no direct drainage into wetlands);

    •    Provision (within road reserves and parklands) for the creation of
         artificial/linear seasonally dry wetlands, swales and sediment basins along
         transport corridors and as part of the stormwater management system.

The principles and design requirements for stormwater management near
wetlands and wetland water requirements is addressed in further detail in the
HVWRP Water Management Strategy.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 52 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
6.2       Ecological Linkages and Corridors


6.2.1 Identifying Ecological Linkages and Corridors for the HVWRA

Ecological linkages are known as non-contiguous natural areas that connect
larger natural areas by forming stepping stones that allow the movement over
time of fauna between larger natural areas (Perth Biodiversity Project, 2004).
The value of linkages to fauna is highly dependent on the quality of habitat
including availability of food sources and nesting sites (ATA et al., 2000). Small
and isolated fragments of native vegetation are important for reptiles, and as
“stepping stones” for birds.

These areas are essential features for conservation value, particularly within the
urban context. The roles of linkages include the protection of water quality,
vegetation retention and provide an educational and aesthetic value (ATA,
1998).

There are several factors which can influence the effectiveness of ecological
linkages including edge effects i.e. access, invasion of weeds, illegal rubbish
dumping, green waste disposal and fire.

Various linkages/bushland corridors have identified bushland corridors for the
northern section of the site (precincts 7 to 12). ATA (1998) and the Town of
Kwinana (Ecoscape, 2000) identified Russell Road as a link between Thomsons
Lake and Woodman Point on the coast, and Stock Road (Rockingham Road) as
a connection between Brownman Swamp and Lake Mt Brown. Further to this
publication, local linkages along the existing railway reserve, Fanstone Avenue
and Wattleup Road have been identified (ATA et al., 2000).

Identified on Figure 12 is the ‘Southern Wetland Ecological Link’ for Long Swamp,
Hendy Road Swamp (East) and Conway Road Swamp. The conservation of key
areas linking wetlands within the southern Precincts, providing connectivity with
conservation areas, would ensure both the retention and enhancement of
ecological values within and beyond the project area. Conservation and
retention of Long Swamp, Conway Road Swamp and Hendy Road Swamp, and
pivotal connecting vegetation ensures linkages between these wetland
systems, and potential linkages to large conservation areas of the Beeliar
Regional Park including Lake Mt Brown, the Spectacles and Thomsons Lake.

In addition, three main potential alignments for habitat linkage across the
project area have also been identified by Bamford (2005). These are:

      •   Along Russell Road, linking existing remnants in this area with Brownman
          Swamp in the West and Thomson’s Lake and the Harry Waring Marsupial
          Reserve in the east. There is some native vegetation already along
          Russell Road, including a large block of Jarrah/banksia woodland
          between Russell and Torgoyle Roads. West of Henderson Road, verge
          planting would be required to establish a linkage. In addition to the east-



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 53 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
         west linkage, vegetation in this area also links to vegetation that lies to
         the north of the project area.

    •   Along Dalison Avenue, from Mt Brown Lake to Harry Waring Reserve in
        Beeliar Regional Park. This is the shortest distance between the two
        sectors of the regional park. There is some remnant vegetation along the
        eastern end of Dalison Avenue, both inside and just outside the project
        area, but otherwise this linkage would need to be strengthened through
        verge planting.

    •   Along Hope Valley Road, linking Long Swamp with the western sector of
        the regional park, and to the south-east to woodland around Alcoa’s
        tailings ponds and The Spectacles. This linkage may also align with the
        proposed Fremantle Rockingham Highway, which has the potential to be
        a major north-south wildlife corridor.

Guidelines for viability assessment and determining ecological linkages have
been developed by the Perth Biodiversity Project (2004), which has identified
some minimum targets for corridors, widths and reserve sizes. These are
highlighted below:

    •   The viability of a natural area is dependent on its proximity to other areas
        and the quality of the linkage between them. The viability of an area will
        increase the closer it is to other protection natural areas i.e. DEC estate
        and/or Bush Forever areas.

    •   Aim to provide a network of good stepping stones linking like habitat with
        a maximum distance of 500m to 1,000m between them to connect the
        local significant natural areas joined by a linkage.

Due to vegetation being highly fragmented within the HVWRA a continuous
ecological link (north-south, east-west) through the site is not possible. In order
to link remnant bushland areas, there will be an emphasis on utilising road and
railway corridors as primary and secondary linkages.

The primary linkages have been identified as those which provide linkages
between the eastern and western chain of the Beeliar Regional Park. Whereas,
the secondary linkages provide for north-south linkages through the HVWRA with
the potential to link to the primary linkages through the site. Figure 12 identifies
the east to west and north to south linkages.

Incorporating the information provided in Section 5.6.4 on the patterns of fauna
persistence in the HVWRA and that primary and secondary linkages through the
HVWRA will be through the use of road and railway corridors, the fauna most
likely to utilise these linkages will be birds and mammals.

There is likely to be a high level of interaction between the bird and mammal
populations in the HVWRA and the Beeliar Regional Park, with persistence of
some (Bamford, 2005):



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 54 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
    •   bird species reliant on linkage through the HVWRA; and

    •   mammal species in the HVWRA and in the west of the regional park
        reliant on linkage through the HVWRA.

However, it should be noted that terrestrial mammal species require linkages by
means of a continuous habitat with the understorey still relatively intact
(Bamford, 2005) and therefore, there may be limited use of the primary and
secondary linkages by some of these mammals. Instead it is anticipated that
highly mobile fauna species such as some birds and bats will utilise these
linkages through the HVWRA.

6.2.2 Design Principles for Verge Planting along Corridors

The following design principles are provided as a guide to verge planting along
road and railway corridors proposed to act as fauna linkages through the
HVWRA.

    •   Aim to maximise the width, connectivity and structural complexity of
        vegetation in linkages as much as possible to make them suitable for a
        broad range of fauna and flora.

    •   Use a variety of endemic plant species to provide an overstorey and
        understorey that will adapt to the local environment and provide habitat
        suitable for a range of endemic fauna species within the area.

    •   Keep the corridors as wide as possible to reduce the negative impact of
        edge effects. As a minimum for bird species the understorey should form
        thickets that are more than two metres wide and gaps in the linkage
        should be less than 50m when accommodating driveways and
        crossroads.

    •   Where possible, retain existing trees (particularly those with roosting
        hollows) and understorey along and natural areas adjacent to proposed
        corridors.

    •   Provide for the ongoing protection, maintenance and monitoring of
        these corridors to ensure their long-term success.

6.2.3 Landscaping

As redevelopment within the HVWRA proceeds, appropriate landscaping will
play an integral role in implementing the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy
for potential ecological linkages and corridors identified within the HVWRA.

Currently, the HVWRP Planning Policy 1.3 contains provisions for plant selection
with respect to street plantings and landscaping, and water saving landscapes.



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 55 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
To ensure that the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy is reflected in future
landscaping, Planning Policy 1.3 will be updated to ensure its consistency with
the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy.

Overall Landscape Plan

As a strategic action, an Overall Landscape Plan will be developed for the
HVWRA in consultation with the City of Cockburn, Town of Kwinana and existing
Quarry Operators.

The purpose of this Overall Landscape Plan will be to:

    •   address the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy;
    •   address the landform of the project area, with particular reference to
        Finished Floor Levels and sight lines associated with transport corridors and
        quarry activities;
    •   have regard for the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Area Quarry
        Landscape Report;
    •   develop design criteria to guide future structure planning and development;
    •   provide an appropriate landscape and fauna corridor design response
        which considers the likely persistence and movement of fauna through the
        area (refer to sections 5.6 and 5.7) ;
    •   have regard for the design principles identified in Section 6.2.2;
    •   provide a list of compatible plants for future developers to use when
        selecting plants for verge and treatment plantings along proposed corridors
        and gazetted road reserves;
    •   provide for the preservation of existing trees and understorey within lots,
        where practicable; and
    •   address landscape features.

Landform Restoration and Revegetation Plan

In addition, future landform restoration and revegetation of existing and future
extractive industries have the potential to contribute to achieving the
Biodiversity Strategy’s objective for ecological linkages within the HVWRA.

The Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Area Quarry Landscape Report,
which was prepared by URS in July 2004, provides an analysis of the strategic
landscape and land use setting for the HVWRA. In response it provides a set of
guidelines on minimising long-term visual intrusion of post-operational quarry
landform, undertaking landform restoration and revegetation.

Subsequently, under the current approval process for extractive industries within
the HVWRA, there is a requirement to prepare and implement a Landform
Restoration and Revegetation Plan as condition of approval.

To ensure that the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy is reflected in future
landscaping and revegetation of extractive industries, the guidelines provided
in the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Area Quarry Landscape Report
will be updated to have regard for the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 56 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
7.0       MANAGEMENT STRATEGY


7.1       Outline


7.1.1 Overarching Objective

The overarching objective of the Biodiversity Strategy is to:

“To identify areas required for biodiversity conservation and enhancement and
propose mechanisms for their protection and management.”

7.1.2 Strategic Biodiversity Objective and Actions

The Biodiversity Objectives have been based on the Ministerial Conditions for
the project and reflect the overarching objective of the Biodiversity Strategy.

In order to meet the overarching objective of the Biodiversity Strategy and the
requirements set out in Condition 2 of Ministerial Statement No. 667, as well as
facilitate the local scale implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy, the
following strategic actions have been identified in Section 6.2 of this strategy.
These are:

      •   Develop a framework for the implementation, management and
          monitoring of potential areas identified for protection.

      •   Develop an Overall Landscape Plan for the HVWRA.

      •   In consultation with the WAPC, Town of Kwinana and DEC, investigate
          options to incorporate Long Swamp within the Beeliar Regional Park.

      •   Review and update the HVWRP Master Plan, HVWRP Environmental
          Strategy (C2.4.3), Proposed Planning Policy 1.3 Landscaping, the HVWRP
          Planning Strategy and the guidelines provided in the Hope Valley
          Wattleup Redevelopment Area Quarry Landscape Report to reflect the
          objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy and incorporate the Strategic and
          Management Actions (where relevant) listed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this
          strategy.

It is well recognised that the HVWRP represents a long-term commitment by the
State government to address environmental concerns within the south-west
metropolitan corridor. Implementation of the HVWRP will result in a land use
solution to the environmental issues that face the HVWRA and the region.

The HVWRP (and its accompanying policies and strategies) represents part of a
package of environmental and environmental health measures to improve the
quality of the environment within this corridor.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 57 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Subsequently, to ensure that the strategic actions and ensure that future
development is guided towards the local scale implementation of this strategy,
there is a need for an inter-government agency response to the biodiversity
issues that face the HVWRA. That is, a cross-agency approach to government is
required regarding its policy position on carrying out and funding the strategic
actions outlined in the Biodiversity Strategy in order to satisfy Ministerial
Condition No. 2 (Ministerial Statement 667).

7.1.3 Biodiversity Management Objectives and Actions

Section 7.3 develops the biodiversity management objectives and actions
which are to be applied to guide future development towards the local scale
implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy for the following areas:

    •   Wetlands
    •   Significant Remnant Vegetation
    •   Ecological Linkages and Corridors

Specifically, the management actions listed in Section 7.3 cover the following
topics, which were discussed in detail in Section 6.1 and 6.2 of this strategy:

    •   Assessment and protection of Key Natural Areas

    •   Protection and maintenance of Ecological Linkages and Corridors

    •   Preparation of Design Guidelines as part of precinct structure planning

    •   Preparation and implementation of Wetland Management Plans and
        Bushland Management Plans.

    •   Management of future development within 200m of any Conservation or
        Resource Enhancement category wetlands within and adjacent to the
        HVWRA.

    •   Stormwater management and wetland water requirements



7.1.4 Implementation

The Management Strategy is arranged in a tabular format to assist in readability
and identification of actions required, implementation mechanisms, their
targets, priority and person(s) or authority responsible for that action.

The ongoing implementation, progress and status of the actions listed in the
following sub-sections will be reviewed as part of the yearly consolidation review
for the HVWRP Master Plan.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 58 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Following this review, an annual report will be prepared on the progress and
status of the actions listed in Section 7.2 Strategic Actions of this document.

WALA is the Responsible Authority as defined under the Hope Valley-Wattleup
Redevelopment Act 2000 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’).                As the
redevelopment and implementation proceeds within the HVWRA, WALA will
have particular responsibilities to ensure that the Act is carried forth. However,
redevelopment areas will be subject to a normalisation process where particular
areas no longer fall under the Act or WALAs responsibility. Any implementation
actions identified under the Strategy will only be applicable for the period that
WALA has responsibility for that area as defined under the Act.

7.1.5 Periodical Review and Audit

From the date of West Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approval and
endorsement, the Biodiversity Strategy will be reviewed after five years or earlier
(i.e. in order to coincide with the review of the Master Plan). As part of this
review the following will be undertaken to:

    •   ensure that the Biodiversity Strategy reflects current policies and best
        management practices in biodiversity;

    •   ensure that the Biodiversity Strategy is updated and improved as more
        information and data becomes available;

    •   review development proposals and on ground                                   operations   and
        compliance with the Biodiversity Strategy objectives;

    •   provide recommendations for continuous improvement and reporting
        procedures.



7.1.6 Roles and Responsibilities

WALA, WAPC, Local Government Authorities (LGA’s) and DEC (if required) shall
ensure that development and building applications refer to and comply with
the Biodiversity Strategy objectives and management plans. Developers and
industries proposed within the study area also have a responsibility to ensure
compliance with the Biodiversity Strategy.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 59 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
7.2     Strategic Actions



 Strategic Biodiversity Objectives:
 • Identify Key Natural Areas and Ecological Linkages and Corridors within the HVWRA. (MP section 7.2 (l))
 • Endeavour to retain and conserve Key Natural Areas and Ecological Linkages and Corridors within the HVWRA. (MP section 7.2 (l))
 • Develop and implement mechanisms which will provide for the future protection, management and monitoring of Key Natural Areas and Ecological
     Linkages and Corridors within the HVWRA. (MP section 7.1 (c))

 Actions                                                                                    Implementation Mechanisms   Timeframe   Responsibility

 1.   Develop a framework for the implementation, management and monitoring of       Yearly Consolidation Review *
      Key Natural Areas identified for protection in consultation with the City of
      Cockburn and Town of Kwinana.

      This framework shall address:
       • Management Measures i.e. fencing, weed control, revegetation, wetland                                                       Responsible
                                                                                                                          2008
          and buffer maintenance                                                                                                      Authority
       • Monitoring Program
       • Key Performance Indicators
       • Timeframes for management measures
       • Responsibility

 2.   In consultation with the Town of Kwinana and DEC, investigate options to       Yearly Consolidation Review *
                                                                                                                          2008         WAPC
      incorporate Long Swamp within the Beeliar Regional Park.

 3.   Review, update, finalise and adopt the Draft ToK Revegetation Management       Yearly Consolidation Review *        2008      WAPC, DEC and
      Plan for Long Swamp.                                                                                                              ToK




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 60 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
 Actions                                                                                        Implementation Mechanisms   Timeframe   Responsibility

 4.   Develop a Planning Policy with the purpose of:                                     Yearly Consolidation Review *
      •    Guiding future developments within 200m to 50m of the wetland boundary
           for Conservation Category and Resource Enhancement wetlands (within
           and adjacent to the HVWRA) to ensure that their activities and operations                                                     Responsible
                                                                                                                              2008
           are compatible with the ecological values of the adjacent wetland; and                                                         Authority
      •    Assessing proposed developments and their compatibility with the
           ecological values of the adjacent wetland and in accordance with the
           criteria identified in Section 6.1.4 of this Strategy.

 5.   Develop an Overall Landscape Plan for the HVWR in consultation with the            Yearly Consolidation Review *
      Town of Kwinana, City of Cockburn and existing Quarry Operators.
      •    The Landscape Plan shall include, but not be limited to:address the
           objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy
      •    address the landform of the project area, with particular reference to
           Finished Floor Levels and sight lines associated with transport corridors
           and quarry activities;
      •    have regard for the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Area Quarry
           Landscape Report;
      •    develop design criteria to guide future structure planning and                                                                Responsible
           development;                                                                                                       2008
                                                                                                                                          Authority
      •    provide an appropriate landscape and corridor design response which
           considers the likely persistence and movement of fauna through the area
           (refer to sections 5.6 and 5.7) ;
      •    have regard for the design principles identified in Section 6.2.2;
      •    provide a list of compatible plants for future developers to use when
           selecting plants for verge and treatment plantings along proposed
           corridors and gazetted road reserves;
      •    provide for the preservation of existing trees and understorey within lots,
           where practicable; and
      •    address landscape features.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                              Page 61 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                          Revision    Final Report
Prepared by RPS                                Date        November 2007
 Actions                                                                                        Implementation Mechanisms   Timeframe   Responsibility

 6.   Review and update the following documents to reflect the objectives of the       Yearly Consolidation Review *
      Biodiversity Strategy, the outcomes of Strategic Actions 1, 2 and 3, and the
      relevant Management Actions listed in Section 6.3:                                                                                 Responsible
                                                                                                                              2008
      •    HVWRP Master Plan                                                                                                              Authority
      •    HVWRP Environmental Strategy (C2.4.3)
      •    Proposed Planning Policy 1.3 Landscaping

 7.   Review and update the HVWRP Planning Strategy to incorporate the Key             Yearly Consolidation Review *          2008       Responsible
      Natural Areas and Ecological Linkages and Corridors as identified in Figure                                                         Authority
      12.

* Refer to Section 7.1.4 Implementation for further detail on the Yearly Consolidation Review




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                             Page 62 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                         Revision    Final Report
Prepared by RPS                               Date        November 2007
7.3     Management Actions



 7.3.1 Wetlands


 Actions                                                                                    Implementation Mechanisms                 Timeframe       Responsibility

 Biodiversity Management Objective:
 Support the protection of sensitive environments and areas of environmental significance within and outside the HVWRA, including Beeliar Wetlands, Cockburn Sound and
 Long Swamp. (MP sections, 7.1 (c), 7.2 (c) 7.2 (h) & 7.3.3)

 1.   No development within the wetland boundary for Conservation Category and       Structure planning to acknowledge and              Ongoing          Precinct
      Resource Enhancement wetlands (within and adjacent to the HVWRA) and           provide for the protection of these wetlands                       Subdivider
      their associated buffer unless approved by the EPA/DEC and/or relevant         and their associated buffer.                                    and/or Developer
      government authorities.

 Biodiversity Management Objective:
 Maintain and enhance the integrity, ecological functions and environmental values of Long Swamp, Conway Road Swamp and Hendy Road Swamp (east) and their
 adjacent buffer. (MP Sections 7.1 (c), 7.2 (c) & 7.3.3)

 2.   Develop and implement Wetland Management Plans for Conway Road and             Structure planning process to identify and set      During          Precinct
      Hendy Road Swamp (east) which address the objectives of Biodiversity           in place the requirement to prepare Wetland        Structure       Subdivider
      Strategy and provides for the future protection and management of these        Management Plans for Conway Road and             Planning and   and/or Developer
      wetlands.                                                                      Hendy Road Swamp (east) as a condition of         Subdivision
                                                                                     subdivision.
      Management should address:
      • Consultation with the relevant local government
      • Existing LGA conservation plans
      • Management Measures i.e. fencing, weed control, revegetation wetland
         and buffer maintenance.
      • Key Performance Indicators
      • Timeframes and Responsibility




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 63 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
 7.3.1     Wetlands (Cont’d)

 Actions                                                                                     Implementation Mechanisms                   Timeframe      Responsibility

 Biodiversity Management Objective:
 Ensure that discharge from land uses within the HVWRA do not adversely impact on the integrity, ecological functions and environmental values of the wetlands within and
 adjacent to the HVWRA, which includes the Beeliar Wetlands, Long Swamp, Conway Road Swamp and Hendy Road Swamp (east). (MP sections, 7.1 (c), 7.2 (c), 7.2 (h),
 7.2 (p), 7.3.2 & 7.3.3)

 3.   Future development outside the 50m wetland buffer for Conservation Category    Development applications identified as being
      and Resource Enhancement wetlands (within and adjacent to the HVWRA) to        200m upstream and/or within 200m of
      be based on the development’s associated risk to the environment.              Conservation       Category      and     Resource                   Developer and
                                                                                                                                           Prior to
                                                                                     Enhancement wetlands (within and adjacent to                          End Use
                                                                                                                                         Development
                                                                                     the HVWRA) are to be assessed and                                     Manager
                                                                                     approved in accordance with the criteria
                                                                                     identified in Section 6.1.4 of this Strategy.

 4.   When designing and constructing transport networks near wetland areas, best    Future construction of transport networks to
      practice management options should to be adopted.                              have due regard for WRC (2002) Road in
                                                                                     Sensitive Environments and GHD (2002)                              Main Roads WA
                                                                                                                                         As required
                                                                                     Review of Best practice for Road Design and                           and LGA
                                                                                     Construction through Sensitive Wetland
                                                                                     Environments.

 5.   Develop Design Guidelines which address the above Biodiversity Objective for   Design Guidelines to be prepared as part of
                                                                                                                                           During
      wetlands and provide guidance to future development of their requirements      the structure planning process under section
                                                                                                                                          Structure          WALA
      when constructing and operating near wetlands within and adjacent to the       6.2.14 of the Master Plan.
                                                                                                                                          Planning
      HVWRA.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 64 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
 7.3.1     Wetlands (Cont’d)

 Actions                                                                                    Implementation Mechanisms                Timeframe        Responsibility

 Biodiversity Management Objective:
 Minimise the impact of surface runoff so as to protect and maintain the integrity, functions and environmental values of natural catchments, hydrological systems and
 wetlands, within and adjacent to the Redevelopment Area. (MP sections, 7.1 (c), 7.2 (c), 7.2 (h), 7.2 (p), 7.3.2 & 7.3.3)

 6.   Ensure that drainage and stormwater are appropriately managed within the       Refer to Stormwater Management and                                  Precinct
      HVWRA.                                                                         Wetland Water Requirements sections of the                         Subdivider
                                                                                                                                     As required
                                                                                     Water Management Strategy                                       and/or Developer


 7.   Develop Design Guidelines which address the above Biodiversity Objective for   Design Guidelines to be prepared as part of
                                                                                                                                       During
      wetlands and guide future development on their requirements to minimise that   the structure planning process under section
                                                                                                                                      Structure           WALA
      potential impacts of surface runoff near wetlands within and adjacent to the   6.2.14 of the Master Plan.
                                                                                                                                      Planning
      HVWRA..




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 65 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
 7.3.2 Significant Remnant Vegetation


 Action                                                                                         Implementation Mechanisms                   Timeframe          Responsibility

 Biodiversity Management Objective:
 Endeavour to retain, conserve and manage viable areas of significant remnant native vegetation identified within Key Natural Areas. (MP sections 7.1 (c), 7.2 (c) & 7.2 (l))

 1.   Undertake an assessment of environmental values within the Key Natural           Assessment to be undertaken as part of the
      Areas identified in Figure 12, in order to determine:                            structure planning process.
                                                                                                                                              During         Precinct Subdivider
      •   the viability and management effort of the proposed reserve using criteria
                                                                                                                                             Structure        and/or Developer
          identified in Section 6.1.4 of the Biodiversity Strategy; and
                                                                                                                                             Planning
      •   the final boundary and design for proposed reserve within Structure Plan
          area.

 2.   Following the outcomes of Action 1, provide for the future protection of the     Following the outcomes of Strategic Action 1
      proposed reserve through the provision of Public Open Space or reservation       (Section 6.2), structure planning to provide for       During
      under the Master Plan.                                                           the future protection and maintenance of the          Structure
                                                                                       proposed reserve.                                                     Precinct Subdivider
                                                                                                                                             Planning,
                                                                                                                                                              and/or Developer
                                                                                       Structure planning, subdivision and future           Subdivision
                                                                                       development proposals adjoining proposed                 and
                                                                                       reserve to identify interface treatments to         Development
                                                                                       reduce edge effects.

 3.   Develop Design Guidelines which address above Biodiversity Objective and         Design Guidelines to be prepared as part of            During
      provide for the future protection and maintenance of the proposed reserve.       the structure planning process under section          Structure              WALA
                                                                                       6.2.14 of the Master Plan.                            Planning




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                             Page 66 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                         Revision    Final Report
Prepared by RPS                               Date        November 2007
 7.3.2    Significant Remnant Vegetation (Cont’d)

 Action                                                                                     Implementation Mechanisms                    Timeframe         Responsibility

 4.   Prepare and implement Bushland Management Plans for proposed reserve.          Structure planning to identify and set in         During Structure        Precinct
                                                                                     place the requirement to prepare Bushland          Planning and          Subdivider
      Management should address:
                                                                                     Management Plans for proposed reserve as            Subdivision       and/or Developer
      • Objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy
                                                                                     a condition of subdivision.
      • Existing LGA conservation plans
      • Management Measures i.e. fencing, weed control, revegetation and
         maintenance
      • Key Performance Indicators
      • Timeframes and Responsibility

 5.   Where isolated pockets of remnant vegetation will be cleared as a result of    Structure plan to identify the requirement for         Prior to           Precinct
      future industrial development, demonstrate how the translocation of Quenda     any translocation of Quenda. Subdivision         commencement of         Subdivider
      has been addressed.                                                            condition to address the requirement to           clearing and bulk   and/or Developer
                                                                                     address the translocation of Quenda.                 earthworks




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 67 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
 7.3.3 Ecological Linkages and Corridors


 Action                                                                                      Implementation Mechanisms                    Timeframe         Responsibility

 Biodiversity Objective:
 Endeavour to maintain and enhance ecological linkages and corridors between the Beeliar Regional Park, fauna habitats and significant remnant vegetation. (MP section 7.2
 (l))

 1.   Provide for the future protection and maintenance of proposed ecological       Structure planning to acknowledge the
      linkages and corridors as identified in Figure 12 and in accordance with the   regional links, between the eastern and
      design requirements set out in Overall Landscape Plan and Section 6.2.2 of     western chains of the Beeliar Regional Park.
      this Strategy.                                                                                                                        During
                                                                                     Structure planning to identify mechanisms that
                                                                                                                                           Structure
                                                                                     will be used to provide for the future protection                     Precinct Subdivider
                                                                                                                                           Planning,
                                                                                     and maintenance of the proposed ecological                             and/or Developer
                                                                                                                                          Subdivision
                                                                                     linkages and corridors.
                                                                                                                                              and
                                                                                     Structure planning, subdivision and future          Development
                                                                                     development proposals adjoining proposed
                                                                                     ecological linkages and corridors to identify
                                                                                     interface treatments to reduce edge effects.

 2.   Develop Design Guidelines which address the above Biodiversity Objective       Design Guidelines to be prepared as part of            During         Precinct Subdivider
      and provide for the future protection and maintenance of the proposed          the structure planning process under section          Structure        and/or Developer
      ecological linkages and corridors.                                             6.2.14 of the Master Plan.                            Planning

 3.   Prepare and implement a Landform Restoration and Rehabilitation Plan, which    As a condition of approval all future extractive    Closure/Compl      Quarry operator
      is consistent with the objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy.                industries are required to prepare and              etion of mining
                                                                                     implement a Landform Restoration and                  operations
                                                                                     Rehabilitation Plan.
 4.   Endeavour to incorporate fauna underpasses in design for new transport         Structure planning to identify the requirement         Ongoing        Main Roads and/or
      routes which intersect proposed ecological linkages and corridors.             for fauna underpasses to be incorporated in                               Developer
                                                                                     design for new transport routes.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 68 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
8.0       CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the strategic and biodiversity management objectives and
framework proposed within the Biodiversity Strategy provides the mechanisms
required within the planning process to ensure that future development within
the HVWRA is guided towards local scale implementation of the objectives of
the Biodiversity Strategy.

Due to the highly fragmented and degraded nature of the remnant vegetation
within the HVWRA and a large proportion of the HVWRA being allocated to
extractive industries, the opportunity to retain areas of significant remnant
vegetation and maintain a continuous ecological link through the HVWRA is
very limited.

Implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy will lead to:

      •   management and protection of Key Natural Areas identified for
          conservation;
      •   developing primary and secondary linkages by utilising current and
          proposed rail and road corridors;
      •   the long-term protection of the western and eastern wetland chains in
          the Beeliar Regional Park;
      •   the long-term protection of the wetlands located within and adjacent
          the HVWRA;
      •   provision of a north-south and east-west ecological link between Long
          Swamp, Hendy Road Swamp (east) and Conway Road Swamp.

It is recognised that implementation of the HVWRP and the Biodiversity Strategy
will result in a land use solution to the environmental issues that face the HVWRA
and the region as a whole.

In order to ensure that future development is guided towards the local scale
implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy, a cross-agency approach to
Government is required regarding its policy position on carrying out and funding
the strategic actions outlined in the Biodiversity Strategy in order to satisfy the
requirements of Ministerial Condition No. 2 (Ministerial Statement 667).




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 69 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
9.0     REFERENCES



Alan Tingay and Associates (1998) A Strategic Plan for Perth’s Greenways. Final
       Report, Perth.

Alan Tingay and Associates, Gerard Healy and Associates, The Planning Group
       and Barbara Green (2000) City of Cockburn Greening Plan. Unpublished
       Report, May.

Arup (2002) Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Sustainability
      Assessment: Existing Project Area and Preferred Redevelopment Option.
      Draft. October 2002.

Bamford Consulting Ecologists (2005) Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment
     Project: Biodiversity Fauna Assessment. Prepared for RPS BBG, May.

Bureau of Meteorology (2004) Climate averages for Jandakot [Online] available
      at    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw 009172.shtml
      (Assessed 20.04.05)

Cale, B. (2003).  Carnaby’s Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris)
      Recovery Plan 2002-2012.  Department of Conservation and Land
      Management, Perth.

Cooper, C.E., Withers P.C., Mawson, P.R., Bradshaw, S.D., Prince, J. and
     Robertson, H. (2002). Metabolic ecology of cockatoos in the south-west
     of Western Australia. Aust. J. Ecol. 50: 67-76.


Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R.A. and Eggler, P. (1993). The Action Plan
     for Australian Reptiles. Endangered Species Programme Project Number
     124, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.


Davidson, W.A (1995) Hydrogeology and groundwater resources of the Perth
      Region, Western Australia. Western Australia Geological Survey, Bulletin
      142.

Department of Conservation and Land Management (2001) Beeliar Regional
      Park: Draft Management Plan. CALM, Perth.

Department of Conservation and Land Management (2004a) Towards a
      Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Western Australia. Draft for Public
      Comment. Government of Western Australia, Perth.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 70 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Department of Conservation and Land Management (2004b) Draft Tuart
      Conservation and Management Strategy.       Prepared by the Tuart
      Response Group on behalf of the Government of WA. CALM, Perth.

Duncan, A., Baker, G.B. and Montgomery, N. (1999).                           The Action Plan for
     Australian Bats. Environment Australia, Canberra.


Ecoscape (2000). Draft Green Link Concept Plan. Prepared by Ecoscape for
      Town of Kwinana, Western Australia.

Environmental Protection Authority (1998) Guidance for the Assessment of
       Environmental Factors: Groundwater Environmental management Areas
       No 48. Draft, February, Perth.

Environmental     Protection   Authority    (2004a)      Hope    Valley-Wattleup
       Redevelopment Project Master Plan. Report and recommendations of
       the Environmental Protection Authority. Bulletin 1133, May. Perth

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

Essential Environmental Services (2005) Report on Outcomes Hope Valley
       Wattleup Redevelopment Project: Biodiversity Strategy and Water
       Management Strategy Stakeholder Workshop. Prepared for Land Corp,
       February, Perth.


Garnett, S. and Crowley, G. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds.
     Environment Australia and the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union.

GHD (2002) Review of Best Practice for Road Design and Construction through
     Sensitive Wetland Environments. Prepared by Main Roads WA, Perth.

Griffin, E.A. & Associates. (2005). FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites. Unpublished
        report for .A S Weston, Perth.

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

Government of Western Australia (2000) Bush Forever: Volume 1 Policies,
     Principles and Processes. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth.

Government of Western Australia (2003) Hope for the Future: The Western
     Australian State Sustainability Strategy. Department of the Premier and
     Cabinet, Perth.

Gozzard, J.R. (1983) Fremantle Part Sheets 2033 I and 2033IV, Perth Metropolitan
      Region, Environmental Geology Survey of Western Australia.



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 71 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Hill A, Semeniuk C, Semeniuk V, and Del Marco, M (1996). Wetlands of the Swan
         Coastal Plain. Volume 2B.      Wetland Mapping, Classification and
         Evaluation.


Hosken, D.J. and O’Shea, J.E. (1994). Falsistrellus mackenziei at Jandakot.
      Western Australian Naturalist 19: 351.

How, R.A. and Shine, R. (1999). Ecological traits and conservation biology of five
      fossorial “sand-swimming” snake species (Simoselaps: Elapidae) in south-
      western Australia. Journal of Zoology, London. 249: 269-282.

IUCN (2001). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species
      Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United
      Kingdom.

Lee, A.K. (1995). The Action Plan for Australian Rodents. Environment Australia,
      Canberra.

Mace, G. and Stuart, S. (1994). Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2.
     Species; Newsletter of the Species Survival Commission. IUCN – The World
     Conservation Union. No. 21-22: 13-24.


Maxwell, S., Burbidge, A.A. and Morris, K. (1996). Action Plan for Australian
     Marsupials and Monotremes. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Perth Biodiversity Project (2004) Local Government Biodiversity Planning
      Guidelines for the Perth Metropolitan Region. Western Australian Local
      Government Association, Perth.

Water and Rivers Commission (2000) Water Notes No. 4: Advisory notes for land
      managers on river and wetland restoration.         Water and Rivers
      Commission, January.

Water and Rivers Commission (2001) Water and River Commission Position
      Statement: Wetlands. Dated 6 June, 2001.

Water and Rivers Commission (2002) Road in Sensitive Environments: Water
      Quality Protection Note. September 2002

Water Authority of Western Australia (1993) Cockburn Groundwater Area
     Management Plan - WG 159.

Western Australian Land Authority (2003) Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment
      Project: Environmental Review (EPA Assessment Number 1470). For Public
      Comment. Western Australian Land Authority, Perth.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 72 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
Western Australian Planning Commission (2004) Draft Bushland Policy for the
      Perth Metropolitan Regional: Statement of Planning Policy 2.8. For Public
      Comment. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth.

Weston, A.S. (2004) Threatened Ecological Community FCT (SCP) 26a Survey:
     Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area. Unpublished
     report prepared for Bowman Bishaw Gorham, Subiaco.

Weston, A. (2005) Draft Vegetation and Flora Survey and Condition Assessment
     and Rare Flora Search: Hope Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Project
     Area. Prepared for RPS Bowman Bishaw Gorham, Unpublished, May
     2005.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 73 of 73
Biodiversity Strategy                        Revision   Final Report
Prepared by RPS                              Date       November 2007
                                                  FIGURES



Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 Geomorphology and Topography
Figure 3 Geology
Figure 4 Groundwater Levels and Flow
Figure 5 Areas and Sources of Potential Contamination
Figure 6 Vulnerability of Groundwater Contamination
Figure 7 Wetlands
Figure 8 Wetlands and Wetland Buffers
Figure 9 Bush Forever Sites and Regional Linkages
Figure 10 Vegetation Units and Condition
Figure 11 Vegetation Units and Condition in and near Wetland Areas
Figure 12 Key Natural Areas and Linkages
Figure 13 Extractive Industries within HVWRA
Figure 14 Land Ownership within HVWRA
APPENDICES
        APPENDIX A


Ministerial Statement No.667
 APPENDIX B


Section 7 and Maps of
  HVWRP Master Plan
             Part 7 – Environment
7.1.         Statement of environmental intent

             This section shall be read in conjunction with Clause 11.2 of this Master Plan. It is
             intended that land in the Redevelopment Area be developed in accordance with
             best known environmental practice, as follows.

             (a) the nature of industrial development is to be conducive to surrounding land
                 uses outside the Redevelopment Area.

             (b) the Redevelopment Area is to comprise a transitional buffer between the
                 residential areas to the north and east and the heavy industry within the KIA.

             (c) the use or development of land is not to have individual or cumulative adverse
                 environmental or social impacts on:

                   •     residential areas outside the Redevelopment Area;
                   •     other land uses and amenities within or outside the Redevelopment Area;
                   •     conservation category wetlands or any sensitive environments within or
                         outside of the Redevelopment Area;
                   •     Cockburn Sound;
                   •     soil, groundwater and surface water;
                   •     air quality; and
                   •     future land uses within and surrounding the Redevelopment Area.
Note:        Part 7 refers only to applications for development following gazettal of the Master Plan (refer to Minister for Environment
             Ministerial statement 000667). Section 24 of the Act and clause 4.9 of the Master Plan provide that previous
             approvals remain in force and any lawful non-conforming land uses and development may continue without being required to
             comply with the Master Plan or Part 7 thereof.

Note:        The Commission will require applications for development approval to address such environmental factors set out in Part 7
             herein which are, in the opinion of the Commission, appropriate and relevant to the proposed development, having regard
             to the impact of the proposed development on the environment and any advice received from the consulting authorities .


7.2           Environmental objectives

             Land in the Redevelopment Area is intended to be developed and managed in
             such a manner as to:

              (a) prevent any potential adverse environmental impacts, including those related
                   to health and amenity, extending beyond the Redevelopment Area;

              (b) facilitate the establishment of a transitional buffer between the relevant
                   residential and heavy industrial areas;

              (c) support the protection of sensitive environments and areas of environmental
                   significance within and outside the Redevelopment Area, including Beeliar
                   Wetlands, Cockburn Sound, Long Swamp and Bush Forever sites;



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                                                     Page 40 of 108
Master Plan                                                                 Revision          Final – 22 December 2004
              (d) allow the aquifer to be managed in a sustainable manner and in a way that
                   groundwater quality is protected and improved;

              (e) provide for on-site retention and infiltration of uncontaminated stormwater;

              (f) prevent accidental loss or release of effluent or waste from premises;

              (g) appropriately store, transport and use all dangerous and hazardous goods in
                   accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and regulatory
                   requirements;

              (h) protect the water quality of Cockburn Sound by ensuring that no inappropriate
                   level of nutrient load or other contamination leaves the Redevelopment Area
                   and enters the Sound;

              (i) dispose of sewage and compatible wastes by connecting to a comprehensive
                   sewerage system, or utilising an accepted alternative treatment system only
                   when no comprehensive sewerage system is available;

              (j) ensure no significant net increase of emissions, such as noise, dust,
                   particulates, odour, other air emissions, litter or light, occur in or extend
                   beyond the Redevelopment Area;

              (k) ensure that the generation or release of any emissions is kept within
                   acceptable health levels;

              (l) maintain and or enhance linkages between fauna habitats and vegetation
                   communities - such as remnant vegetation, reserves and wetlands - to
                   facilitate connectivity, accessibility and interaction of species;

              (m) implement and support environmental best practice;

              (n) prevent the contamination of soil and water that exceeds allowable ecological
                   or health levels;

              (o) prevent contaminated soil or water interacting with and entering surface or
                   ground water flows and extending beyond the Redevelopment Area
                   boundary;

              (p) minimise the impact of surface runoff so as to protect and maintain the
                   integrity, functions and environmental values of natural catchments,
                   hydrological systems and wetlands, within and adjacent to the
                   Redevelopment Area;

              (q) prevent unacceptable levels of individual, societal or environmental risk;

              (r) protect, maintain and enhance air quality;



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                               Page 41 of 108
Master Plan                                                Revision     Final – 22 December 2004
              (s) promote energy efficient practices and processes;

              (t) minimise land use incompatibility; and

              (u) optimise development potential in an environmentally acceptable way.

7.3          Environmental development requirements

7.3.1        Site Contamination

             Land use and development within the Redevelopment Area shall be carried out
             and managed so as to prevent site contamination, and in the case of existing
             contamination, is to be suitably managed and remediated for future use, in
             accordance with the following:

              (a) the use or development shall not result in soil or water contamination or
                  pollution above acceptable ecological and health investigation levels.

              (b) prior to the use or development of land, an applicant shall advise the Authority
                  of the land use or development history of the land, for the purpose of
                  preliminary site contamination assessment.

              (c) where contamination above acceptable ecological and health investigation
                  levels is suspected or detected, assessment, remedial works (if required) and
                  validation of remediation shall be undertaken by suitably qualified persons in
                  accordance with recognised State requirements.

              (d) land the subject of remedial works shall not be developed or used for its
                  intended purpose until the Commission receives certification that the remedial
                  works are complete.

              (e) any land contamination shall be fully contained on site and managed by
                  appropriate procedures, including emergency spill management and disposal.

7.3.2        Water Resource Management

             Land use and development within the Redevelopment Area shall be carried out
             and managed so as to minimise the disturbance and contamination of water
             catchments and groundwater through the appropriate siting, design, and
             management of development, in such manner as to:

              (a) maintain the quality and quantity of water resources sufficient for existing and
                  future environmental and human use.

              (b) maintain, and where practicable, improve surface and groundwater quality
                  through water-sensitive design and management.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                             Page 42 of 108
Master Plan                                              Revision     Final – 22 December 2004
              (c) contribute to the objective of an overall improvement in the water quality of
                  Cockburn Sound, by protecting and improving ground and surface water
                  quality and quantity through water-sensitive design and management.

              (d) avoid the potential for the intensification of flooding as a result of
                  inappropriately located land uses and development.

              (e) where industrial processes create liquid effluent, incorporate on-site
                  containment, management, contaminant stripping and appropriate disposal.

              (f) not affect the flow or quality of surface or ground water on neighbouring land.

              (g) be connected to a comprehensive sewerage system, with the exception of a
                  single house where no such system is available.

              (h) alternatively, utilise, where practical, alternative wastewater disposal systems,
                  including re-use and recycling, in accordance with the State Water Quality
                  Management Strategy.

              (i) have regard for the State Water Quality Management Strategy for Western
                  Australia 2000, the Statement of Planning Policy No.27 Public Drinking Water
                  Source and any other relevant advice.

              (j) comply with the comprehensive Water Management Strategy for the
                  Redevelopment Area.

7.3.3        Wetlands

             Land use and development within the Redevelopment Area shall be carried out
             and managed so as to maintain and enhance wetland quality and ecological
             function through suitable location of land uses and developments and
             implementation of appropriate management measures, as follows:

             (a) land use or development shall not adversely affect wetlands.

             (b) land use or development shall be set back from all wetlands according to a
                   buffer which will be proposed by the responsible authority at the structure
                   (precinct) planning stage on a case-by-case basis in accordance with
                   surveyed environmental characteristics and values, and proposed buffer
                   treatments, and developed in consultation with the Water and Rivers
                   Commission.

             (c) land used for agriculture that is likely to drain toward wetlands or coastal
                   waters shall be managed to reduce or eliminate nutrient export from that land
                   into the wetland or coastal waters.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                               Page 43 of 108
Master Plan                                                Revision     Final – 22 December 2004
             (d) in determining an application for land use or development, the Commission
                   shall have regard for the Wetlands Conservation Policy for Western Australia
                   1997 or its current equivalent and any other relevant advice.

             (e) the hydrological characteristics and water requirements of wetlands likely to
                  be influenced by the implementation of the development will be determined
                  to enable appropriate water management.

7.3.4        Air quality

             Land use and development within the Redevelopment Area shall be carried out
             and managed such to ensure that any individual or cumulative atmospheric
             pollution generated during the construction or operation of any development does
             not unacceptably affect neighbouring land uses, developments, employees, the
             general public, or environmentally significant areas, and prevents any
             unacceptable level of atmospheric pollution encroaching outside the
             Redevelopment Area boundary. Such land use or development shall:

             (a) maintain and, where practicable, improve air quality through appropriate
                  design and management and commensurately avoid the potential for
                  deterioration of air quality as a result of inappropriately located or managed
                  land use or development.

             (b) implement the concepts of “best practice” emissions minimisation as
                  described in “Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors –
                  implementing best practice in proposals submitted to the environmental
                  impact assessment process, No. 55, Draft” (EPA 2003).

             (c) minimise potential conflicts between existing and potential future neighbouring
                  land uses within the Redevelopment Area, and activities that generate
                  atmospheric pollution.

             (d) in relation to land use or development that may result in atmospheric waste
                   generation, include an air quality assessment.

             (e) not incorporate development that may result in unacceptable levels of
                  atmospheric pollution such as dust, gaseous particulates, odour and light
                  and will not unacceptably affect neighbouring land uses, employees, the
                  general public or environmentally significant areas.

             (f) not incorporate land use or development that may result in contamination or
                  pollution, unless it can be demonstrated that the proposed activities will not
                  result in contamination above the acceptable ecological or health levels
                  prescribed in the National Environmental Protection Council (Ambient Air
                  Quality) Measures, or equivalent, and any other standards recognised in
                  Western Australia.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                            Page 44 of 108
Master Plan                                             Revision     Final – 22 December 2004
             (g) incorporate appropriately designed and implemented systems that minimise
                   the release, accidental or otherwise, of atmospheric waste emissions.

             (h) where industrial process may create dust, particulates or other atmospheric
                  emissions, incorporate on-site containment, management, contaminant
                  stripping and disposal.

             (i) facilitate reduced travel demand and adequate access to public transport and
                  walking and cycling infrastructure.

             (j) incorporate energy efficiency in the siting and design of buildings.

             (k) incorporate the retention of existing vegetation and/or revegetation of places.

             (l) where practical, utilise alternative energy generation, including renewable
                  energy.

             (m) have regard for the relevant requirements related to atmospheric pollution of
                  the Environmental Protection (Kwinana) (Atmospheric Waste) Policy (1999),
                  the Air Quality Management Plan for Perth 2000 and Statement of Planning
                  Policy No. 4: State Industrial Buffer Policy or their respective equivalents and
                  any other relevant requirements.

7.3.5        Noise

          Land use and development within the Redevelopment Area shall be carried out and
          managed in such manner as to ensure that any individual or cumulative noise
          generated during the construction or operation of any development does not
          adversely affect existing and potential future neighbouring land uses, developments,
          land uses, employees or the general public, and prevents any unacceptable level of
          noise encroaching beyond the Redevelopment Area boundary. Such land use or
          development shall:

              (a) maintain, and where practicable, reduce noise levels within the
                  Redevelopment Area through appropriate design and management.

              (b) not incorporate development that may result in excessive noise emissions and
                  will not result in adverse effects on existing and potential future neighbouring
                  land uses, employees or the general public.

              (c) minimise potential conflicts between neighbouring land uses within the
                  Redevelopment Area and activities that generate noise.

              (d) where development may result in noise generation, include a noise
                  assessment report in accordance with recognised good practice as in EPA
                  Guidance no. 8 and 14 as relevant.

              (e) not generate unacceptable noise levels outside the Redevelopment Area.

Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                            Page 45 of 108
Master Plan                                             Revision     Final – 22 December 2004
              (f) avoid the potential for the exacerbation of noise as a result of inappropriately
                  located or managed development.

              (g) not incorporate land uses and development that may result in noise emissions
                  that do not comply with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997,
                  or the current equivalent.

              (h) where developments or industrial process would create excessive noise
                  levels, shall incorporate provision for the design and implementation of noise
                  abatement systems.

              (i) have regard for the potential of their contribution to cumulative noise
                  generation.

7.3.6        Land Use Compatibility and Risk

             Land use and development within the Redevelopment Area shall be carried out
             and managed in such manner as to ensure that the amenity of surrounding land
             uses, and safety of employees and the general public is provided, while having
             regard to the rights of the community, land owners and developers, and shall:

             (a) incorporate an evaluation of the potential for conflict with incompatible
                 neighbouring land uses, their activities and any associated risk, including but
                 not limited to high pressure gas pipelines, high voltage electric transmission
                 lines and major roads.

             (b) incorporate risk minimisation and compliance with off-site risk criteria,
                 demonstrated through quantitative risk assessment.

             (c) not incorporate land uses and development that may result in excessive
                 individual, societal or environmental risk, unless it can be demonstrated that
                 the risk can be adequately managed.

             (d) not create significant individual or cumulative off-site environmental or social
                 impacts or unduly disrupt or adversely affect neighbouring developments.

             (e) not incorporate development that may prevent, inhibit or adversely affect other
                 permissible land uses or developments, in accordance with Part 11 of the
                 Master Plan, unless it can be demonstrated through adequate provisions that
                 no unacceptable influences are exerted.

             (f) be conducive to surrounding land uses and provide a transitional buffer
                 between the residential areas surrounding the Redevelopment Area and heavy
                 industry within the Kwinana Industrial Area; and

             (g) have regard for the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Kwinana)
                 (Atmospheric Wastes) Policy 1999, the Statement of Planning Policy No. 4:

Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                             Page 46 of 108
Master Plan                                              Revision     Final – 22 December 2004
                    State Industrial Buffer Policy, or their current equivalents, and any other
                    relevant requirements.

7.4.          Environmental information

7.4.1.        An applicant shall submit sufficient information to enable the Commission to
              assess each application in accordance with the Statement of Environmental
              Intent, the Environmental Objectives, the Environmental Development
              Requirements, the other environmental provisions of this part and all relevant
              standards and legal requirements and show how these will be met.

7.4.2.        The information required under clause 7.4.1 shall include the following:

              (a) information on the receiving biophysical environment, following surveys in
                  accordance with EPA’s Draft Guidance No.51 and 56, and any significant
                  features or characteristics, in a local and regional context.

              (b) description of all developments, processes and activities to be carried out on
                  the land.

              (c) description of the potential for these developments, processes and activities
                  to affect the environment and people.

              (d) a list of all products, by-products, wastes and emissions to be directly or
                  indirectly generated.

              (e) the management and mechanisms through which by-products and emissions
                  such as noise, dust, odour, particulates, light, effluent and solid wastes are
                  prevented, minimised, stored, transported and disposed of, and demonstration
                  that all relevant standards recognised in Western Australia will be met.

              (f) a list of any dangerous and hazardous goods to be used or stored on, or
                  transported to or from the site.

              (g) the management and mechanisms through which dangerous and hazardous
                  goods must be used, stored or transported, including emergency spill
                  management and disposal.

              (h) the societal and environmental risks of any hazardous activity or substance
                  and the mechanisms through which risk will be prevented or managed to an
                  acceptable level.

              (i)    management of the potential conflict between incompatible land uses and
                     activities.

              (j)    site contamination assessment, and remediation action plan where
                     necessary.



Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                                Page 47 of 108
Master Plan                                                 Revision     Final – 22 December 2004
              (k) promotion of energy efficient development and urban design incorporating
                  such elements as energy efficient building design and orientation of building
                  lots for solar efficiency.

              (l)   demonstration of how surface drainage and storm water management and
                    the protection of groundwater quality are to be achieved.

              (m) demonstration of how significant environmental areas such as wetlands,
                  habitat corridors, remnant vegetation, reserves and conservation areas are
                  to be protected.

              (n) promotion of existing vegetation retention, revegetation, landscape
                  enhancement and visual aesthetics.

              (o) management plans and commitments for the minimisation or protection of
                  any significant environmental factors, impacts or issues including a review of
                  the Town of Kwinana’s Draft Revegetation Management Plan for Long
                  Swamp if applicable; and

              (p) any other information the Commission considers may be required to assess
                  the application in accordance with the environmental provisions of this Part
                  7.

7.4.3        Where the Commission requires, the applicant shall provide certification to the
             satisfaction of the Commission that the environmental information required in
             clauses 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 has been prepared or endorsed by a suitably qualified
             person.




Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project                           Page 48 of 108
Master Plan                                             Revision    Final – 22 December 2004
Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project               Page 111 of 108
Master Plan                                  Revision   Final – 22 December 2004
Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project               Page 112 of 108
Master Plan                                  Revision   Final – 22 December 2004
Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project               Page 113 of 108
Master Plan                                  Revision   Final – 22 December 2004
               APPENDIX C


Proposed Wetland Boundary Changes
            APPENDIX D


Vegetation and Flora Assessment
      A. Weston (October, 2005)
VEGETATION AND FLORA SURVEY AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT
                 AND RARE FLORA SEARCH
       Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area




                            Prepared by

                       Arthur S Weston, PhD
                        Consulting Botanist

                       ABN: 54 924 460 919

                            8 Pitt Street
                      ST JAMES WA 6102
                      Ph/Fax (08) 9458 9738
                    email: naomiseg@iinet.net.au




                           Prepared for

                            Kathy Choo
                       (Ref/Job No: L05020)

                     Bowman Bishaw Gorham,
               Environmental Management Consultants
                      (290 Churchill Avenue)
                            PO Box 465
                       SUBIACO WA 6904
                        Tel. (08) 9382 4744
                        Fax. (08) 9382 1177
                       email: kc@bbg net.au

                                 &

                            Mal Tingey

                             LandCorp
                            PO Box 303
                       KWINANA WA 6992
                        Tel. (08) 9437 2155
                 email: Mal.Tingey@landcorp.com.au



                         25 October 2005
                                      SUMMARY and ABSTRACT

Introduction
The principal purpose of this study is to identify the location of key natural areas to be protected in the
Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area (HVWRPA). These areas include ecological
linkages, wetlands and their buffers, and other areas significant for representation of ecological
communities, diversity of species, rarity of species and communities (including threatened ecological
communities) and maintaining ecological processes or systems.

The objectives of the study are to:

•      Describe and map vegetation units of the HVWRPA;
•      Assess and map the condition – or range of conditions – of the vegetation;
•      Provide results of searches for Declared Rare, Priority and other significant flora, for Threatened
       Ecological Communities and for possible habitats for them, and
•      Compare the values, types and condition of the study area’s native vegetation and flora with those of
       vegetation and flora in nearby areas, particularly Bush Forever sites, and review the local and
       regional significance of the study area’s vegetation.

The required three stages of a Level 2 survey were undertaken. These are:

•      Background research or ‘desktop’ study,
•      Reconnaissance survey, and
•      Detailed survey.

The field work (survey) components of the study, including the setting up and sampling of three
permanent quadrats, were carried out by Dr. Arthur Weston, sometimes with assistants, in March 2004
(Weston 2004) and on 12 September and 2 and 17 October 2004 and 14 February, 7, 24 and 31 March, 24
April and 10 October 2005. The species lists compiled in the quadrats were analysed by E. A. Griffin,
using PATN cluster analysis.

Vegetation
The most common and widespread units of upland vegetation in the HVWRPA are Tuart Woodland and
Open Woodland, Jarrah–Sheoak–Banksia Low Woodland and Low Open Forest and Summer-scented
Wattle (Acacia rostellifera), Balga (Xanthorrhoea preissii) and Parrot Bush (Dryandra sessilis) heaths,
shrublands and scrubs. Tuart is an emergent in most low woodlands and low open forests where it is not
a dominant, especially in western and central parts of the HVWRPA, and often Balga is the principal, if
not the only, understorey shrub taller than one metre.

Most of the upland vegetation is weedy to very weedy, in a condition of Completely Degraded to
Degraded1. A few stands have some vegetation in them assessed as Good. Heaths on limestone and
shallow soil over limestone tended to be in better condition than other upland vegetation.

Four wetlands are in the HVWRPA, all in the southern part. These wetlands are Long Swamp, Hendy
Road Swamp east, Hendy Road Swamp west and Conway Road Swamp. Hendy Road Swamp west has a
large population of the weed Narrow-leaf Cotton-bush (*Gomphocarpus fruticosus) and no native
vegetation. The vegetation of the other three swamps is basically Swamp Paperbark (Melaleuca
rhaphiophylla) Low Woodland to Low Open Forest, usually over Coast Saw-sedge (Gahnia trifida) and
Bare Twig-rush) Baumea juncea Sedgelands. Also, there are stands dominated by alien species, most
commonly Spiny Rush (*Juncus acutus), and, in Long Swamp, there are stands of Jointed Rush (Baumea
aticulata) and of the native succulents Suaeda australis, Halosarcia pergranulata and Wilsonia
backhousei.

The vegetation of Long Swamp ranges from Excellent to Completely Degraded, of Conway Road Swamp
from Very Good to Completely Degraded, and of Hendy Road Swamp east from Good to Completely
Degraded.

1
    The Bush Forever (2000) condition rating system is used here. It is described in Appendix F.
Floristic Community Types and Threatened Ecological Communities
Nine Floristic Community Types (FCTs) have been analysed or inferred as occurring, or as possibly
occurring, in the HVWRPA. These FCTs are 16, 17, S5, 21a, 24, 25, 26b, 27 and 28. None is currently
listed on the Threatened Ecological Community database.

Significant Flora
No species of Declared Rare or Priority Flora was found in the HVWRPA, nor was any habitat found that
would be suitable for any of the taxa listed in Table 2, except, possibly, the Priority 4 species Dodonaea
hackettiana.

One other species also listed in Bush Forever (2000, Volume 2, Table 13) as significant, Lechenaultia
linarioides, was found at one location, Site 34, but it may be at others. It is listed in Bush Forever as ‘p
=considered to be poorly reserved’.

Conservation Significance and Linkages
Four types of remnant native vegetation that have particular conservation significance due to their
condition or where they occur are:

1.   Any stand that is in a condition of Excellent or Very Good and is large enough for that condition to
     be maintained: Long Swamp, Conway Road Swamp,

2.   Any wetland vegetation overstorey and/or understorey with remnant native species: Long Swamp,
     Conway Road Swamp, Hendy Road Swamp east,

3.   Stands that are in belts forming linkages between one or both of the other two types, particularly if
     they are in Bush Forever sites: Long Swamp, Conway Road Swamp, Hendy Road Swamp east, and
     other areas described in six linkages, between Bush Forever Site 346 and Sites 269, 349, 391 and
     391, and

4.   Vegetation that is in an inadequately protected Vegetation Complex – in the case of the HVWRPA:
     Karrakatta Complex – Central and South.
                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                        Page
      SUMMARY and ABSTRACT                                                               i
1.0 INTRODUCTION                                                                         1
1.1     LOCATION                                                                         1
1.2     PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES                                                           1
1.3     LEVEL OF SURVEY                                                                  2
2.0 METHODS                                                                              3
2.1     PREPARATION FOR FIELD WORK                                                       3
2.1.1         Vegetation                                                                 3
2.1.2         Flora                                                                      3
2.1.3         Significant Flora                                                          4
2.1.4         Significant Vegetation                                                     4
2.2     FIELD WORK                                                                       4
2.3     AFTER FIELD WORK                                                                 5
3.0 RESULTS                                                                              6
3.1     VEGETATION                                                                       6
3.1.1         Prior Descriptions and Mapping of Vegetation                               6
3.1.2         Vegetation Units and Condition (2005)                                      7
3.2     FLORISTIC COMMUNITY TYPES                                                        8
3.3     FLORA                                                                            9
3.3.1         Significant Flora                                                          9
3.3.2         Weeds                                                                      9
4.0 DISCUSSION                                                                          10
4.1     FLORISTIC COMMUNITY TYPES
              AND THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES                                     10
4.2     SIGNIFICANT FLORA                                                               10
4.3     ALIEN FLORA                                                                     10
4.4     CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE AND LINKAGES                                          11
4.5     LIMITATIONS                                                                     12
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                                                    14
6.0 REFERENCES                                                                          14

FIGURES
       1         Location, Vegetation Observation Sites and Locations of Significant Flora,
                 Limestone (LS1) and swamps
          2      Vegetation Units and Condition
PLATES

     1, 2   Probable FCT 24 Vegetation, on Limestone, in the HVWRPA
     3      Long Swamp
     4      Long Swamp Forest and Hendy Road Swamps
     5      Tuart and Banksia Woodlands, in the HVWRPA
     6      Lechenaultia linarioides

APPENDICES
      A Rare Flora with Distributions and Habitats which may include the Hope Valley
            – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area
      B Vegetation Observation Sites in the Hope Valley
          – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area
      C Vegetation in and near Long Swamp, Hendy Road Swamps and Conway Road
            Swamp
            and Figure C1 Vegetation Units and Condition in and near Long Swamp,
            Hendy Road Swamps and Conway Road Swamps
      D PATN Analysis and Assessment of Quadrat Samples
      E Flora Recorded in the HVWRPA Study Area
      F Vegetation Structure Classes and Condition Scale Tables
      G Floristic Community Types which are or may be in the HVWRPA Study
          Area and their Conservation and Reservation Status
        VEGETATION AND FLORA SURVEY AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT
                         AND RARE FLORA SEARCH
               Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area

                                    1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1     LOCATION

The Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area is the area in Figure 1 (from
Western Australian Land Authority 2003, Figure Number 1) outlined with a solid red line. It
is slightly east of Rockingham Road between Fanstone and Fancote Avenues, in the north,
and Anketell Road, in the south. Most of the project area is west of Henderson Road, in the
northeast, Power and Postans Roads, in the central east, and Abercrombie Road, in the
southeast, but the central part of it between Dalison Road and the Harry Waring Marsupial
Reserve, in the north, and the Alcoa tailing pond, in the south, extends further east.

The broader study area is the entire Redevelopment Project Area (HVWRPA), but the study
concentrated principally on areas with remnants of native vegetation, especially in condition
of Degraded to Good or better, in wetlands (swamps) and on Tamala limestone. The Tamala
limestone areas are highlighted in blue on Figure 1 (the highlighting is from Western
Australian Land Authority 2003, Figure Number 7, and from Gozzard 1983, as environmental
geology map unit LS1). Western Australian Land Authority (2003) and Gozzard (1983) show
the other upland areas in the HVWRPA, Conway Road Swamp and Hendy Swamps as unit
S7, Tamala limestone sand, and Long Swamp as unit M6. The swamp wetlands are also
shaded, for wetland category: green for conservation, yellow for resource enhancement and
blue for multiple use (the highlighting is from Western Australian Land Authority 2003,
Figure Number 18, which is based upon 2001 information from Water and Rivers
Commission and Department of Land Administration).

The Cockburn Cement extraction area located in the northern portion of the HVWRPA is in
the broader survey area and has limestone, but it is excluded from the principal survey area.

1.2     PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The principal purpose of this study is, as stated in the proposal to RPS Bowman Bishaw
Gorham of 10 August 2004 and in Section 2-3 1 of “Attachment 1 – of Statement that a
Scheme may be implemented – Hope Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Project Master Plan”
(Environmental Protection Authority 2004b, Appendix 4):

•     To identify the location of key natural areas to be protected in the Redevelopment Area
      including ecological linkages, wetlands and wetland buffers, and other areas significant
      for representation of ecological communities, diversity of species, rarity of species and
      communities including threatened ecological communities, and maintaining ecological
      processes or systems.

The objectives are to:

•     Describe and map vegetation units of the HVWRPA;
•     Assess and map the condition – or range of conditions – of the vegetation;
•     Provide results of searches for Declared Rare, Priority, other significant flora, for
      Threatened Ecological Communities and for possible habitats for them, and
•     Compare the values, types and condition of the study area’s native vegetation and flora
      with those of vegetation and flora in nearby areas, particularly Bush Forever sites, and
      review the local and regional significance of the study area’s vegetation.
1.3       LEVEL OF SURVEY

As the study area is in the Swan Bioregion (Paczkowska and Chapman 2000) and as it is
assumed that the scale and nature of impact by the proposed redevelopment project will be
medium or high, rather than low, a 3-stage Level 2 Survey, as described on Page 39 of
Guidance No. 51 (Environmental Protection Authority 2004a), was undertaken (also see
Pages 9-11, including Table 1, of Environmental Protection Authority 2002). A Level 2
survey consists of three or, in some situations and areas, four stages. The first two stages
constitute a Level 1 survey. The required three stages of a Level 2 survey are:

•     Background research or ‘desktop’ study,
•     Reconnaissance survey, and
•     Detailed survey.

The fourth stage of survey is:

•     Comprehensive survey, which involves surveying the site and, where necessary, its
      surroundings, sufficient to place the characteristics, and the conservation and functional
      values, of the site into a local-regional context (surveying both the locality and parts of
      the local area at the same intensity as required in a Detailed survey, but more structured,
      over a longer term and with multiple visits).

Table 1 of Appendix 3 of Guidance No. 10 (Environmental Protection Authority 2003) lists
criteria to be used in determining regional significance of natural areas on the Swan Coastal
Plain.




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                        2
                                          2.0 METHODS

The study was undertaken in the following series of overlapping and interrelated stages:

•   review of literature and metadata and preparation for field work, including consultations,
    the gathering and collation of available information from a range of sources, and
    interpretation of aerial photography;

•   field work to record and collect flora, to determine parameters, distributions and condition
    of vegetation units and to search for significant flora;

•   follow-up work, including identification and herbarium confirmations of plants recorded
    and collected during field work; and

•   preparation of the report.

The ‘context’ of the vegetation and flora survey and reporting and the presentation of data
conform, where relevant and possible, to the lists in Section 3.3.4 and 3.3.2 of Guidance No.
51 (Environmental Protection Authority 2004b, pp. 16-18).

2.1 PREPARATION FOR FIELD WORK

Preparation for field work entailed provisional description, listing and mapping of vegetation
of the HVWRPA, finding existing flora lists for the general area and preparing a table of
significant flora to be searched for during field work. Methods for field work were chosen
during this preparation stage.

Principal sources used for information on vegetation, flora and rare flora include APP (2003),
Arup (2002), Western Australian Land Authority (2003) Goble-Garratt (2001) and Weston
(2004), all of which are concerned specifically with the HVWRPA. Other sources are
referred to in the following sections.

2.1.1 Vegetation

Provisional description, mapping and understanding of vegetation of the HVWRPA were
based upon prior field work in the area, aerial photography and various publications, reports
and maps.

Aerial photography examined was digital printouts at various scales provided by RPS
Bowman Bishaw Gorham.

Reports, publications and maps used in provisional description, listing, mapping and
understanding of vegetation of the HVWRPA include Beard (1979, 1981), Heddle et al.
(1980), APP (2003), Arup (2002), Western Australian Land Authority (2003), Goble-Garratt
(2001), Gibson et al. (1994), Keighery (1997), Weston (2004) and Bush Forever (2000).

2.1.2 Flora

No list of flora of the HVWRPA has been found, but it was anticipated that a large proportion
of the species in the HVWRPA are also in the Harry Waring Reserve (Bush Forever Site
392), which does have a list of flora recorded there (Weston and Clay 1980).




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                       3
2.1.3 Significant Flora

The first phase of the significant flora part of the study was preparation of a table of taxa of
Declared Rare and Priority Flora with distributions and locations that may include the general
area. This table was compiled from the results of two sets of searches of three databases
carried out by the Wildlife Branch of Department of Conservation and Land Management: in
early July 2003 and in late August 2004. These three Department of Conservation and Land
Management (CALM) databases are Threatened (Declared Rare) Flora (Summary of
Threatened Flora Data), Declared Rare and Priority Flora List and Western Australian
Herbarium Specimen (WAHERB). The searches were for Declared Rare and Priority Flora
taxa recorded in the general vicinity of Hope Valley and Wattleup.

Table A1, in Appendix A, combines the results of the two sets of CALM rare flora database
searches. The Table A1 list of rare flora also lists taxa, conservation codes, distributions,
localities, growth forms, habitats and flowering times.

The second phase of the preparation for field work, determining which species and other taxa
listed in Table A1 might occur in the study area, was done by comparing information in Table
A1 (and in supplementary sources), particularly about habitats, with vegetation and map
information referred to in Section 2.1.1.

2.1.4 Significant Vegetation

Gibson et al. (1994), English and Blyth (1997) and Bush Forever (2000) provide information
about conservation and reservation status of floristic community types, and Bush Forever
tabulates the Gibson et al. and English and Blyth status information (Government of Western
Australia 2000, Volume 1, Table 4).

Bush Forever also provides information about conservation and reservation status of
vegetation complexes (Government of Western Australia 2000, Volume 2), at least in the
Perth Metropolitan Region, and Guidance No. 10 (Environmental Protection Authority 2003,
pp. 54-56) provides similar information about vegetation complexes of the southern Swan
Coastal Plain.

There are, however, no publications that provide information about conservation and
reservation status of vegetation units in the general area.

2.2 FIELD WORK

The field work component of the study was carried out by Dr. Arthur Weston, sometimes
with assistants, in March 2004 (Weston 2004) and on 12 September and 2 and 17 October
2004 and 14 February, 7, 24 and 31 March, 24 April and 10 October 2005.

Flora and vegetation units and condition were recorded at representative sites in the study
area, and provisional vegetation descriptions and map boundaries were confirmed and
revised. Recording of vegetation types and condition used the systems in the tables in
Appendix F.

Permanent 10m by 10m plots were laid out at the three sites identified in March and April
2004 as most likely to be representative of the Threatened Ecological Community FCT (SCP)
26a (Weston 2004), and the plots were sampled two to three times in spring, summer and
autumn 2004 and 2005.




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                       4
Most plants were identified in the field or soon after, with help from keys and descriptions in
Marchant et al. (1987), Hussey et al. (1997), other floras and articles in journals. Voucher
specimens of uncommon and possibly significant plants and plants not readily identifiable in
the field (and of all species in the plots) were collected and pressed.

2.3 AFTER FIELD WORK

Pressed plant specimens were dried and fumigated in the Western Australian Herbarium in
South Perth, then identified by comparing them with specimens in Herbarium collections,
checking them against keys and descriptions in floras and taxonomic works and consulting
other botanists.

The provisional vegetation boundaries and descriptions were refined and finalised.

E. A. Griffin & Associates ran a PATN analysis on the plot samples and assessed which Swan
Coastal Plain floristic community type(s) they are closest to fitting. The Griffin & Associates
report on the analysis and assessment is Appendix D in this report.

Local and regional significance of vegetation and flora was assessed.




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                      5
                                          3.0   RESULTS

3.1 VEGETATION

3.1.1 Prior Descriptions and Mapping of Vegetation

There are small scale maps and descriptions of vegetation that is represented in the
HVWRPA, and in the broader region, in Beard (1979, 1981) and Heddle et al. (1980), and
there are much more recent brief descriptions of vegetation of the HVWRPA in Goble-Garratt
(2001), Arup (2002), APP (2003) and Western Australian Land Authority (2003).

Weston (2004) briefly describes the vegetation and floristic community types and addresses
the possibility that Threatened Ecological Community Floristic Community Type (FCT) 26a
is represented in the HVWRPA.

Beard (1979, 1981)

Beard shows, at scales of 1:250 000 and 1:1 000 000, the HVWRPA vegetation as mainly
Tuart Woodland (e4Mi), with relatively small areas of Jarrah-Tuart Woodland (e2,4Mi) east of
Postans Road and, possibly, in the northeast corner of the HVWRPA.

Heddle et al. (1980)

Heddle et al. (1980) and Bush Forever (2000) show, at scales of 1:250 000 and ~1:400 0000,
rspectively, most of the vegetation of the HVWRPA as Cottesloe Vegetation Complex –
Central and South (52), with Karrakatta Complex – Central and South (49) east of Postans
Road and in an area west of it. Both complexes are on the Spearwood Dune System and have
Tuart-Jarrah-Marri Open Forest on deeper sand. They differ, according to Hedlle et al. (1980,
Table 3.5 and pp. 60-61), in the Cottesloe Complex having limestone outcrop with closed
heaths on it and generally shallower soils. Also, it has Tuart Woodland, as well as Tuart-
Jarrah-Marri Open Forest, on deeper sand. The Karrakatta Complex has more deeper sand
and open forest, commonly with Banksia attenuata, B. menziesii, B. grandis, Allocasuarina
fraseriana and, to a lesser extent, Agonis flexuosa as understorey trees. Jarrah is the dominant
tree on deeper sand in the eastern fringes of the Karrakatta Complex, east of the HVWRPA.

Goble-Garratt (2001)

The more recent descriptions of vegetation in the HVWRPA are of vegetation types,
vegetation complexes and floristic community types in Arup (2002) and Western Australian
Land Authority (2003), which are based upon the descriptions and mapping of Goble-Garratt
(2001). The map in the first two references showing broadly defined types and condition of
fragments of remnant vegetation that are “over one hectare in size and with more than 20% of
the native cover remaining” is based upon Goble-Garratt’s work. The map was drawn by
Arup in 2001 and is Figure 19 in Western Australian Land Authority (2003).

Goble-Garratt (2001) does not describe vegetation units of the HVWRPA, but lists five broad
vegetation units and maps their occurrence, and condition, in 31 stands of remnant vegetation
larger than 1ha in the HVWRPA (Western Australian Land Authority 2003, Figure 19). The
five vegetation units are:
• Heath – Shrubland over Limestone
• Tuart Woodland
• Banksia – Jarrah Woodland
• Jarrah Woodland
• Jarrah-Tuart Woodland


Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                       6
The Figure 19 map shows only two occurrences of Tuart, both of which are in the southern
part of the HVWRPA, south of Hope Valley Road.

3.1.2      Vegetation Units and Condition (2005)

The vegetation of the HVWRPA and its condition are described briefly below, and the
distribution of vegetation units and condition in the HVWRPA are shown in Figure 2,
Vegetation Units and Condition. Some of the vegetation is shown in Plates 1 to 5.

Sites of stands of vegetation viewed in greater detail are listed in Appendix B, along with
notes on the stands and their condition, photograph numbers and coordinates of the locations.

Vegetation of the swamps is described and shown in greater detail in Appendix C.

Upland Vegetation

The most common and widespread units of upland vegetation in the HVWRPA are Tuart
Woodland and Open Woodland, Jarrah – Sheoak – Banksia Low Woodland and Low Open
Forest and Acacia rostellifera, Balga (Xanthorrhoea preissii) and Dryandra sessilis heaths,
shrublands and scrubs. Tuart is an emergent in most low woodlands and low open forests
where it is not a dominant, especially in western and central parts of the HVWRPA, and often
balga (Xanthorrhoea preissii) is often the principal, if not the only, understorey shrub taller
than one metre. Other species of shrubs forming less common to only occasional, often
monospecific stands of heaths, shrublands and scrubs are Hakea prostrata, Grevillea vestita
subsp. vestita, Xanthorrhoea preissii, Melaleuca huegelii, Acacia saligna, Jacksonia
furcellata, Acacia xanthina, *Melaleuca nesophila2, *Leptospermum laevigatum, *Acacia
longifolia, *Ricinus communis, *Nicotiana glauca, *Schinus terebinthifolia and *Ailanthus
altissima. Acacia xanthina and some of the alien trees and shrubs appear to have been
planted.

Most of the upland vegetation is weedy to very weedy, in a condition of Completely
Degraded to Degraded3. A few stands have some vegetation in them assessed as Good.
Heaths on limestone and shallow soil over limestone tended to be in better condition than
other upland vegetation.

Upland vegetation which was in best condition and least weedy was part of a heath on a ridge
of outcropping limestone, at Site 21. Its condition was assessed as varying from Good to
Degraded (to <5% Very Good), the Very Good part being the best of any non-wetland
vegetation seen in the HVWRPA. The Site 24 heath, assessed as Good to Degraded, was one
of the two second best. Both stands of vegetation are very small.

Wetland Vegetation

Four wetlands are in the HVWRPA, all in the southern part. These wetlands are Long
Swamp, Hendy Road Swamp east, Hendy Road Swamp west and Conway Road Swamp.
Wattleup-Pearce Road Swamp is just outside the eastern boundary of the HVWRPA, but no
native vegetation continuous with the swamp is in the HVWRPA.

Long Swamp is, during the driest time of year, a bare muddy oval with, basically, three
concentric bands of vegetation units around it. The swamp, even the bare, central part of it,
has been relatively little damaged by vehicles.




2
    A ‘*’ indicates that the species is alien. A ‘?’ indicates that the identification to species is tentative.
3
    The Bush Forever (2000) condition rating system is used here. It is described in Appendix F.


Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                                           7
All three bands have a tree to tall shrub stratum of the paperbark Melaleuca rhaphiophylla,
which is generally tallest, densest and healthiest in the outer band. The death and unhealthy
condition of these plants in the inner and central bands may have been caused by increased
levels of salinity in the swamp.

For the most part, the understorey of the inner two bands is Suaeda australis Open to Closed
Very Low Heath and of the outer band of Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Woodland to Low
Open Forest, Gahnia trifida Tussock Open Sedgeland and Baumea juncea Closed Sedgeland.
Also, there are stands dominated by alien species, most commonly the rush *Juncus acutus.

The condition of these units and of enclave communities within them is assessed as ranging
from (Degraded to Good to) Very Good to Excellent (or even Pristine?).

The part of Long Swamp south of Hope Valley Road is Acacia saligna Tall Scrub to Tall
Shrubland over Closed Grasslands of weedy rhizomatous grasses. Its condition is assessed as
Degraded (to Completely Degraded).

The eastern Hendy Road wetland has three distinct vegetation units. These are Closed
Grassland of alien species, Juncus acutus Closed Sedgeland and Melaleuca rhaphiophylla
Woodland and Open Forest to Low Woodland and Low Open Forest over a variety of alien
species of herbaceous plants.

The condition of the eastern Hendy Road wetland vegetation is assessed as Completely
Degraded (to Good).

The Hendy Road Swamp West vegetation is a large stand of the weed *Gomphocarpus
fruticosus. Its condition is assessed as worse then Completely Degraded.

The part of Conway Road Swamp that is not pasture is Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Open
Forest over Gahnia trifida Open Tussock Sedgeland over Baumea juncea - Apium prostratum
- *Cynodon dactylon Closed Sedgeland/Herbland/Grassland.

The condition of this vegetation is assessed as Very Good to Degraded.

3.2 FLORISTIC COMMUNITY TYPES

The species recorded in the study area and reference to Gibson et al. (1994, mainly pp. 31-36,
43-45 and Appendix 1) and to Weston (2004, Table 1) suggest that Floristic Community
Types (FCTs) 25 and 24 are the types that most closely correspond to the Tuart vegetation, or
at least most of it, that Types 21a and 28 correspond most closely to much of the Jarrah-
Banksia vegetation, that most of the heath vegetation is one or more of FCTs 24, 26a, 26b or
27, and that most of the wetland vegetation is FCT 17, with more saline vegetation in Long
Swamp closer to Type 16 and vegetation dominated by Acacia saligna closer to FCT S5.

The abundance and diversity of weeds in much of this vegetation, especially heath vegetation,
makes it difficult to assign most of this vegetation to a particular Type with confidence, but it
is unlikely that any other Floristic Community Type is represented in the HVWRPA

The PATN analysis and assessment of the flora of the permanent quadrats at Site 8 (Plot
HV01), Site 24 (Plot HV02) and Site 21 (Plot HV03) concluded that the vegetation of the
sites corresponds to Floristic Community Type 24 better than to any other floristic community
type, including FCT 26a (Griffin & Associates 2005; Appendix D of this report). The
vegetation at these three sites at first appeared to be more similar to FCT 26a than did any
other vegetation in the HVWRPA.

Photographs of Quadrats HV01, HV02 and HV03 are in Plates 1 and 2, and the coordinates of
the locations of the quadrats are in listed in Appendix B.

Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                        8
The codes, descriptions, reservation status and conservation status of each of the nine FCTs
which might be in the HVWRPA are listed in Appendix G.

3.3 FLORA

Approximately 180 taxa of vascular plants were recorded in the HVWRPA study area by Dr
Arthur Weston, sometimes with Martin Henson and other assistants, in March, September and
October 2004 and in February, March, April and October 2005. Around 55% of the taxa are
natives, and around 45% are aliens. These taxa are listed in Appendix E, in Table E1.

The taxa listed in the table are estimated to constitute at least 70 to 80 per cent of the area’s
expected native flora and around 70 per cent of the expected established alien flora there.

3.3.1 Significant Flora

There are brief descriptions in APP (2003), Arup (2002), Western Australian Land Authority
(2003) and Goble-Garratt (2001) of Declared Rare and Priority Flora that have been recorded
in the broader study area, are inferred to be represented there and/or have been recorded in its
vicinity.

No Declared Rare or Priority Flora plants were found in the study area. A small population of
plants at Site 21 that were, initially, tentatively identified as the Priority Three Hibbertia
spicata subsp. leptotheca were later confirmed to be the common and widespread Hibbertia
hypericoides. There is no habitat in the rocky upland limestone areas or wetlands deemed
suitable for any of the taxa listed in Table A1. The only species of Priority Flora listed in the
table for which there might be suitable habitat in the HVWRPA is Dodonaea hackettiana
(P4).

Two of the species in the table are listed in Table 13 of Bush Forever (2000, Volume 2) as
significant taxa. These are Agonis flexuosa and Lechenaultia linarioides. The Agonis
(Peppermint) is listed as ‘r’ and ‘s’. Peppermint trees are, in the Perth Metropolitan Region,
at the northern limit of their known natural geographic range. The Lechenaultia is listed as
‘p’. Definitions of r, p and s are given in Appendix E.

Lechenaultia linarioides was found at one location, Site 34, but it may be at others. It is
shown in Plate 6. Agonis flexuosa was found in several locations.

3.3.2 Weeds

There are extensive or dense populations of weedy grasses, Rose Geranium (Pelargonium
capitatum), Bridal Creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) and Carnation Weed (Euphorbia
terracina) in the bushland. Carnation Weed is a serious environmental pest. It is closely
related to Petty Spurge (Euphorbia peplus), a less serious environmental weed, and is
sometimes misidentified as that species.

*Juncus acutus, *Stenotaphrum secundatum, *Cynodon dactylon, *Pennisetum clandestinum
and *Zantedeschia aethiopica are dominant weeds in parts of the swamps, and a large, dense
stand of *Gomphocarpus fruticosus occupies much of the western Hendy Road Swamp.




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                        9
                                          4.0 DISCUSSION

4.1     FLORISTIC COMMUNITY TYPES
        AND THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES

The nine floristic community types that are, or might be, represented in the HVWRPA and the
reservation status and conservation status of each are listed in Appendix G. None is currently
on the Threatened Ecological Community database, which apparently was last updated on 30
June 2001 (http://www.calm.wa.gov.au/plants_animals/critical_communities.html).

The most conclusive way to determine which Floristic Community Type a stand of vegetation
represents is to properly sample the vegetation floristically and then to properly analyse the
samples. A PATN analysis of floristic samples from plots in vegetation that was suggested as
possibly representative of Floristic Community Type (FCT) 26a, a Threatened Ecological
Community, indicates that this vegetation is much more likely to represent FCT 24 than FCT
26a. FCT 26a apparently is not represented in the HVWRPA.

4.2   SIGNIFICANT FLORA

No species of Declared Rare or Priority Flora was found in the HVWRPA, nor was any
habitat found that would be suitable for any of the taxa listed in Table 2, except possibly the
Priority 4 species Dodonaea hackettiana. Eight of the 12 taxa listed in Table 2 are restricted
to wetland habitats or sites with a high water table. Of the other four species, one, Grevillea
olivacea, could not be in the HVWRPA or anywhere else in the Metropolitan Area unless
planted or feral.

The distinctive shrub Dodonaea hackettiana would probably have been seen and noted if it
occurred anywhere in the HVWRPA. This species has been recorded close to the HVWRPA
(Western Australian Land Authority, 2003, Figure 16), but there are now no plants of the
species, nor habitat suitable for them, at the two nearest recorded sites. The other nine nearest
recorded populations are all in nature reserves (Bush Forever Sites 391 and 392).

There could be plants of the spider orchid Caladenia huegelii (DRF) or of the grass-like
tufted herbaceous species Phlebocarya pilosissima (P3) growing on sand somewhere in the
HVWRPA, probably low in the landscape, but it is very unlikely.

Aponogeton hexatepalus (P4) and Microtus media subsp. quadrata (P4) could be in the centre
of Long Swamp if it was not so saline.

4.3     ALIEN FLORA

Most of the established aliens are environmental weeds, and some have been planted as
pastures. Two of them are eucalypts which, like several trees not listed in the appendix, have
been planted and are not, apparently, self-perpetuating, established species.

Most of the weed species are listed in Scheltema and Harris (1995, pp. 65-141) as
[environmental] weeds in the Perth metropolitan region, along with information about each
species. This information includes a weediness threat priority ranking, common name(s),
descriptions of habit, distribution and preferred habitats, and recommended control measures
for each listed species.




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                       10
Zantedeschia aethiopica (Arum Lily) is on the Agriculture Protection Board’s December
2004 list of Declared Plants, where it is a formally declared high priority weed that is, or may
become, agricultural or environmental problems (Hussey et al. 1997)4. Asparagus
asparagoides (Bridal Creeper) is no longer on the list, although it is still a serious
environmental pest.

4.4      CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE AND LINKAGES

Four types of remnant native vegetation that have particular conservation significance due to
their condition and where they occur are:

Any stand that is in a condition of Excellent (E) or Very Good (VG) and is large enough for
   that condition to be maintained;

Any wetland vegetation overstorey and/or understorey with remnant native species;

Stands that are in belts forming linkages between one or both of the other two types,
    particularly if they are in Bush Forever sites; and

Vegetation that is in an inadequately protected Vegetation Complex; in the case of the
   HVWRPA, this is the Karrakatta Vegetation Complex – Central and South.

The Long Swamp and Conway Road Swamp remnant native vegetation has conservation
significance for the first two reasons, and the Hendy Road Swamp east remnant native
vegetation has conservation significance for the second reason.

The Long Swamp and Conway Road Swamp remnant native vegetation has conservation
significance also for the third reason, as two ends of a linkage system. And the remnant
vegetation between them has significance for linking the two swamps, even though the
condition of this vegetation is assessed as Degraded (to Good). Hendy Road Swamp east and
the dense Acacia rostellifera and Tuart south of Long Swamp could also be included in the
system, although they are separated from each other and the rest of the linkage by cleared
land, pasture and weeds. This linkage system is identical with the broader of the linkages
shown on Figure 20 of Western Australian Land Authority (2003) and described on p. 101
(ibid.) as comprising ecological linkages proposed by the Town of Kwinana, except that it
also has the Acacia rostellifera and Tuart vegetation south of Long Swamp.

The Long Swamp – Conway Road Swamp linkage system is part of other, longer, less
continuous, often narrower linkage systems between pairs (and more) of Bush Forever sites
(BFSs). These linkages are:

BFS 346 to BFS 349, via Lussky Road to Long Swamp and Hendy Road bushland, then south
   to Ratcliffe Road and Thomas Road;

BFS 346 to BFS 392, via Long Swamp, Postans Road bushlands and, possibly, BFS 267 and
   393; and

BFS 346 to BFS 269, via Long Swamp, Hendy Road bushland, bushland next to Anketell
   Road and bushland southwest and southeast of the Alcoa tailing pond.



4
  According to Madin and Smith (1989), “declaration can be for the whole state or for smaller areas,
down to individual properties”. First among the three factors Madin and Smith list for consideration in
categorising declared plants is “the impact of the plant on individuals, agricultural production and the
community in general”. Paterson’s Curse is Priority 1 for the whole of the state.


Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                               11
There is no belt of native vegetation that is continuous across the length or breadth of
HVWRPA. The two closest approximations to one are between the southeast bend of BFS
346 and the Postans Road bushlands. One approximation includes Long Swamp. The other
approximation shares its part west of the railway with the Long Swamp approximation, but its
eastern part is north of Long Swamp and more degraded.

There are three linkages between BFS 346 and BFS 391. The HVWRPA remnant vegetation
in all of them is mostly Degraded (D) or Completely Degraded (CD), and all of them include
vegetation at the west end of Russell Road and between Russell Road, Rockingham Road and
Hurst Road. These linkages are:

BFS 346 to BFS 391, crossing Russell Road and to the north end of the HVWRPA (Fanstone
   and Fancote Avenues), then east;

BFS 346 to BFS 391, via Russell Road and Holmes Road bushlands; and

BFS 346 to BFS 391, via Russell Road.

Vegetation remnants in the eastern bulge of the HVWRPA, i.e. east of Postans Road, next to
it and north of it, are mapped by Heddle et al. (1980) as being in the Karrakatta Vegetation
Complex – Central and South (49), of which 18% of its original area in the Perth
Metropolitan Region remains (Bush Forever 2000, Volume 1, Table 4, p. 83). Most of the
other vegetation remnants in the HVWRPA are in the Cottesloe Vegetation Complex –
Central and South (52), of which 36% of its original area in the Perth Metropolitan Region
remains.

4.5   LIMITATIONS

In general, assessing condition of stands of vegetation and assigning them to structural classes
during a survey can only be subjective, much more subjective than identifying plants.
Assessing and assigning are likely to vary somewhat and occasionally even among experts.

Any inference about which stand of vegetation belongs to which Floristic Community Type
must be tentative when it is so degraded as is vegetation in the HVWRPA, and even when
stands are properly sampled and analysed following methods referred to or described in
Weston (2004), Gibson et al. (1994) and Keighery (1994) their assignment to particular FCTs
may also be only provisional if the thee stands are too degraded. Most stands of vegetation in
the HVWRPA are among the cases to which Goble-Garratt (2001) refers in her statement that
“In many cases, the depauperate condition of the understorey in the remnants would probably
not allow for a definitive allocation even after a detailed survey.” Western Australian Land
Authority (2003) quotes this Goble-Garratt statement from Arup (2002).

No single rare flora survey, or even more than a single survey, can be expected to exclude the
possibility that there are, in a study area, species of significant flora which were not found
during the survey. This is partly because some species flower during one season while others
flower at other times of the year. Furthermore, some species do not flower every year, and
some species are not identifiable, or even visible, except for short periods before, during and
after flowering, such as most orchids. Some species flower more, or only, during a few
seasons after a fire.

In addition, there may be rare or otherwise significant species which have not previously been
recorded anywhere near the area.

There are undoubtedly species of Priority Flora, and possibly of Declared Rare Flora, that
have been recorded in the broader area but did not appear in the results of the Department of
Conservation and Environment (CALM) rare flora database searches for the area. There are
several reasons for this. For instance, the records may not have been supported by Rare Flora
Report forms lodged with CALM nor by voucher specimens that have been accessioned into
Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                      12
the collections of the Western Australian Herbarium (along with label information which
would be added to the Western Australian Herbarium Specimen (WAHERB) database).
Furthermore, the ‘Distribution’ names in the CALM Declared Rare and Priority Species List
database are usually selections of locations or ends of distribution ranges and often, or
usually, do not include all localities from which a taxon has been recorded.




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                               13
                               5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The assistance of Clem Love, Robert Saffrey, Naomi Segal and Martin Henson in the field is
gratefully acknowledged. Access to the Western Australian Herbarium collections was
essential for carrying out the project and are greatly appreciated, as was access to plot field
sheets held by Department of Environment and information provided by Bronwen Keighery.
Mike Hislop and Paul Wilson assisted with identification of plant specimens.


                                      6.0 REFERENCES

APP. (2003). Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project – Proposed Master Plan
   Report. For Consent to Advertise. 27 February 2003. Produced by APP Pty Ltd.
   [reference is from Western Australian Land Authority (2003)]

Arup. (2002). Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Sustainability Assessment:
    Existing Project Area and Preferred Redevelopment Option. Draft. October 2002.
    [reference is from Western Australian Land Authority (2003)]

Atkins, K. (2005). Declared Rare and Priority Flora List, 22 February 2005.                The
    Department of Conservation and Land Management, Wildlife Branch, Como.

Atkins, K. (2004). Declared Rare and Priority Flora List, 19 July 2004. The Department of
    Conservation and Land Management, Wildlife Branch, Como.

Atkins, K. (2003). Declared Rare and Priority Flora List, 11 April 2003. The Department
    of Conservation and Land Management, Wildlife Branch, Como.

Beard, J.S. (1979). The Vegetation of the Pinjarra Area, Vegetation Survey of Western
    Australia 1:250,000 Series. Vegmap Publications, Applecross.

Beard, J.S. (1981). Sheet 7, Swan, Vegetation Survey of Western Australia 1:1,000,000
    Series. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands.

Bush Forever. (2000). see Government of Western Australia (2000).

Churchward, H.M. and McArthur, W.M. (1980). Pinjarra Sheet. Landforms and Soils of the
    Darling System, Western Australia. in: Atlas of Natural Resources Darling System,
    Western Australia. Western Australian Department of Conservation and Environment,
    Perth.

Department of Environmental Protection. (1996). System 6 and part of System 1 update
    programme – plot and area records and analysis (unpublished: cf. B.J. Keighery).

English, V. and Blyth, J. (1997). Identifying and Conserving Threatened Ecological
    Communities (TECs) in the South West Botanical Province. ANCA National Reserves
    System Cooperative Program: Project Number N702. Department of Conservation and
    Land Management, Wanneroo.

Environmental Protection Authority. (2004a). Guidance No. 51: Terrestrial Flora and
    Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia.
    Environmental Protection Authority Guidance Statement for the Assessment of
    Environmental Factors No. 51, June 2004.

Environmental Protection Authority. (2004b). Hope Valley-Wattleup Redevelopment Project
    Master Plan: Western Australian Land Authority (LandCorp): Report and

Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                     14
     Recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority. Environmental Protection
     Authority Position Bulletin 1133.

Environmental Protection Authority. (2003). Guidance No. 10: Level of assessment for
    proposals affecting natural areas within the System 6 region and Swan Coastal Plain
    portion of the System 1 Region. Environmental Protection Authority Guidance for the
    Assessment of Environmental Factors No. 10. Perth, Western Australia.

Environmental Protection Authority. (2002). Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of
    Biodiversity Protection. Environmental Protection Authority Position Statement No. 3.

Gibson, N., Keighery, B.J., Keighery, G.J., Burbidge, A.H. and Lyons, M.N. (1994).
    A Floristic Survey of the Southern Swan Coastal Plain. Unpublished Report for the
    Australian Heritage Commission prepared by Department of Conservation and Land
    Management and the Conservation Council of Western Australia (Inc.), Perth.

Goble-Garratt, E.M. (2001). Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Area – Natural History
    Aspects. Unpublished report to Arup, Perth. [reference is from Western Australian Land
    Authority (2003)]

Government of Western Australia (2000). Bush Forever: Keeping the Bush in the City:
   Volumes 1 and 2. Department of Environmental Protection, Perth.

Gozzard, J.R. (1983). Fremantle, Part Sheets 2033 I and 2033 IV. Perth Metropolitan
    Region Environmental Geology Series, Geological Survey of Western Australia.

Griffin, E.A. & Associates. (2005). FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites. Unpublished report for
     .A S Weston.

Heddle, E.M., Loneragan, O.W. and Havel, J.J. (1980). Pinjarra Sheet Vegetation
    Complexes of the Darling System, Western Australia. in: Atlas of Natural Resources
    Darling System, Western Australia. Western Australian Department of Conservation and
    Environment, Perth.

Hoffman, N. and Brown, A. (1998). Orchids of South-west Australia (revised second edition
    with supplement). University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands.

Hussey, B.M.J., Keighery, G.J., Cousens, R.D., Dodd, J. and Lloyd, S.G. (1997). Western
   Weeds: A Guide to the Weeds of Western Australia. The Plant Protection Society of
   Western Australia, Victoria Park.

Keighery, B. (1994). Bushland Plant Survey: A Guide to Plant Community Survey for the
    Community. Wildflower Society of WA (Inc.), Nedlands.

Keighery, B.J. (1997). Floristic Community Types in the Area of the System 6/1 Update.
    Unpublished report, Department of Environmental Protection, Perth.

Marchant, N.G., Wheeler, J.R., Rye, B.L., Bennett, E.M., Lander, N.S. and Macfarlane, T.D.
   (1987). Flora of the Perth Region. Western Australian Department of Agriculture,
   Perth.

Paczkowska, G. and Chapman, A.R. (2000). The Western Australian Flora, A Descriptive
    Catalogue. Wildflower Society of Western Australia (Inc), the Western Australian
    Herbarium, CALM and the Botanic Gardens & Parks Authority: Perth.

Scheltema, M. and Harris, J. (1995). Managing Perth’s Bushlands, Perth’s bushlands and
    how to manage them. Greening Western Australia, Perth.

Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                   15
Western Australian Land Authority. (2003). Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project
    Environmental Review (EPA Assessment Number 1470). Produced by Western
    Australian Land Authority (LandCorp).

Weston, A.S. (2004) Threatened Ecological Community FCT (SCP) 26a Survey: Hope
    Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area. Unpublished report prepared for
    Bowman Bishaw Gorham, Subiaco.

Weston, A.S. and Clay, B.T. (1980). Vascular Plants of the University of Western Australia
   Marsupial Breeding Station. Unpublished list.




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                 16
 A. Site 24 (including Quadrat HV02). Melaleuca huegelii Open Heath. Site 21 (including Quadrat
 HV03) is east southeast of it in upper central background of photo. (Photograph ASW 04.III.1-20)




   B. Site 21 (Quadrat HV03). Melaleuca huegelii Open Heath over M. systena Open Low Heath
               southeast of south end of Moylan Road. (Photograph ASW 04.III.1-16)



PLATE 1      Probable FCT 24 Vegetation, on Limestone, in the HVWRPA
  A. Quadrat HV02 (in Site 24). Melaleuca huegelii Open Heath. (Photograph ASW 04.X.1-0)




      B. Quadrat HV01. Dryandra sessilis Tall Shrubland to Tall Open Scrub on E side of
      EPA monitoring station S of S end of Hearder Avenue. (Photograph ASW 05.III.1-3)



PLATE 2    Probable FCT 24 Vegetation, on Limestone, in the HVWRPA
           A. Looking NE over seasonally inundated bare centre of Long Swamp in October.
                                  (Photograph ASW 05.IX.1-16A)




  B. Site 52. Looking SW over seasonally inundated centre of Long Swamp in March, with mats of
Suaeda australis, Halosarcia pergranulata, Wilsonia backhousei and Sporobolus virginicus around it.
                                   (Photograph ASW 05.III.1-7)



PLATE 3      Long Swamp
A. Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Open (to Open) Forest over Gahnia trifida Open Tussock Sedgeland
   and Baumea juncea Closed Sedgeland at Long Swamp, Site 79. (Photograph ASW 05.III.1-21)




  A. Site 53. *Gomphocarpus fruticosus (foreground and thicket) and other weeds in Hendy Road
  Swamp east; and Hendy Road Swamp east on right behind thicket. (Photograph ASW 05.III.1-9)



PLATE 4      Long Swamp Forest and Hendy Road Swamps
  A. Site 14. Tuart Woodland over Jarrah-Marri-Banksia Low Woodland over Balga (Xanthorrhoea
preissii) Shrubland, Hibbertia hypericoides Low Shrubland and weeds. (Photograph ASW 04.III.1-10)




B. Banksia attenuata – B. menziesii (- Jarrah) Low woodland over Balga (Xanthorrhoea preissii) Low
                      Shrubland and weeds. (Photograph ASW 05.IX.1-14A)



PLATE 5      Tuart and Banksia Woodlands, in the HVWRPA
            A. Site 34. Lechenaultia linarioides flowers, pods, leaves and arching stems.
                                 (Photograph ASW 05.IX.1-11A)




  B. Site 34. Lechenaultia linarioides plant, with *Pelargonium capitatum and other weeds.
                                   (Photograph ASW 05.IX.1-12A)




PLATE 6    Lechenaultia linarioides
                                        APPENDIX A

                     Rare Flora with Distributions and Habitats
      which may include the Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area

            (compiled August-September 2004 and checked in March-April 2005)

Introduction

Table A1 lists 12 taxa (species, subspecies and varieties) of Declared Rare (DRF) and Priority
(P) Flora recorded in the broader vicinity of the Hope Valley – Wattleup area. The taxa listed
in the table are the principal taxa searched for in the Hope Valley – Wattleup study area in the
September 2004 – April 2005 period. The table also provides information about conservation
codes, distributions, locality records, growth forms, habitats and flowering times for these
taxa. The information about distributions, localities, growth forms, habitats and flowering
times is not always comprehensive, but information about habitat is at least indicative and
should help in assessing how likely rare flora is to occur at particular locations in the survey
area.

The table lists three DRF (R) taxa (gazetted Declared Rare Flora), two P1 taxa, two P3 taxa
and five P4 taxa. Bush Forever (2000, Vol. 2, Table 13) lists additional, non-DRF, non-P
significant taxa that were searched for.

The Table A1 list of taxa is the list of taxa in Western Australian Land Authority (2003,
Appendix C). These are the taxa in the results of searches of three databases by the Wildlife
Branch of Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) in early July 2003.
The databases searched are
T Threatened (Declared Rare) Flora (Summary of Threatened Flora Data),
D Declared Rare and Priority Flora List and
W Western Australian Herbarium Specimen (WAHERB).

The searches were for Declared Rare and Priority Flora taxa recorded in the broad vicinity of
Hope Valley and Wattleup. The searches were requested by Carolyn Harding, of RPS
Bowman Bishaw Gorham, and encompassed an area extending 10 km beyond the HVWRPA.
The search parameters used are:
Coordinates: 115^43’47.55” - 115^53’12.18” and 32^05’15.31” - 32^15’37.65”

Two of the listed species are also the total results of searches of the same three databases
carried out by CALM in late August 2004. The 2004 database search area was somewhat
smaller than the 2003 area, in order to reduce the risk of the searches finding Bassendean
species and others for which suitable habitats are unlikely to occur in the HVWRPA. The
parameters used for the 2004 searches are:
Coordinates:         115^47’00” - 115^50’00” and 32^08’00” - 32^15’00”
Names: Banganup, Henderson, Kwinana, Mandogalup, Medina, Orelia,
                              Parmelia, Postans, Spectacles, Thomsons Lake, Wattleup

The Department of Conservation and Land Management cover letter with the results from
their database searches emphasises that “the information supplied should be regarded as an
indication only of rare flora that may be present”. Some of the taxa in the results occur in
types of habitats that do not appear to be represented in the study area, but there could be
Declared Rare Flora or Priority Flora in the study area other than those in the results.
The printouts also provided some information about conservation codes, localities and
distributions, habitats and flowering times. The localities given in Table A1 are often
selections and do not always include all of the localities given for a listed species in the
CALM printouts, which themselves are also often only selections.

Additional information in the table was obtained from examination of herbarium specimens
and their labels in the Western Australian Herbarium, consultations with other botanists, and
information in Atkins (2004), Paczkowska and Chapman (2000), Marchant et al. (1987),
Brown et al. (1998), Hoffman and Brown (1998) and relevant parts of the Flora of Australia
and How to Know Western Australian Wildflowers. These references are listed in the report
to which this is Appendix A. The currency of the Conservation codes has been confirmed by
checking in Atkins (2005).

Entries in the second column of Table A1 indicate which database search results list that
taxon. The letters D, T and W are for the databases Declared Rare and Priority Species List,
Threatened (Declared Rare) Flora and Western Australian Herbarium Specimen (WAHERB),
respectively. [‘d’ under D, the number of entries in the database results for T and W]

Ideally, any search for rare flora should be undertaken at a time when rare orchids and most of
the other species listed in Table A1 are in flower and identifiable. However, some plants
flower erratically and some do not flower every year. For instance, plants of some species
appear and flower rarely except after summer fires.

Conservation Codes Definitions

Department of Conservation and Land Management definitions of the Conservation Codes
(Atkins 2004) in Table A1 are:

R:      Declared Rare Flora – Extant Taxa
         Taxa which have been adequately searched for and are deemed to be in the
         wild either rare, in danger of extinction, or otherwise in need of special
         protection, and have been gazetted as such.

1:      Priority One – Poorly Known Taxa
          Taxa which are known from one or a few (generally <5) populations which are
          under threat, . . . Such taxa are under consideration for declaration as ‘rare flora’,
          but are in urgent need of further survey.

2:      Priority Two – Poorly Known Taxa
          Taxa which are known from one or a few (generally <5) populations, at least
          some of which are not believed to be under immediate threat (i.e not currently
          endangered). Such taxa are under consideration for declaration as ‘rare flora’, but
          are in urgent need of further survey.

3:      Priority Three – Poorly Known Taxa
          Taxa which are known from several populations, and the taxa are not believed
          to be under immediate threat (i.e not currently endangered), . . . Such taxa are
          under consideration for declaration as ‘rare flora’, but are in need of further survey.

4:      Priority Four – Rare Taxa
          Taxa which are considered to have been adequately surveyed and which,
          whilst being rare (in Australia), are not currently threatened by any
          identifiable factors. These taxa require monitoring every 5-10 years.
The need for further survey of poorly known taxa is prioritised into the Priority 1, 2 and 3
categories depending on the perceived urgency for determining the conservation status of
those taxa, as indicated by the apparent degree of threat to the taxa based on current
information.
                                                                     Table A1
                               Declared Rare and Priority Flora Recorded in the Broader Hope Valley - Wattleup Area

        Taxon Name             ’03 Data- ’04 Data- Cons.     Distribution      Flower Fam.                                Plant Form and Features
                                  base     base    Code                          ing   No.                                      and Habitat
                                searches searches                              Period
                                 DTW DTW
Acacia lasiocarpa var. bracte-   - - 1     - - -    P1 North Dandelup –        May-    163 Prickly shrub <0.5m tall; pinnules in 2-3 prs, margins recurved to revolute;
 olata long ped. variant                                 Gosnells, Jandakot    Aug         peduncles hairy, conspicuous. Seasonally damp areas on coastal plain.
Anthotium junciforme             - 1 1     - - -    P4 Albany-Busselton-       Dec-    341 Grass-like tufted herb <0.4m tall; fls ppl to pl blue (rarely wh or pink), term. on
                                                         Jandakot-Upper Swan   Mar         stalks > than lves. Low in landscape in eucalypt woodlands or winter-wet flats.
Aotus cordifolia               - - 2    - - -     P3    Witchcliffe - Upper    Aug-    165 Erect to straggly glabrous shrub to > 1.5 m; lvs 3, whorled, sessile, ovate-cordate;
                                                        Swan, Banjup           Dec           fls small, standard yellow. Swamps; soil often peaty.
Aponogeton hexatepalus         - 1 -    - - -     P4    Nannup-Perth           Aug-    025 Rooted aquatic herb with straplike leaves, the floating part of which is broader than
                                                                               Sep           the submerged part; Shallow winter pools on clayey soils, rivers, claypans.
Caladenia huegelii            - 3 3     - - -     R     Capel-Perth, Banjup    Aug-    066 Large, few-flowered spider orchid with lrge labellum that is dark rd and has long,
                                                                               Oct           often divided, usually white fringing hairs. Sandy soils in banksia and eucalypt
                                                                                             woodlands and low open forests which are, usually, low in the landscape.
Diuris micrantha              - 2 1     d - 2     R     Manjimup-Medina,       Aug-    066   A dwarf bee orchid closely related to Diuris laxiflora but with much smaller, paler
                                                        Bowelling, Meelon      Sep           flowers. Small, winter wet, shallowly inundated, sandy clayey flats in short
                                                                                             sedgeland, usually predominantly of Lepidosperma longitudinale at least nearby.
Dodonaea hackettiana          - 14 9    d 10 3    P4    Gingin-Wattleup        Jul-Oct 207   Small tree or large shrub.
                                                                                             Often on limestone or in margins of wetlands.
Drakaea elastica              -3–1      - – -     R     Albany-Busselton-       Oct-   066   Hammer orchid w prominent hairy section in its upper labellum & distinctively
                                                        Gingin, Mandogalup      Nov          shiny, bright green, heart-shaped leaf which is flat on the ground. Deep sand low
                                                                                             in landscape, usually under spearwood and banksias next to winter-wet swamp.
Grevillea olivacea             - - 1    - - -     P4    Leeman-Greenhead,      Jun-    090   The GJK 13063 specimens from Woodman Point are of self-seeded plants, from
                                                        Woodman Point          Aug           plantings; on white sand of coastal dunes.
Microtus media                 - - 1    - - -     P4    Albany-Augusta,        Dec-    066   Flower short, fleshy, green; sepals short; dorsal sepal deeply hooded; labellum
   subsp. quadrata                                      Jandakot, Pinjarra     Jan           almost square. In coastal clay-based swamps following summer fires.
Phlebocarya pilosissima        - - 1    - - -     P3    Jurien-Eneabba;        Aug-    055   Compactly tufted, pilose grass-like herb 0.14-0.4m tall.
  subsp. pilosissima                                    Jandakot (GJK 12721)   Sep           Jandakot (GJK 12721): Prinsep Rd: Sand ridge. In Banksia woodland.
Tripterococcus paniculatus    - 1 1     - - -     P1    Armadale-Upper Swan,   Nov     202   Glabr, several-stemmed herb similar to T. brunonis but fls later and spikes have > 1
                                                        Jandakot                             fl. Grey sand, winter damp flats; open patches in heath with Mel. preissiana.
                                       APPENDIX B

                             Vegetation Observation Sites
               in the Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment Project Area


Table B1 lists waypoints and coordinates of Quadrats HV01, HV02 and HV03, and Table B2
lists Site numbers of stands of vegetation in the Hope Valley – Wattleup Redevelopment
Project Area (HVWRPA) viewed in greater detail. Table B2 also gives brief descriptions of
the vegetation units, symbols indicating the condition of the vegetation, photograph numbers,
waypoint numbers and coordinates of the locations. Sites 1 to 5 are not in the HVWRPA;
they are north to north-northwest of it.

The vegetation descriptions use the structural system and condition scale of Keighery (1994)
and Bush Forever (2000), which are reproduced here in Appendix F.

When referring to photograph numbers, the numbers for Sites 6 to 49 should be prefixed with
“ASW04.”, as, for example, ASW.04.III.1-3. Sites after 49 should be prefixed with
“ASW05.”.

The eastings and northings are UTM coordinates (=MGA, =AGM) in metres, generally plus
or minus five metres. The coordinates are in the international WGS 84 Map Datum or the
GDA94 (Geocentric Datum of Australia) datum, which are compatible with each other. The
coordinates are within the 50H Grid Zone, but the term ‘50H’ is not given in the entries.

                                       Table B1
                                    Quadrat Locations

  Quadrat          Photographs          Waypoint           Easting             Northing
   HV01            MH 274-277            MH 88             0386427             6436135
                  ASW.05.III.1-3
   HV02           ASW.04.X.1-0            AW               0386828              6438780
                                         MH 89             0386821              6438780
   HV03        ASW.04.XI.1-6A-9A         AW 077            0387351              6438836




                                                                                           1
                                                                    Table B2 Vegetation Observation Sites

Site                                 Vegetation Descriptions and Notes                                       Cond-      Photo       Way-       Eastings     Northings
No.                                                                                                          ition       No.        point       (mE)          (mN)
6      N, E: Cleared and, in distance, Acacia rostellifera, Tuart Woodland, and other eucalypts              D-C?     III.1-3, 4   Rockingham/Anketell Rds junction

7      Melaleuca huegelii Tall Open Scrub (see Appendix B)                                                   D        III.1-5      144         0386328     6436108

8      Melaleuca huegelii Tall Shrubland to Tall Open Scrub (= Site No. 26)                                  D(-G?)   III.1-6      145         0386389     6436128

9      Tuart Woodland to Open Woodland; stands of Acacia rostellifera (and of Dryandra sessilis)             D                     200m to 400m S of S end of Hendy Rd

10     Mosaic of Tall Scrubs of Acacia rostellifera, Dryandra sessilis and Melaleuca huegelii                C(-D)                 ca 50m E of S end of Lussky Rd

11     Weeds w. a few shrubs of Melaleuca huegelii and Grevillea preissii                                    C        III.1-7      146         0387116     6439848

12     At E end of Sites 12-13 bushland: Jarrah-Sheoak-Banksia (B. attenuata-B. menziesii) Low Open          G-D      III.1-8      147         0387811     6441408
13     Forest to Low Woodland w. Tuart Scattered Trees. At W end: Tuart Woodland to Scattered Trees          D        III.1-9      148         0387379     6441646
       over Jarrah Low Woodland; all over Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland to Open Heath and weeds

14     Tuart Woodland over Jarrah-Marri-(Banksia attenuata – B. grandis) Low Woodland over                   G-D      III.1-10     149         0387129     6442173
       Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland, Hibbertia hypericoides Low Shrubland and weeds                       (-CD)

15     Tuart Woodland to Open Forest over Melaleuca huegelii Scattered Tall Shrubs and weeds                 D-C      III.1-11     150         0387457     6442352

16     Tuart Scattered Trees and Banksia attenuata – B. menziesii Low to Low Open Woodland w.                C(-D)    III.1-12     151         0386301     6442441
       Eucalyptus utilis and E. erythrocorys (possibly both planted), over Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland
       to Open Shrubland and weeds [16 appears to grade into 17]

17     Dryandra sessilis – Melaleuca huegelii Tall Shrubland to Tall Open Scrub over Xanthorrhoea            D-C      III.1-13     152         0386226     6442499
       preissii Open Shrubland and weeds

18     Similar to Site 16                                                                                                          W side of Site 17
19     Tuart Open Woodland to Scattered Trees and patches of Dryandra sessilis Closed Tall Scrub, with         D(-C)    III.1-14   153         0385942      6442256
       Grevillea vestita Open Heath, Acacia rostellifera Heaths and Jacksonia furcellata, Eucalyptus utilis,
       E. sp., Hakea prostrata, and some Banksia attenuata, B. menziesii and Agonis flexuosa

20     Tuart (locally mainly dead) Open Woodland to Scattered Trees over Acacia rostellifera and               D(-C)    III.1-15   159         0386001      6442454
       Dryandra sessilis Closed Tall Scrubs, Xanthorrhoea preissii Open Heath and weeds

21     Melaleuca huegelii Open Heath over Melaleuca systena Open Low Heath over Grevillea preissii             G-D(-    III.1-16   154         0387345      6438843
       Low Shrubland over Desmocladus flexuosa restionaceous Open Sedgeland                                    V)

22     Tuart Woodland over Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland to Tall Open Scrub over weeds                       C-D      III.1-17   Just south of Site 21

23     N end of vegetation which is S of bund and surrounded by bunds: Tuart Woodland over                     C-D      III.1-19   155         0386567      6438393
       Xanthorrhoea preissii Open Heath, and, to W: Melaleuca huegelii Closed Tall Scrub, over weeds

24     Melaleuca huegelii Open Heath                                                                           G-D      III.1-20   156         0386834      6438786

24a    Grevillea vestita Closed Heath                                                                          C-D      III.1-21   ca. 20 m S of Site 24

25     Melaleuca huegelii (- Dryandra sessilis) Tall Shrubland to Tall Open Scrub over Melaleuca systena       D(-G)    III.1-22   157         0386457      6437939
       Scattered Shrubs and Hibbertia hypericoides Low Open Shrubland

26     Melaleuca huegelii Tall Shrubland to Tall Open Scrub (= Site No. 8)                                     D(-G?)   III.1-6    145

27     Tuart Open Woodland over Banksia attenuata Low Woodland over mixed, varied, patchy Open and             D(-C)    III.1-23   158 (+/-    0386645      6435896
       Low Open Shrublands of Xanthorrhoea preissii, Grevillea vestita, Macrozamia riedlei and Hibbertia                           E of
       hypericoides, and weeds                                                                                                     summit)

30     North from highest point: Xanthorrhoea preissii Tall Open Shrubland and Melaleuca huegelii,             C        III.1-25   162         0386228      6442250
       Macrozamia riedlei scattered medium shrubs, over herbaceous plants (weeds?)                                                 ‘summit’

30a    Tuart Open Woodland, Banksia attenuata – B. menziesii Low Woodland, and patches of Dryandra             C(-D)    ---        ---         bordering Site 30
       sessilis Open Heath, all on gentle upper slopes bordering Site 30 vegetation




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                                                                                               2
30b       Vegetation W to NW from Site 30 to western boundary fence, lower on slopes than 30 and further          C(-D)     ---           ---        between western part of
          from Site 30: Tuart Open Woodland over (1) Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland, (2) Acacia                                                     Site 30a and western fence
          rostellifera (- A. cyclops) Tall Open to Closed Tall Scrub, (3) Parrot Bush Open Heath, (4) Grevillea
          vestita Open to Open Low Heath, (5) Melaleuca huegelii scattered medium and tall shrubs, and,
          mainly, (6) Grassland/Herbland to Closed Grassland/Herbland of weeds

31        Acacia rostellifera Tall Open to Closed Tall Scrub over Melaleuca systena Open Shrubland over           D(-G?)    III.2-21      164        0386169       6435915
          Hibberita hypericoides Low Open Shrubland, Dryandra lindleyana Low Open Shrubland and Closed                      centre
          Grassland/Herbland of weeds

31a       Tuart Open Woodland to Scattered Trees over Jarrah-Banksia Low Woodland over Acacia                     D-G?      III.2-21      ---        low area along Anketell
          rostellifera Shrubland regenerating after fire                                                                    left centre              Rd W of Armstrong Rd

32        Acacia rostellifera Closed Tall Scrub over Xanthorrhoea preissii Scattered Shrubs and weeds and,        CD-D      ---           165        0386318       6437353
          east of site, Tuart Scattered Trees

32a       Banksia Low Woodland over, mainly, weeds                                                                CD?       ---           S of 165   between railway, Hope
                                                                                                                                                     Valley Road and
                                                                                                                                                     Armstrong Road
33        There are emergent Tuarts in some of the Jarrah-Banksia woodlands north of Aloca tailing ponds          D to G?   ---           ---        E of parts of Postans Rd

34        Acacia pulchella and Grevillea vestita Shrublands over, mainly, weeds, with some Hakea pro-strata,      CD-D      III.2-22      166        0387714       6439846
          Calothamnus quadrifidus, Grevillea preissii, Scaevola ?repens and Lechenaultia linarioides

35        Tuart Scattered Trees in Jarrah-Sheoak Low Open Forest to Low Woodland over Xanthorrhoea                D(-G?)    III.2-23      167        0387534       6440555
          preissii (-Zamia) Low Shrubland and weeds, with Banksia attenuata and B. grandis

36        Jarrah – Banksia attenuata – B. menziesii Low Open Forest (to J Woodland) over Xanthorrhoea             D         III.2-24      168        0388693       6439717
          preissii Low Shrublands and weeds; some B. grandis and, to west, Tuart trees

375       Tuart, in eastern part of ‘basin’, over Xanthorrhoea preissii shrublands and alien grasses and          D-CD
          herbaceous plants


5
     The notebooks and GPS units with the notes and coordinates for Sites 37 to 49 were destroyed in a fire.




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                                                                                                           3
38     Tuart Woodland to Open Woodland over Hakea prostrata – Grevillea vestita Open Heath and             D
       Shrubland (in patches)

39     Acacia rostellifera patchy Shrubland to Open Heath (patchy)                                         D-CD

40     Tuart Open Woodland to Scattered Trees over Jarrah-Banksia Low Woodland                             D

41     Jarrah- Allocasuarina fraseriana Low Open Forest to Woodland over over Xanthorrhoea preissii        D(-G)
       Low Shrublands, with Tuart and Banksia attenuata

42     Tuart over Jarrah – Banksia attenuata – B. menziesii Low Open Forest (to Woodland)                  D

43     Mainly Tuart, Acacia rostellifera and alien species                                                 D-CD

44     Jarrah – Banksia attenuata (– B. menziesii) Low Open Forest (to Woodland) over Xanthorrhoea         D
       preissii Low Shrublands and weeds; Tuart further west

45     Jarrah – Banksia attenuata (– B. menziesii) Low Open Forest (to Woodland) over Xanthorrhoea         D
       preissii Low Shrublands and weeds; and emergerntTuart

46     Tuart Open Woodland over Jarrah – Banksia attenuata (– B. menziesii) Low Open Forest (to            D
       Woodland) over Xanthorrhoea preissii Low Shrublands and weeds

47     Tuart Open Woodland to Scattered Trees over Jarrah-Banksia Low Woodland                             D

48     Tuart Open Woodland to Scattered Trees over Jarrah-Banksia Low Woodland                             D

49     Tuart Open Woodland to Scattered Trees over Jarrah-Banksia Low Woodland                             D

50     *Juncus acutus Closed Rushland, with tussocks of Gahnia trifida and scattered shrubs of Melaleuca   D-CD    III.1-5   ---   0386783   6437261
       rhaphiophylla, Ricinus communis, Acacia cyclops and Acacia saligna, and, in depressions,
       monospecific stands of *Atriplex prostrata and of Halosarcia pergrannulata




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                                                                                4
50a    Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Open Forest to Low Woodland over Juncus kraussii (-J. acutus)           VG-E     ---        ---       south of the Site 50
       Closed Rushland, with Cassytha racemosa                                                                                           vegetation

51     Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Woodland (to Open and Low Open Forest) over Gahnia trifida              VG-E     III.1-6    ---       0387185        6436815
       Tussock Sedgeland over Baumea juncea Closed Sedgeland, with Samolus juncea, Lobelia alata and
       Centella asiatica

52     Autumn-bare seasonally inundated mud in Long Swamp, with a few small pools of water and, at         VG-E?    III.1-7    ---       0387060        6436841
       margins of bare area, Suaeda australis and skeletons of trees, probably Melaleuca rhaphiophylla.
       Site 52 is at NE end of the bare area. Also Long Swamp Sites 63-80, 24/4/05.

53     *Gomphocarpus fruticosus Open to Closed Heath (or Tall Herbland) over Pennisetum clandestinum       CD       III.1-9    ---       0386940        6436111
       (-Paspalum sp.) Open to Closed Grassland

54     Boundary between *Juncus acutus Closed Rushland, to north, and Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low          CD,      III.1-10   ---       0387092        6436107
       Open Forest over *Juncus acutus, *Cynodon dactylon and other aliens                                 G-CD

55     Boundary between Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Open Forest over aliens, to north, and Acacia          G-CD,    III.1-11   ---       0387137        6436058
       saligna Tall Open Scrub, to east                                                                    CD(-D)

56     Nicotiana glauca Tall Shrubland over alien grasses, *Euphorbia terracina and *Lupinus cosentinii,   CD       III.1-13   ---       0386996        6435998
       and, south-west of it, a stand of Acacia pulchella Open Heath over alien grasses

57     Eucalyptus gomphocephala Closed to Low Closed Forest over leaf and branch litter, limestone         D-G,     ?          G 001     0387063        6436597
       boulders and some *Asparagus asparagoides; surrounded by Acacia rostellifera Closed Tall Scrub      CD,
       and, on north-east, firebreak and Acacia saligna                                                    CD
57a    Acacia saligna Tall Open to Closed Tall Scrub over alien rhizomatous grasses and Gahnia trifida,    CD-D     ?          G002-
       Baumea juncea, Lobelia alata and Centella asiatica, with Melaleuca rhaphiophylla shrubs and small                       014
       trees

58     Eucalyptus gomphocephala Low Open to Open over patchy Xanthorrhoea preissii Shrubland and           CD(-D)   III.2-0    72- 123   0385799        6436120
       Gahnia trifida Open Tussock Sedgland over Closed Alien Grassland, especially Pennisetum
       clandestinum, on the east side of Conway Road swamp




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                                                                                           5
59     Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Woodland (to Open and Low Open Forest) over Gahnia trifida          G(-D)   III.2-1   72- 124   0385698   6436121
       Tussock Sedgeland over Baumea juncea Closed Sedgeland, with Samolus juncea, Lobelia alata and
       Centella asiatica, Cynodon dactylon and Apium prostratum, in centre of Conway Road Swamp




Hope Valley Veg/Flora ASWeston 25.10.05                                                                                                                6
                                       APPENDIX C

               Vegetation in and near Long Swamp, Hendy Road Swamps
                               and Conway Road Swamp

Introduction

Figure 18 in Western Australian Land Authority (2003) shows four wetlands in the
HVWRPA, all in the southern part. These wetlands are Long Swamp, Hendy Road Swamp
east, Hendy Road Swamp west and Conway Road Swamp. There are descriptions of the
swamps in Appendix E of the Western Australian Land Authority (2003) report.

The Gozzard (1983) 1:50 000 scale environmental geology map shows Long Swamp as being
in environmental geology map unit M6 and Conway Road Swamp and Hendy Road Swamps
as being in environmental geology map unit S7. The map shows Long Swamp as a perennial
marsh, Conway Road Swamp as a seasonal marsh and Hendy Road Swamps not as swamps
but as areas that are inundated during floods.

Vegetation units of the swamps and their condition are described below, and they are shown
on Figure C1.

Long Swamp

Long Swamp is, during the driest time of year, a bare muddy oval with, basically, three
concentric oval bands of vegetation units around it. The swamp, even the bare, central part of
it, has been relatively little damaged by vehicles.

Each of the concentric bands has a tree to tall shrub stratum of the paperbark Melaleuca
rhaphiophylla, which is tallest, densest and healthiest in the outermost band. The death and
unhealthy condition of these plants in the innermost and central bands may have been caused
by increased levels of salinity in the swamp.

The condition of these units and of enclave communities within them is assessed as ranging
from (Degraded to Good to) Very Good to Excellent or Pristine.

The three concentric units are:

SHW          Suaeda australis (S) Open to Closed Very Low Heath and
             Halosarcia pergranulata – Wilsonia backhousei (HW) Closed Very Low Heath

        The narrow innermost band has unhealthy or dead skeletons of Melaleuca
        rhaphiophylla trees or shrubs 2-4m tall over Open to Closed Very Low Heath of
        Suaeda australis in the southern two-thirds and over Halosarcia pergranulata –
        Wilsonia backhousei Closed Very Low Heath in the northern third. There are islands
        of very dense Sporobolus virginicus Closed Grassland in the northern half of the band
        and tussocks of Samolus junceus at the northern end.

        The highest incidence of dead Melaleuca rhaphiophylla is in the southern third of the
        band and in the islands of Sporobolus virginicus.
        All dominant species are native, and there are few aliens in the band. There are also
        filamentous aquatics at the inner edge of the oval, possibly a species of Schoenus, but
        the plants could not be identified.

        The condition of this vegetation was assessed as Excellent, if the dead state of the
        Melaleuca rhaphiophylla is considered to be natural, and as Degraded to Good, if it is
        not.

S   Suaeda australis Open to Closed Very Low Heath

        The central, broader band has healthier Melaleuca rhaphiophylla trees, generally
        more than 4m tall, over Open to Closed Very Low Heath of Suaeda australis, with
        *Atriplex prostrata in parts of it. There are a few enclaves of Baumea articulata
        Closed Tall Sedgeland in or near the band, one of which is under a dense group of
        some of the tallest Melaleuca rhaphiophylla trees in the swamp (east of Site 76; the
        western edge of Baumea articulata Tall Sedgeland to Tall Closed Sedgeland - also
        western edge of tallest densest stand of Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Open Forest - is Site
        76, ASW Garmin GPS 72 Waypoint 141).

        The condition of this vegetation was assessed as Excellent to Very Good, if the state
        of the Melaleuca rhaphiophylla is considered to be natural, and as Degraded to Good,
        if it is not.

Mr Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Woodland and Open Forest to Low Woodland and
           Low Open Forest over Gahnia trifida Open Tussock Sedgeland over Baumea
           juncea Closed Sedgeland

        Within the Melaleuca rhaphiophylla vegetation there are enclaves of Sporobolus
        virginicus Closed Grassland and other communities of native species, with condition
        assessed as Excellent, and of *Juncus acutus, with condition assessed as Degraded.

The northern, mainly non-treed part of the swamp is a mixture of native and non-native
pioneer species, with *Juncus acutus (Ja) dominant and with condition assessed as Degraded
(to Completely Degraded).

Between the northern, degraded part of the swamp and the east-west bund or derelict raised
track south of it there is a mosaic or mixture of understorey vegetation dominated, on the one
hand, by the rush *Juncus acutus and, on the other hand, by the sedges Gahnia trifida and
Baumea juncea (Mr/Ja). A dense stand of the reed Arundo donax is on the central part of the
western boundary of this unit.

The pale areas outside the concentric rings are weedy grasslands and herblands.

East of the swamp there are stands of alien grasses and shrubs (Cl), Acacia rostellifera (Ar)
Closed to Open Tall Scrub, Acacia saligna Closed Tall Scrub to Tall Shrubland (As) and
Tuart forests (T). All have understoreys of alien species and have conditions assessed as
Good to Completely Degraded.

Long Swamp South of Hope Valley Road

The southern part of Long Swamp, south of Hope Valley Road, is
As     Acacia saligna Tall Scrub to Tall Shrubland over Closed Grasslands of weedy
            rhizomatous grasses, mainly *Stenotaphrum secundatum and *Pennisetum
            clandestinum,



                                              2
        The condition of this vegetation is assessed as Degraded (to Completely Degraded),
        although there are also scattered native sedges and herbaceous plants in it.

None of the dominants of this vegetation is restricted to wetlands, but some of the other,
native species are. These species are: Melaleuca rhaphiophylla, Gahnia trifida, Baumea
juncea, Lobelia alata and Centella asiatica. The area in which these species occur is
separated from Hope Valley Road by a strip of fill, and a bulldozed bund is around the other
sides of the area, which may be interpreted as a dampland or seasonal wetland.

The principal basis for recognising this area south of Hope Valley Road as wetland is that the
vegetation in it has representations of these five wetland species. Furthermore, the principal
understorey vegetation, three alien species of rhizomatous grasses – Stenotaphrum
secundatum, Pennisetum clandestinum and Cynodon dactylon – were still green, tall and
dense in March.

South of the swamp there is a stand of Acacia rostellifera Closed Tall Scrub (Ar), with a
stand of young Tuart Closed to Low Closed Forest (T) in the centre of it. The condition of
these stands is assessed as Good to Degraded.

Hendy Road Swamp East

The eastern Hendy Road wetland encloses three distinct vegetation units. These are

G Closed Grassland of alien species

        The northern, paler third or more of the wetland.

        The condition is assessed as Completely Degraded.

Ja *Juncus acutus Closed Sedgeland,

        with other alien species and condition assessed as Completely Degraded, and

Mr Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Woodland and Open Forest to Low Woodland and
           Low Open Forest over a variety of alien species of herbaceous plants

        The condition is assessed as Degraded to Good.

South of the eastern wetland, continuous with it, and merging with each other, are:

As Acacia saligna Tall Scrub to Tall Shrubland over Closed Grasslands of
           weedy grasses.

        The condition is assessed as (Degraded to) Completely Degraded.

T Tuart Open Forest to Low Closed Forest

        The condition is assessed as Degraded to Completely Degraded.

Hendy Road Swamp West

The western swamp is worse then Completely Degraded; it is virtually without native species.
Most of the swamp is a large stand of the weed *Gomphocarpus fruticosus (Gf).




                                              3
Conway Road Swamp

Conway Road Swamp is in three parts:

G The north-eastern third is pasture plants and other alien plants

        The condition is assessed as Completely Degraded condition.

Mr The north-western quarter or less is Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Open Forest
           with recently burnt understorey

        The condition could not be assessed. It may be Good to Very Good or better.

Mr The southern more than a third is Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Low Open Forest
           over Gahnia trifida Open Tussock Sedgeland over Baumea juncea – Apium
           prostratum - *Cynodon dactylon Closed Sedgeland/Herbland/Grassland

        The condition is assessed as Very Good to Degraded.

The northeastern part of the swamp is now pasture, with few Melaleuca rhaphiophylla trees
left there (G, MrG).

There is Tuart Open to Low Open Forest and Woodland (T) over alien grasses east and south
of the southern, unburnt half of the swamp. At least part of the southern part of the Tuart
stand has an understorey of Acacia saligna Tall Open Scrub.

                                                                              ASW 3/10/05




                                              4
                            APPENDIX D

        PATN Analysis and Assessment of Quadrat Samples


By E.A. (Ted) Griffin, of E.A. (Ted) Griffin & Associates, 18 April 2005.
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston            E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005


1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of this report
The current report is intended to help clarify the assignment of Floristic Community
type (FCT) designation to vegetation community (site) data. FCTs were defined by
Gibson et al (1994) based on site data collected from vegetation on the Swan Coastal
Plain. In particular, the potential that a Threatened Ecological Community (English
and Blyth 1997) is represented by the data collected needs to be clarified.

1.2 Location of Hope Valley Sites
The sites were apparently from the Hope Valley area on limestone Spearwood dunes
in the southern metropolitan area.

1.3 Brief background to floristic analysis of vegetation on the Swan Coastal Plain
Floristic analysis (ie., analysis of variation in vegetation based on the species present,
rather than description of structural variation and dominance) as a significant
component of the understanding of the variation present in the native vegetation of the
Swan Coastal Plain dates to Gibson et al (1994 – all references to the SCP survey in
the current report refer to this publication), the first publication to document the
floristics of the vegetation of a large part of the Swan Coastal Plain. While the SCP
survey is based on a very significant amount of work, it must be viewed as a “first
pass” survey, limited, in the context of the great variety of vegetation present in the
very large area surveyed, by the relatively limited number (509) of sites (quadrats) it
is based on. To a limited degree, this limitation has subsequently been addressed in
an “update” to the work of the SCP survey (which describes additional units).
However, there is no detailed publication of the results of this update available and the
additional data used are not readily available in an appropriate form (ie., one that
would enable ready comparison of new data to the overall data set).

The units described by the SCP survey are a series of “floristic community types”, a
“unit” whose rank is defined by the use within a study. The SCP survey surveyed a
very large survey area and defined a relatively small number of floristic community
types. Consequently, the floristic community types they have described are of a very
high order (see Trudgen 1999, volume 1, for further discussion of this point). This is
an extremely important point to fully grasp in interpreting the analysis presented by
the SCP survey and in understanding the meaning of analysis of other data sets when
they are compared to the floristic community types of the SCP survey.

The important effects of the limited size data set used by the SCP survey and of the
relatively small number of floristic community types defined by them, can be
summarised by the following points:

    the definition of all but two of the Threatened Ecological Communities for
        vegetation on the Swan Coastal Plain (English and Blyth 1997) has been based
        on the floristic community types of the SCP survey. It therefore follows, that
        with two exceptions, only vegetation units from one study that are different at
        a very high order of floristics are treated as rare by Government. No account
        is taken of other important differences, such as differences in structure and
        dominance;


                                                1
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston             E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005




    for the definition of floristic community types to be robust, a sufficient sized
        database is needed to give adequate precision in their definition. About half of
        the floristics community types (or sub types) of the SCP survey are based on
        less than 10 sites. It is likely that with a larger data set there would be
        significant alteration in the classification of those floristic community types
        from the SCP survey based on small numbers of sites.

    as noted above, many (if not most) of the floristic community types defined by the
        SCP survey are very broad. They contain very significant variation in
        floristics, structure and dominance. Some (or in more highly cleared parts of
        the Swan Coastal Plain much) of this variation may be rare by any reasonable
        definition, but it is currently “buried” within larger groups;

    there is likely to be significant variation not sampled by the SCP survey. This
        includes some variation at a high level of floristic difference (see Trudgen
        1999, volume 1, for an example of this) and undoubtedly quite significant
        (large!) amounts of variation at “medium” and “low” levels.

    the document, and its use by Government, has focussed attention in the
        environmental impact assessment process on the high level of units described,
        deflecting attention from the layers of variation beneath these units that also
        have significant conservation value.

From these points it is obvious that there is a need for a major “upgrade” to the
floristic analysis of the vegetation of the Swan Coastal Plain to provide a more
detailed floristic classification that considers not only more of the variation present,
but explicitly recognises more of the variation present in formally described units.

Obviously, such a reworking would have some effect on what vegetation is
considered rare on the Swan Coastal Plain. It needs to be stressed that it would be
very unlikely to find that any of the vegetation currently considered to be rare on the
basis of the SCP survey’s classification was not rare. On the other hand, it is likely
that such a review would very probably consider to be rare some vegetation which is
not currently considered rare.

1.4 Data provided
It is very important in comparing different sets of floristic data that they are
comparable in the application of names, in the intensity of the survey (ie., the effort of
searching resulting in similar proportion of the flora at sites being recorded) and in the
size of the site recorded. If the data from different data sets is not comparable in these
ways, it reduces the clarity of the results of the analyses carried out. If the
discrepancy in the comparability of the data sets is large, the results may become
meaningless.

Preliminary investigation suggested that the Hope Valley sites were commensurate
with the SCP data in terms of some of the often challenging to find families (Orchids,
possibly lilies, Drosera, Apiaceae and Stylidiaceae) (Appendix).




                                                2
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston           E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005


2.0 METHODS
2.1 Data Preparation
The data from the Hope Valley sites were provided in a Word document table. These
were incorporated into a standard MS Access based database designed for this type of
data. One virtue of the database is that the species recorded at each site are stored
against standard codes (numbers, those used by the Western Australian Herbarium)
for each species. This facilitates ready comparison of data from different surveys
stored in the same system.

After the data were incorporated into the database (containing the data from other
projects), a process of reconciliation of flora species names with those used in the
SCP survey was undertaken. This step was necessary at least because of changes in
nomenclature over the last ten years and the potential of survey specific variations in
the application of names. The reconciliation involved:
reducing some infra-specific names to the relevant species name,
combining some taxa where confusion is known to have occurred in field
    observations and identifications, and
omitting some names (mostly, where a species had only been identified to genus).

The reconciliation process was relatively straight forward as most of the names had
already been standardised. Most reconciliation was to conform with the methods that
the SCP survey used to manage confusing taxa plus some nomenclatural changes.

Those species that had been indicated to occur outside the quadrats were excluded
from the analysis.

2.2 Comparability of datasets
It was concluded that the datasets were probably reasonably compatible.

2.3 Comparisons made
The data from the four sites plus the 509 sites from the SCP survey of the southern
part of the Swan Coastal Plain (south of Gingin) were combined. This enabled
various analyses to be performed.

The main purpose was intended to assign the individual sites to the Floristic
Community Types (FCTs) defined in the SCP survey.

The combined data set (Hope Valley and the SCP surveys) was run in three separate
batches because obtaining any clarity from the first set proved impossible. These data
are provided in ASW_Alk.mdb.)

2.4 Analyses carried out
The approach was the use of numerical classification techniques (PATN) based on the
similarity of the floristic composition of the Hope Valley sites to sites in the SCP
survey data set.




                                                3
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston           E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005


2.4.1 PATN
Several modules of the numerical classification package PATN (Belbin 1987) were
used for the analyses. The parameter values were the same as used by the SCP survey
used to ensure consistency of analysis with that study.

The PATN modules used were ASO (calculation of similarity matrix), FUSE
(classification based on the results of ASO), DEND (representation of classification)
and NNB (determination of sites most similar to each site – nearest neighbours). The
results of the analyses were imported into a database (ASW_Alk.mdb) so that site
characteristics and previous classifications (eg., Floristic Community Types derived in
earlier classifications) could be associated and various analyses based on these data
could be performed.

The assignment of floristic community types to the Hope Valley sites was made by
summarising the results of two different methods:
the classification, and
the ten nearest neighbours.

Experience demonstrates that the results of these are likely to vary, but that from
nearest neighbours is likely to make more sense.

To the classification dendrogram of the combined dataset the FCT assigned by the
SCP survey was associated with the SCP survey sites. The apparent FCTs were
assigned to the Hope Valley sites by interpreting the position of these sites in the
dendrogram (particularly by the way they joined to the SCP sites.

The 10 sites in the combined data set that were most similar to each of the Hope
Valley sites were obtained from the nearest neighbour method (NNB). By associating
those nearest neighbours from the SCP survey, the most likely FCTs for each of the
Hope Valley sites were determined.

An attempt was then made to reconcile these different assignments of a Floristic
Community Type.

3.0 LIMITATIONS
It has been found in earlier projects that the addition of new sites to the SCP survey
data set to produce a combined classification disrupts the original classification. The
more data added, the higher the level of the disruption. This problem can make it
difficult to assign Floristic Community Types to new sites using this method.

Secondly, it is common for new data to group to their cohorts. In some cases this has
proven to result from common deficiencies in the data, ie. whole groups of species
missing. This absence tend to draw them together. The more sites in the added batch,
the tighter they draw together.

The analyses are conducted without personal knowledge of the sites and no
photographs were provided.




                                                4
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston                               E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005



4.0RESULTS
4.1 Determination of floristic community type by classification
The classifications indicated that the sites appeared to be two distinct plant
communities being located in distinct parts of the dendrogram (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Relevant portions of Dendrogram
                 04/16/05     06:43:11.54 dend          ASW Hope Valley sites 15 April 2005
                 0.2050          0.3656        0.5261                0.6867
                 |               |             |                     |
BOLD-3     24   )___________________
BOLD-4     24   )__________________|_______
HV02            )__________                        |
HV03            )_________|_______________|____
NAVB-3     24   )_____________________________|____
HV01            )____________________________                    |
NAVB-4     24   )___________________________|____ |
MTB-2      24   )____________________                       | |
MTB-3      24   )___________________|___________|_|______


The Hope Valley sites grouped with sites from Bold Park to Naval Base that had been
classified as FCT 24.

4.2 Determination of floristic community type using Nearest Neighbour method
The nearest neighbour analysis suggests that the Hope Valley sites all belong to FCT
24 (Table 1).

Table 1. Results of Nearest Neighbour analysis

   s      s1    f1   v1     s2       f2   v2       s3       f3       v3      s4     f4   v4      s5     f5   v5
HV01     HV03        0.52 HV02            0.52 NAVB-4       24       0.56 cool 02   24   0.56 cool 08   24   0.59
HV02     HV03        0.32 NEER-1 24       0.46 BOLD-3       24       0.47 BOLD-4    24   0.48 MTB-2     24   0.51
HV03     HV02        0.32 HV01            0.52 BOLD-4       24       0.53 NEER-1 24      0.54 NAVB-3    24   0.54


s – the site being compared
s1 to s5 – the 1st to 5th most similar sites
f1 to f5 – the FCT of the similar sites (only for SCP sites)
v1 to v5 – the dissimilarity value between the site and the similar sites (values above 0.6 tend to
indicate low similarity)


4.3 Combining the results
It is common for the classification to indicate a simple result and the nearest
neighbour analysis to be less conclusive. This is more a product of the classification
process than of inconsistency of the analyses.

In this case the determinations were in accord and it is concluded with little doubt that
the sites are all from FCT 24.




                                                        5
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston         E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005




4.0 REFERENCES
Belbin, L. (1987) PATN Reference Manual (313p), Users Guide (79p), Command
     Manual (47p), and Example Manual (108p). CSIRO Division of Wildlife and
     Ecology, Lynham, ACT.

English, V., and Blyth, J. (1997) Identifying and conserving threatened ecological
      communities (TECs) in the South West Botanical Province. ANCA National
      Reserves System Cooperative Program: Project Number N702, Australian
      National Conservation Agency, Canberra

Gibson, N.G., Keighery, B.J., Keighery, G.J., Burbidge, A.H. and Lyons, M (1994). A
     Floristic Survey of the Southern Swan Coastal Plain. Unpublished report by the
     Department of Conservation and Land Management and the Conservation
     Council of Western Australia to the Australian Heritage Commission.

Trudgen, M.E. (1999). A flora and vegetation survey of Lots 46 and 47 Maralla Road
     and Lexia Avenue, Ellenbrook. Volumes 1-4. Unpublished report prepared for
     the Crown Solicitors Office, Government of Western Australia. December
     1999.




                                                6
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston                          E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005


APPENDIX

Tabulation of Species by Sites for Current sites and selected sites from SCP
(sites ordered by dendrogram sequence number, see Figure 1)

FAM                        Name                 A   B       HV02   HV03   C   HV01   D   E   F
016A Macrozamia riedlei                             Y       Y                                Y
026   Triglochin trichophorum                               Y
031   Aira caryophyllea/cupaniana group                            Y      Y                  Y
031   Austrodanthonia occidentalis                                 Y
031   Austrostipa compressa                                        Y
031   Austrostipa flavescens                    Y   Y       Y      Y      Y   Y      Y
031   Avellinia michelii                                                             Y   Y
031   Avena barbata/fatua                       Y           Y      Y          Y      Y
031   Briza maxima                              Y   Y       Y      Y      Y          Y       Y
031   Briza minor                               Y   Y       Y      Y      Y
031   Bromus diandrus                           Y           Y      Y          Y      Y   Y   Y
031   Catapodium rigidum                                           Y                     Y
031   Ehrharta calycina                             Y       Y      Y          Y      Y
031   Ehrharta longiflora                       Y           Y      Y          Y      Y       Y
031   Lagurus ovatus                            Y   Y       Y      Y      Y   Y          Y   Y
031   Lolium rigidum                            Y                  Y      Y
031   Microlaena stipoides                          Y
031   Poa poiformis/porphyroclados              Y
031   Vulpia myuros                                         Y      Y                 Y   Y
032   Carex preissii                            Y
032   Isolepis cernua                                                                Y   Y   Y
032   Isolepis marginata                            Y
032   Lepidosperma angustatum/squamatum         Y   Y       Y      Y                 Y   Y   Y
032   Lepidosperma gladiatum                    Y
032   Lepidosperma sp. (Coastal terete BJK &                              Y
032   NG 231)
      Mesomelaena pseudostygia                                                               Y
032   Schoenus grandiflorus                     Y   Y
039   Desmocladus flexuosus                     Y   Y       Y      Y      Y              Y
039   Lyginia barbata                                                                        Y
054B Myrsiphyllum asparagoides                  Y           Y      Y          Y
054C Acanthocarpus preissii                     Y   Y              Y      Y   Y
054C Lomandra maritima                          Y   Y       Y      Y      Y   Y      Y   Y
054D Xanthorrhoea preissii                                  Y      Y          Y
054E Dianella revoluta                          Y   Y       Y      Y          Y
054F Sowerbaea laxiflora                                                      Y
054F Thysanotus patersonii/manglesianus         Y   Y       Y                        Y   Y
054F Tricoryne elatior                                      Y      Y
054G Asphodelus fistulosus                                         Y
054G Trachyandra divaricata                     Y                             Y
055   Conostylis aculeata                       Y   Y                                Y
055   Conostylis candicans                      Y           Y                 Y          Y
060   Moraea flaccida                                                                Y
060   Romulea rosea                                         Y      Y      Y   Y      Y   Y
066   Caladenia latifolia                       Y                         Y                  Y
070   Allocasuarina humilis                         Y              Y
090   Dryandra nivea                                        Y      Y          Y      Y       Y
090   Dryandra sessilis                             Y              Y      Y   Y
090   Grevillea thelemanniana subsp. preissii       Y       Y      Y      Y   Y      Y   Y   Y
090   Hakea prostrata                                                                Y
090   Petrophile serruriae                                                Y          Y
105   Rhagodia baccata subsp. baccata                              Y                 Y




                                                        7
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston                      E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005


FAM                        Name             A   B       HV02   HV03   C   HV01   D   E   F
111   Calandrinia corrigioloides                Y                                        Y
113   Arenaria serpyllifolia                                          Y              Y   Y
113   Cerastium glomeratum                  Y   Y       Y             Y          Y   Y   Y
113   Minuartia hybrida                                 Y      Y                     Y   Y
113   Petrorhagia velutina                  Y   Y       Y      Y          Y      Y   Y   Y
113   Silene gallica                            Y              Y
113   Stellaria media                                                                Y
119   Clematis linearifolia                                    Y          Y
119   Clematis pubescens                    Y
131   Cassytha flava                                                                 Y   Y
131   Cassytha racemosa                                               Y                  Y
136   Fumaria capreolata                    Y
138   Brassica tournefortii                                                      Y
138   Heliophila pusilla                    Y   Y                                    Y
143   Drosera erythrorhiza                                                               Y
143   Drosera pallida                                   Y                            Y   Y
149   Crassula colorata                     Y           Y                        Y       Y
149   Crassula glomerata                                       Y          Y      Y   Y   Y
163   Acacia cochlearis                     Y                                            Y
163   Acacia cyclops                                    Y
163   Acacia lasiocarpa                     Y                  Y          Y          Y
163   Acacia rostellifera                                             Y   Y
165   Gompholobium tomentosum                   Y                     Y                  Y
165   Hardenbergia comptoniana              Y           Y      Y      Y   Y      Y   Y   Y
165   Templetonia retusa                    Y   Y       Y
165   Trifolium campestre                   Y           Y      Y      Y              Y
165   Trifolium cernuum                                               Y
167   Erodium botrys                                    Y
167   Erodium cicutarium                                              Y
167   Pelargonium capitatum                 Y   Y              Y          Y      Y
183   Comesperma confertum                                            Y
185   Euphorbia peplus                      Y   Y       Y      Y      Y
185   Euphorbia terracina                               Y      Y
185   Phyllanthus calycinus                     Y       Y      Y      Y              Y   Y
215   Cryptandra mutila                                               Y
223   Thomasia cognata                                                Y
226   H bbertia hypericoides                            Y      Y                 Y       Y
226   H bbertia racemosa                                       Y          Y
226   H bbertia spicata subsp. leptotheca                      Y      Y
243   Hybanthus calycinus                                                        Y       Y
263   Pimelea calcicola                                               Y
273   Agonis flexuosa                       Y
273   Calothamnus quadrifidus                                             Y
273   Eucalyptus decipiens                                                               Y
273   Eucalyptus foecunda                       Y
273   Melaleuca acerosa                     Y   Y       Y      Y      Y   Y      Y   Y   Y
273   Melaleuca huegelii                                Y      Y      Y   Y
281   Daucus glochidiatus                   Y   Y                                    Y
281   Eryngium pinnatifidum subsp.                      Y      Y
281    i   tifi
      Trachymene pilosa                                                              Y   Y
288   Leucopogon parviflorus                Y   Y       Y      Y      Y   Y
293   Anagallis arvensis                    Y   Y       Y      Y      Y   Y      Y   Y   Y
302   Phyllangium paradoxum                                    Y
303   Centaurium erythraea                                     Y      Y
315   Solanum nigrum                            Y              Y                 Y
315   Solanum symonii                                                            Y
316   Dischisma arenarium                                                            Y   Y




                                                    8
FCT Analysis Hope Valley Sites for A S Weston                      E.A. Griffin & Associates April 2005


 FAM                         Name         A     B       HV02   HV03   C   HV01   D   E   F
316    Dischisma capitatum               Y
320    Orobanche minor                   Y                     Y
331    Galium aparine                                                 Y          Y
331    Galium murale                                    Y      Y                     Y   Y
331    Opercularia vaginata              Y                                           Y
339    Wahlenbergia preissii                                   Y
341    Lechenaultia linarioides                         Y
343    Stylidium bulbiferum                                           Y
345    Arctotheca calendula                                               Y
345    Carduus pycnocephalus                                   Y
345    Conyza a bida                                                  Y              Y
345    Conyza bonariensis                                                        Y
345    Hyalosperma cotula                                             Y
345    Hypochaeris glabra                       Y       Y      Y      Y   Y      Y   Y   Y
345    Millotia tenuifolia                                                           Y   Y
345    Olearia axillaris                 Y      Y              Y                     Y
345    Ozothamnus cordatus               Y
345    Picris squarrosa                  Y
345    Rhodanthe citrina                                                             Y
345    Sonchus asper                                                             Y   Y
345    Sonchus hydrophilus                                                       Y
345    Sonchus oleraceus                 Y      Y       Y      Y      Y
345    Urospermum picroides                     Y                                Y       Y



Gibson et al Sites
A        BOLD-3
B        BOLD-4
C        NAVB-3
D        NAVB-4
E        MTB-2
F        MTB-3




                                                    9
                                       APPENDIX E

                       Flora Recorded in the HVWRPA Study Area

Introduction

Table E1 lists approximately 160 taxa of vascular plants recorded in the HVWRPA study area
by Dr Arthur Weston, sometimes with Martin Henson and other assistants, in March,
September and October 2004 and in February, March, April and October 2005. Plant forms,
significance and synonyms are also listed. Around 55% of the taxa are natives, and around
45% are aliens.

The taxa listed in the table are estimated to constitute at least 70 per cent of the area’s
expected native flora and 70 per cent of the expected established alien flora there. Species
could be added to the list, and tentative identifications confirmed, if more field work were
undertaken at other times of the year and, e.g. as was done by Keighery et al. (1997), during
flowering seasons in consecutive years.

The names used for taxa follow, for the most part, the Max 2.1.1.129 database, with
synonyms being indicated in the Notes column.

Two of the species in the table are listed in Table 13 of Bush Forever (2000, Volume 2) as
significant taxa: Agonis flexuosa and Lechenaultia linarioides. The Agonis (Peppermint) is
listed as ‘r’ and ‘s’. Peppermint trees are, in the Perth Metropolitan Region, at the northern
limit of their known natural geographic range. The Lechenaultia is listed as ‘p’.

No Declared Rare or Priority Flora plants were found in the study area. A small population of
plants at Site 21 that were, initially, tentatively identified as the Priority Three Hibbertia
spicata subsp. leptotheca were later confirmed to be the common and widespread Hibbertia
hypericoides.

Most of the established aliens are environmental weeds, and some have been planted as
pastures. Two of them are eucalypts which, like several trees not listed in the appendix, have
been planted and are not, apparently, self-perpetuating, established species.

Most of the weed species are listed in Scheltema and Harris (1995, pp. 65-141) as
[environmental] weeds in the Perth metropolitan region, along with information about each
species. This information includes a weediness threat priority ranking, common name(s),
descriptions of habit, distribution and preferred habitats, and recommended control measures
for each listed species.

There are extensive or dense populations of weedy grasses, Rose Geranium (Pelargonium
capitatum), Bridal Creeper (Asparagus asparagoides) and Carnation Weed (Euphorbia
terracina) in the bushland. Carnation Weed is a serious environmental pest. It is closely
related to Petty Spurge (Euphorbia peplus), a less serious environmental weed, and is
sometimes misidentified as that species.

*Juncus acutus, *Stenotaphrum secundatum, *Cynodon dactylon, *Pennisetum clandestinum
and *Zantedeschia aethiopica are dominant weeds in parts of the swamps, and a large, dense
stand of *Gomphocarpus fruticosus occupies much of the western Hendy Road Swamp.

Zantedeschia aethiopica (Arum Lily) is on the Agriculture Protection Board’s December
2004 list of Declared Plants, where it is a formally declared high priority weed that is, or may
become, agricultural or environmental problems (Hussey et al. 1997)6. Asparagus
asparagoides (Bridal Creeper) is no longer on the list, although it is still a serious
environmental pest.

Legend for Table E1

Column 1          Taxon Name                 (family and family code number; listed by code; and)
                                             species and, in a few cases, subspecies or variety
                                             name)
An asterisk (*) indicates that the species is a weed.
?        When immediately preceding a name, a ‘?’ indicates that the name (capitalized genus
         name plus species epithet or only species epithet) following the ‘?’ is based upon a
         tentative identification and needs confirmation, preferably when flowering material is
         available.

Column 2      Form                   (Growth Form)
gr    = grass
he    = herbaceous plant
se    = sedge (Cyperaceae, Restionaceae) or rush (Juncaceae: Juncus)
sh    = shrub
tr    = tree
vi    = vine

Column 3         Location
Q       recorded in Quadrat HV01 (Site 8), HV02 (Site 24) and/or HV03 (Site 21) on
        limestone or shallow soil over limestone
W       recorded only in one or more wetlands
not recorded in a quadrat or wetland

Column 4          Notes
including:

sp.      species (singular); spp. species (plural)

         Code (Conservation Code – R, P1, P2, P3, P4; Significance Code – r, d, p, s, X, e, E)
P3       Priority Three – Poorly Known Taxa: Taxa which are known from several
         populations, and the taxa are not believed to be under immediate threat (i.e not
         currently endangered), . . . Such taxa are under consideration for declaration as ‘rare
         flora’, but are in need of further survey.
e        = taxa endemic to the Swan Coastal Plain
p        = considered to be poorly reserved (applies to all Declared Rare and Priority taxa)
r        = populations at the northern or southern limit of their known geographic range
s        = significant populations

         Synonymy
=        precedes a synonymous name
‘ ‘      encloses a misapplied name

6
  According to Madin and Smith (1989), “declaration can be for the whole state or for smaller areas,
down to individual properties”. First among the three factors Madin and Smith list for consideration in
categorising declared plants is “the impact of the plant on individuals, agricultural production and the
community in general”. Paterson’s Curse is Priority 1 for the whole of the state.




                                                   2
                                    Table E1
                Flora (by Family Code) recorded in HVWRPA Study Area
                                 (MAX database: Hope Valley)

                Taxon Name                       Form          Location:   Notes
                                                               Q and W

Family: Zamiaceae (016A)
  Macrozamia riedlei                               sh             Q
Family: Juncaginaceae (026)
  Triglochin linearis                              he             -        Triglochin ‘procerum’
  Triglochin trichophora                           he             Q
Family: Poaceae (031)
  *Aira caryophyllea/cupaniana group               gr             Q
  *Arundo donax                                    gr             -
  Austrodanthonia occidentalis                     gr             Q        = Danthonia occidentalis
  Austrostipa compressa                            gr             Q        = Stipa compressa
  Austrostipa flavescens                           gr             Q        = Stipa flavescens
  *?Avellinia michelii                             gr             Q
  *Avena barbata/fatua                             gr             Q
  *Briza maxima                                    gr             Q
  *Briza minor                                     gr             Q
  *Bromus diandrus                                 gr             Q        = Bromus gussonii
  *Cortaderia selloana                             gr             -
  *Cynodon dactylon                                gr             -
  *Desmazeria rigida                               gr             Q        = Catapodium rigidum
  *Ehrharta calycina                               gr             Q
  *Ehrharta longiflora                             gr             Q
  *Holcus lanatus                                  gr             W
  *Lagurus ovatus                                  gr             Q
  *Lolium rigidum                                  gr             Q
  *Paspalum dilatatum                              gr             W
  *Pennisetum clandestinum                         gr             -
  *Pennisetum setaceum                             gr             -
  *Polypogon monspeliensis                         gr             W
  Sporobolus virginicus                            gr             W
  *Vulpia myuros                                   gr             Q
  *Vulpia sp.                                      gr             Q
  Species undet.                                   gr                      >3spp.
Family: Cyperaceae (032)
  Baumea articulata                                se             W
  Baumea juncea                                    se             W
  Gahnia trifida                                   se             W
  Lepidosperma squamatum                           se             Q        and/or L. pubisquameum?
  ?Schoenus grandiflorus                           se             -
  ?Tetraria octandra                               se             -
Family: Araceae (035)
  *Zantedeschia aethiopica                         he
Family: Restionaceae (039)
  Desmocladus flexuosus                            se             Q        = Loxocarya flexuosa
Family: Juncaceae (052)
  *Juncus acutus                                   se             W
  Juncus kraussii                                  se             W


                                             3
  Juncus pallidus                            se     W
Family: Asparagaceae (054B)
  *Asparagus asparagoides                   vi/he   Q   = Myrsiphyllum asparagoides
Family: Dasypogonaceae (054C)
  Acanthocarpus preissii                    sh/he   Q
  Lomandra maritima                          he     Q
  Lomandra sp.                               he     Q
Family: Xanthorrhoeaceae (054D)
  Xanthorrhoea preissii                      sh     Q
Family: Phormiaceae (054E)
  Dianella revoluta                          he     Q   = Dianella divaricata
Family: Anthericaceae (054F)
  Sowerbaea laxiflora                        he     Q
  Thysanotus patersonii/manglesianus        vi/he   Q
  Thysanotus sp.                             he     -
  Tricoryne elatior                         he/sh   Q
Family: Asphodelaceae (054G)
  *Asphodelus fistulosus                     he     Q
  *Trachyandra divaricata                    he     Q
Family: Alliaceae (054I)
  *Allium ampeloprasum                       he
Family: Haemodoraceae (055)
  Conostylis aculeata                        he     -
  Conostylis candicans                       he     Q
Family: Iridaceae (060)
  *Romulea rosea                             he     Q
Family: Casuarinaceae (070)
  Allocasuarina fraseriana                   tr     -
  Allocasuarina humilis                      sh     Q
Family: Moraceae (087)
  *Ficus carica                              tr
Family: Proteaceae (090)
  Banksia attenuata                          tr     -
  Banksia grandis                            tr     -
  Banksia menziesii                          tr     -
  Dryandra lindleyana var. lindleyana        sh     Q   = Dryandra nivea, in part
  Dryandra sessilis                          sh     Q
  Grevillea preissii                         sh     Q   = G. thelemanniana subsp. p.
  Grevillea vestita                          sh     -
  Hakea prostrata                            sh     -
Family: Polygonaceae (103)
  *Rumex crispus                             he
Family: Chenopodiaceae (105)
  *Atriplex prostrata                        he     W
  *Chenopodium macrospermum                  he     W
  Halosarcia pergranulata                   sh/he   W
  Rhagodia baccata subsp. baccata            sh     Q
  Suaeda australis                          sh/he   W
Family: Amaranthaceae (106)
  Ptilotus polystachyus                      he
Family: Caryophyllaceae (113)



                                        4
   *Cerastium glomeratum                   he     Q
   *Minuartia mediterranea                 he     Q   = Minuartia hybrida
   *Petrorhagia dubia                      he     Q   = Petrorhagia velutina
   *Silene nocturna                        he     Q
   *Spergularia rubra                      he
   ? Stellaria sp.                         he     Q   2 species?
Family: Ranunculaceae (119)
  Clematis linearifolia                    vi     Q   = Clematis microphylla
Family: Lauraceae (131)
  Cassytha racemosa                       vi/he
Family: Brassicaceae (138)
  *Brassica tournefortii                   he
  *Heliophila pusilla                      he
Family: Resedaceae (139)
  *Reseda alba                             he
Family: Droseraceae (143)
  Drosera pallida                         vi/he   Q
Family: Crassulaceae (149)
  Crassula colorata                        he     Q
  *Crassula glomerata                      he     Q
  *Crassula natans                         he         aquatic
Family: Pittosporaceae (152)
  Sollya heterophylla                      vi     -
Family: Mimosaceae (163)
  Acacia cyclops                           sh     Q
  Acacia lasiocarpa var. lasiocarpa        sh     Q
  *Acacia longifolia                       sh
  Acacia pulchella                         sh
  Acacia rostellifera                      sh     Q
  Acacia saligna                           sh
  Acacia truncata                          sh
  Acacia xanthina                          sh     -
Family: Papilionaceae (165)
  Gompholobium tomentosum                  sh
  Hardenbergia comptoniana                 vi     Q
  Jacksonia furcellata                     sh
  Jacksonia sternbergiana                  sh
  *Lupinus cosentinii                      he
  Templetonia retusa                       sh     Q
  *Trifolium campestre                     he     Q
  *Trifolium dubium                        he
Family: Geraniaceae (167)
  *Erodium botrys                          he     Q
  *Pelargonium capitatum                  sh/he   Q
Family: Oxalidaceae (168)
  *Oxalis pes-caprae                       he
Family: Simaroubaceae (176)
  *Ailanthus altissima                     tr     -
Family: Euphorbiaceae (185)
  Adriana quadripartita                    sh     -
  *Euphorbia peplus                        he     Q
  *Euphorbia terracina                     he     Q
  Phyllanthus calycinus                    sh     Q



                                      5
   *Ricinus communis                          sh
Family: Anacardiaceae (194)
  *Schinus terebinthifolia                   sh/tr
Family: Sapindaceae (207)
  Diplopeltis huegelii subsp. huegelii       he/sh
Family: Rhamnaceae (215)
  *Rhamnus alaternus                          sh     -
  Spyridium globulosum                        sh
Family: Dilleniaceae (226)
  Hibbertia hypericoides                      sh     Q
  Hibbertia racemosa                          sh     Q
Family: Myrtaceae (273)
  Agonis flexuosa                             tr
  Calothamnus quadrifidus                     sh     Q
  Corymbia calophylla                         tr         = Eucalyptus calophylla
  Eucalyptus gomphocephala                    tr
  Eucalyptus marginata                        tr
  Eucalyptus rudis                            tr
  *Leptospermum laevigatum                    sh
  Melaleuca huegelii                          sh     Q
  Melaleuca nesophila                         sh     -
  Melaleuca rhaphiophylla                     sh
  Melaleuca systena                           sh     Q   = Melaleuca acerosa
  Melaleuca teretifolia                       sh     W
Family: Onagraceae (275)
  Epilobium billardiereanum                   he     W
   subsp. billardiereanum
  *Oenothera stricta                          he
Family: Apiaceae (281)
  Apium prostratum                            he
  Centella asiatica                           he     W
  Eryngium pinnatifidum                       he     Q
Family: Epacridaceae (288)
  Leucopogon australis                        sh
  Leucopogon parviflorus                      sh     Q
Family: Primulaceae (293)
  *Anagallis arvensis                         he     Q
  Samolus junceus                             he     W
Family: Loganiaceae (302)
  Logania vaginalis                           sh
  Phyllangium paradoxum                       he     Q   = Mitrasacme paradoxa
Family: Gentianaceae (303)
  *Centaurium erythraea                       he     Q
Family: Asclepiadaceae (305)
  *Gomphocarpus fruticosus                   sh/he   W
Family: Convolvulaceae (307)
  Wilsonia backhousei                         sh     W
Family: Solanaceae (315)
  *Nicotiana glauca                           sh
  *Solanum nigrum                             he     Q
Family: Orobanchaceae (320)
  *Orobanche minor                            he     Q



                                         6
Family: Rubiaceae (331)
  *Galium murale                            he     Q
  Opercularia vaginata                     sh/he
Family: Valerianaceae (334)
  *Centranthus macrosiphon                  he
Family: Campanulaceae (339)
  Wahlenbergia preissii                     he     Q
Family: Lobeliaceae (340)
  Lobelia alata                             he     W
Family: Goodeniaceae (341)
  Lechenaultia linarioides                  sh     Q
  Scaevola ancusifolia                      sh         =S. holosericea
  Scaevola thesioides                       sh
  Scaevola ?repens                         sh/he   -
Family: Asteraceae (345)
  *Arctotheca calendula                     he     Q
  *Carduus pycnocephalus/tenuiflorus        he     Q
  *Cirsium vulgare                          he
  *Conyza albida                            he
  *Conyza parva                             he
  *Hedyphois rhagodioides                   he
  *Hypochaeris glabra                       he     Q
  *Lactuca saligna                          he
  Olearia axillaris                         sh     Q
  *Sonchus oleraceus                        he     Q
  *Symphyotrichum subulatum                 he     W   = Aster subulatus
Family: Not Known
  Species undet.                            he         >5 spp.
* Alien species

                                                                 ASW 25/10/05




                                       7
                                         APPENDIX F

                  Vegetation Structure Classes & Condition Scale Tables

                           Vegetation Structure Classes (Layers)

       These vegetation structure classes are the ones defined and used in Bush Forever
       (2000, Volume 2, Table 11 and p. 493) to describe vegetation in Bush Forever sites,
       (except that [1] a bracketed, ( ), name refers to a dominant that has fewer plants and
       provides significantly less cover than others, and that [2] ‘scattered’ refers to trees,
       low trees, tall shrubs and low shrubs that have <2% cover).
       ‘Sedgelands’ are in Table 11 but not on p. 493. ‘Rushlands’ are in neither.
       The terms ‘Tussock Sedgelands’ and ‘Alien Grasslands’ are also used, for particular
       kinds of sedges and grasses. And ‘Very Low’ is under 50cm, usually well under.

 Life Form/                                Canopy Cover (percentage)
Height Class
                   100% - 70%             70% - 30%           30% - 10%               10% - 2%

Trees 10-30m     Closed Forest         Open Forest           Woodland            Open Woodland
Trees < 10m      Low Closed Forest     Low Open Forest       Low Woodland        Low Open Woodland
Shrub Mallee     Closed Shrub          Shrub Mallee          Open Shrub          Very Open Shrub
                              Mallee                                  Mallee                   Mallee
Shrubs > 2m      Closed Tall Scrub     Tall Open Scrub       Tall Shrubland      Tall Open Shrubland
Shrubs 1-2m      Closed Heath          Open Heath            Shrubland           Open Shrubland
Shrubs <1m       Closed Low Heath      Open Low Heath        Low Shrubland       Low Open Shrubland
Grasses          Closed Grassland      Grassland             Open Grassland      Very Open Grassland
Herbs            Closed Herbland       Herbland              Open Herbland       Very Open Herbland
Sedges           Closed Sedgeland      Sedgeland             Open Sedgeland      Very Open Sedgeland
Juncus spp.      Closed Rushland       Rushland              Open Rushland       Very Open Rushland


                                  Vegetation Condition Scale

       This condition scale is the one used in Bush Forever (2000, Volume 2, Table 12
       and p. 494) to describe condition of vegetation in Bush Forever sites.
       Assessment of condition is at least as much of understorey strata as of overstorey.


P    Pristine         No obvious signs of disturbance
E    Excellent        Vegetation structure intact, disturbance affecting individual species
                      [plants?]; weeds are non-aggressive species
V,   Very Good        Vegetation structure altered; obvious signs of disturbance
VG
G    Good             Vegetation structure significantly altered by very obvious signs of
                      multiple disturbance; basic vegetation structure or ability to regenerate it
                      is retained
D    Degraded         Basic vegetation structure severely impacted by disturbance; scope for
                      regeneration but not to a state approaching good (sic) condition without
                      intensive management
C    Completely       Vegetation structure not intact; the area completely or almost completely
CD     Degraded       without native species (‘parkland cleared’).

                                                                                          ASW 5/10/05




                                                  1
                                    APPENDIX G

      Floristic Community Types which are or may be in the HVWRPA Study Area
                    and their Conservation and Reservation Status

(based upon information in Gibson et al. 1994, Keighery 1997, Bush Forever 2000 and
English and Blyth 1997, and on the current CALM tec_database website)


Key

Column 1: Code (FCT, SCP) of Floristic Community Type

Column 2: General descriptions of Floristic Community Type
      PMR – confined to PMR, >PMR – distribution goes well beyond the PMR, (PMR)
      – rare in PMR, /N – northernmost location in the PMR, PMR+ - predominantly in
      PMR. * - except for isolated occurrence outside normal range,

Column 3: Distribution (from Bush Forever 2000, Volume 2, Table 6, pp. 29-30)

Column 4: Threatened Ecological Community Status (from English and Blyth 1997)
      EN – Endangered: extinction risk within approximately 20 years
      Y – proposed by or in 1997 for inclusion on the Threatened Ecological Community
      database. [Note: no proposed TEC is currently listed on the website]

Column 5: Reservation Status (from Gibson et al. 1994)
      P – Poorly reserved, U – Unreserved, W – Well reserved

Column 6: Conservation Status (from Gibson et al. 1994)
      C – Critically endangered, L – Low risk, S – Susceptible, V – Vulnerable

 Code                         Description                     Dist.   TEC       Res.   Cons.
16       Highly saline seasonal wetlands                       PMR     -         P      V
17       Melaleuca rhaphiophylla – Gahnia trifida seasonal    >PMR/    -         W      L
         wetlands                                               N*
S5       Acacia saligna wetlands                              (PMR)    -        -       -
21a      Central Banksia attenuata – Eucalyptus marginata     PMR/N    -        W       L
         woodlands
24       Northern Spearwood shrublands and woodlands          PMR*     Y        W       S
25       Southern Eucalyptus gomphocephala–Agonis             PMR/N    Y        P       S
         flexuosa woodlands
26a      Melaleuca huegelii –Melaleuca acerosa shrublands     PMR+    EN         U      S
         on limestone ridges [unlikely to be in HVWRPA]
26b      Woodlands and mallees on limestone                   PMR+     -        W       L
27       Species poor mallees and shrublands on limestone     >PMR     -        W       L
28       Spearwood Banksia attenuata or Banksia attenuata –   >PMR/    -        W       L
         Eucalyptus woodlands                                   S

                                                                            ASW 18/09/05




                                           1
                     APPENDIX E


                Fauna Assessment Report
Bamford Consulting Ecologists (May, 2005)
                   HOPE VALLEY WATTLEUP
                  REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT


                           Biodiversity Strategy:
                            Fauna Assessment




Prepared for: RPS Bowman Bishaw Gorham,
              290 Churchill Ave,
              Subiaco, WA, 6904


Prepared by: M.J. & A.R. Bamford
             CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS
             23 Plover Way, Kingsley, WA, 6026




                                 2nd May 2005
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


INTRODUCTION

The Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment Project is a State Government initiative
intended to provide industrial land in the Cockburn and Kwinana local government areas.
The project has been subject to Environmental Impact Assessment and one of the
outcomes of this process was a Ministerial Condition that required the preparation of a
biodiversity strategy for the redevelopment area. Part of this strategy was an assessment
of the fauna values of the project area. Bamford Consulting Ecologists was
commissioned by RPS Bowman Bishaw Gorham to undertake this assessment.

An approach to the fauna assessment was prepared by Bamford Consulting Ecologists
and RPS Bowman Bishaw Gorham and the key components of the assessment are:
   • Description of fauna habitats in the project area.
   • Review of available data in order to prepare a vertebrate species list for the
      project area.
   • Identification of fauna species of conservation significance, and their habitats, in
      the project area.
   • Discussion of the persistence of fauna in the project area and the role of linkages,
      and how these relate to the project area.
   • Discussion of management for particular species, groups of species and habitats.


METHODS

Site Inspection

The site was visited on 23rd March 2005 by Dr Mike Bamford. The visit was intended to
familiarise the consultant with the project area, and involved driving throughout the site
and inspecting locations of interest on foot, making notes on habitats and recording some
fauna observations.

Sources of Information

The fauna of the Perth region is fairly well-known, particularly for vertebrates, with a
number of publications specific to the Perth area, including The Bush Forever Report
(Department of Environmental Protection 2000) which provides a summary of much
information on fauna in the Perth region, Bush et al. (1995) for frogs and reptiles, van
Delft (1997) for birds and Wykes (1991) for a range of species. In addition, general
information is available on distribution and habitats of frogs (Tyler et al. 2000), reptiles
(Storr et al. 1983, 1990, 1999 and 2002), birds (Barrett et al. 2003; Johnstone and Storr
1998; the Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Birds 1989 - 2003) and mammals
(Menkhorst and Knight 2001; Strahan 1995). The above publications were used as the
basis for the list of fauna expected to occur in the project area.

The WA Museum’s Faunabase, the threatened fauna database maintained by the WA
Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM), the EPBC database and the


Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                                  1
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Birds Australia New Atlas database were also examined to develop the general species
list for the area. In all cases, records from a larger area than the study site were obtained.
This area extended from the Swan River south to Rockingham and east to encompass
much of the coastal plain. The private database maintained by Bamford Consulting was
also examined and because of the nature of sources of information for this database, this
interrogation was much more specific than others. The database contains records from
surveys carried out in the Mount Brown area, just west of the project area, and from
surveys carried out around Lake Yangebup, Lake Kogolup, Thomson’s Lake, The
Spectacles and Leda Nature Reserve.

Two other sources of information on fauna in the region have been identified but have
not yet been accessed. The WA Group of Birds Australia maintains a database of birds
of Western Australia that almost certainly has records for areas such as Lake Coogee, Mt
Brown, Thomson’s Lake and other sites in the immediate vicinity of the project area. In
addition, the University of Western Australia’s Harry Waring Marsupial Reserve lies
immediately east of the project area and there is almost certainly a comprehensive species
list for this site.

While developing a species list for the project area is important, for the purposes of the
biodiversity strategy it is just as important to develop an understanding of the dynamics
and patterns of usage and persistence of fauna in the landscape. Several publications
provide an indication of patterns of persistence of fauna in the Perth region. These
include Dell and How (1995), How and Dell (1993, 2000), How (1998), How et al.
(1996), Cooper (1995) and Turpin (1990, 1991a, 1991b). The Bush Forever Report
(Department of Environmental Protection 2000) provides a summary and review of many
of these (and other) publications.

Expected Species

The sources of information described above were used to create lists of species expected
to occur in the project area. Expected species are those that are likely to utilise the
project area, and such lists exclude species that have been recorded in the general region
as vagrants or for which suitable habitat is not available within the project area.
Particularly among the birds, for example, vagrants can be recorded almost anywhere.
Therefore, the lists from references and databases were subject to scrutiny based largely
upon personal experience. The lists also exclude species that are considered to be
regionally extinct based on information provided by CALM and in the Bush Forever
Report (Department of Environmental Protection 2000).

Taxonomy and nomenclature for fauna species used in this report generally follow the
WA Museum (2001) for amphibians, reptiles and mammals, and Christidis and Boles
(1994) for birds.




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                                2
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Conservation Significance

The conservation status of fauna species is assessed under Commonwealth and State Acts
such as the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
(EPBC Act) 1999 and the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. The
significance levels for fauna used in the EPBC Act are those recommended by the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN 2001).
The WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 uses a set of Schedules but also classifies species
using some of the IUCN categories. These categories and Schedules are described in
Appendix 1.

The EPBC Act also has lists of migratory species that are recognised under international
treaties such as the China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA), the Japan
Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the Bonn Convention (The
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals). The list of
migratory species under the EPBC Act has been revised to include species only, thus
excluding family listings (DEH, pers comm.). Those species listed in JAMBA are also
protected under Schedule 3 of the WA Wildlife Conservation Act. There is a separate list
of marine species under the EPBC Act, but this only applies to land and waters under
Commonwealth management. Therefore, marine listings are not included in this report.

The Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH, formerly Environment
Australia) has also supported the publication of reports on the conservation status of most
vertebrate fauna species: reptiles (Cogger et al. 1993), birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000),
monotremes and marsupials (Maxwell et al. 1996), rodents (Lee 1995) and bats (Duncan
et al. 1999). The Threatened Species and Communities Section of Environment Australia
has also produced a list of Threatened Australian Fauna (Environment Australia 1999),
although this list is effectively a precursor to the list produced under the EPBC Act.
These publications also use the IUCN categories, although those used by Cogger et al.
(1993) differ in some respects because this report pre-dates categories reviewed by Mace
and Stuart (1994) and revisited since by IUCN (2001).

In Western Australia, the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM)
has produced a supplementary list of Priority Fauna, being species that are not considered
Threatened under the WA Act but for which the Department feels there is cause for
concern. Some Priority species, however, are also assigned to the IUCN Conservation
Dependent category. Levels of Priority are described in Appendix 1.

Fauna species included under conservation acts and/or agreements are formally
recognised as of conservation significance under state or federal legislation. Species
listed only as Priority by CALM, or that are included in publications such as Garnett and
Crowley (2000) and Cogger et al. (1993), but not in State or Commonwealth Acts, are
also of recognised conservation significance. In addition, species that are at the limit of
their distribution, those that have a very restricted range and those that occur in breeding
colonies, such as some waterbirds, can be considered of conservation significance,
although this level of significance has no legislative or published recognition and is based



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                              3
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


on interpretation of distribution information. The WA Department of Environmental
Protection (2000) used this sort of interpretation to identify significant bird species in the
Perth metropolitan area as part of Perth Bushplan.

On the basis of the above comments, three levels of conservation significance are
recognised in this report:
    • Conservation Significance (CS) 1: Species listed under State or Commonwealth
       Acts.
    • Conservation Significance (CS) 2: Species not listed under State or
       Commonwealth Acts, but listed in publications on threatened fauna or as Priority
       species by CALM.
    • Conservation Significance (CS) 3: Species not listed under Acts or in
       publications, but considered of at least local significance because of their pattern
       of distribution. This includes species listed as significant in the Perth area in
       Perth Bushplan.


THE PROJECT AREA; DESCRIPTION AND FAUNA HABITATS

The project area is substantially developed and therefore much of the native vegetation
has been cleared at some stage. Current land-uses include quarries, market gardens and
other agricultural activities, and residential. There are two nodes of urban development
(the townsites of Hope Valley and Wattleup) that are in the process of being acquired by
Landcorp, and some low-density housing, while there is also a waste disposal (landfill)
facility. The project area is crossed by one major road (Russel Road in the north) and a
number of minor roads, while a railway line runs its length.

Despite the level of development, there are some remnants of native vegetation scattered
throughout the project area, as well as large area of cleared but un-utilised land, some of
which supports regenerating native vegetation. The main areas of such cleared land,
some with scattered trees and regenerating shrubs, are in the north, centre and south of
the project area.

More or less intact native vegetation, consisting of eucalypt and banksia woodland, are in
the north, around an existing quarry, in the east, on private properties in an area of low-
density housing, and in the south, adjacent to Anketell Road. Much of this vegetation is
at least partly degraded due to weed invasion, but some in the south and some on private
property in the east appears to be in good condition. Long Swamp, crossed by Hope
Valley Road, is in good condition, with an overstorey of Freshwater Paperbarks
Melaleuca rhaphiophylla and a dense understorey of sedges. Two other smaller, more
degraded wetlands, Conway Road Swamp and Hendy Road Swamp, lie to the south-west
and south of Long Swamp. These three wetlands are linked to a block of more or less
intact native vegetation that lies alongside Anketell Road.




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                                 4
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


THE PROJECT AREA; SETTING

The project area encompasses the transition from Tuart woodland and heaths associated
with shallow soils over limestone in the west to banksia, eucalypt and casuarina
woodlands of deeper sands in the east. Locations such as Postans Reserve include this
transition. The project area lies in a region of extensive development, but it also lies
between some large tracts of undisturbed land that are now included in Beeliar Regional
Park. Immediately to the west lies the Mt Brown/Mt Brown Lake and Brownman
Swamp area, while to the east are Thomson’s Lake and Banganup Lake, the latter within
the Harry Waring Marsupial Reserve. There is also some native vegetation on Alcoa’s
property to the south-east, that connects directly to The Spectacles which are part of
Beeliar Regional Park. The project area is strategically placed between the eastern and
western sections of Beeliar Regional Park and is thus part of a network of conservation
lands in the region.


FAUNA OF THE PROJECT AREA

Frogs

Table 1 lists 9 frog species expected to occur in the project area. With the exception of
the Turtle Frog, which breeds terrestrially in sandy soils, all are likely to breed in Long
Swamp and any other wetlands in the area. Most are therefore also likely to occur mainly
around wetlands, but the Moaning Frog and Pobblebonk range widely in upland
environments outside the breeding season.

In the Perth area, frogs are notable for their persistence where breeding habitat around
wetlands is retained, but they are sensitive to loss of riparian vegetation, changes in water
quality and changes in hydrological cycles. The Moaning Frog and Pobblebonk are
sensitive to loss of access to upland habitats and the Turtle Frog is sensitive to loss of
upland habitat. Therefore, the frog assemblage is likely to be richest in the vicinity of
Long Swamp but the Turtle Frog, Moaning Frog and Pobblebonk are probably
widespread, particularly where upland vegetation remains.

The one frog species of conservation significance, the Quacking Frog (CS3) has a
scattered distribution on the Swan Coastal Plain but is known from Spectacle Swamp
(Bamford Consulting database), so may be present in Long Swamp.

Reptiles

Table 2 lists 41 reptile species expected to occur in the project area. The South-West
Cool Skink, Glossy Swamp Egernia, Tiger Snake and Long-necked Tortoise are
associated with wetlands or wetland fringing vegetation, while the Barking Gecko is most
likely to be found where there is limestone exposed at the surface. Other species also
have specific habitat requirements but these are less clearly associated with broad
landscape types.



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                               5
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy




For almost all reptile species, however, native vegetation is important, and in the Perth
area reptiles generally display a high degree of persistence even in small remnants of
native vegetation. Exceptions may be some of the fossorial snakes (Brachyurophis and
Neelaps) that How and Shine (1999) suggest require large areas of continuous habitat for
long-term persistence. In contrast, a few reptile species survive in degraded habitats with
little remnant vegetation. These include the Fence Skink, West Coast Ctenotus, the three
species of Lerista, Dwarf Skink, Bobtail and Dugite.

These patterns of persistence among reptiles means that within the project area, reptile
species richness is likely to be greatest where native vegetation remains, with the size of
the remnant having only a small positive influence on the number of species present.

The reptile species listed as of CS3 are either close to the limit of their distribution in the
region, or have scattered distribution on the coastal plain. The Bold-striped Lerista and
Black-striped Snake are of CS2, both being listed as Priority 3 by CALM.

Birds

As noted earlier, the mobility of birds means that a large number of species can be
recorded at a site over time, but with respect to the biodiversity strategy, what is
important are the species that regularly rely on the project area. Table 3 therefore lists
118 bird species that are considered to use the project area regularly.

Forty of the listed species are waterbirds and most of these would rely on Long Swamp
and seasonally-inundated pasture, although waterbirds include at least 4 species that
forage either at the waste disposal facility, and/or on lawns, pasture and market gardens.
During the site inspection, Australian Pelicans were observed circling over the waste
disposal facility. Waterbirds are indicated on Table 3.

Also indicated on Table 3 is a simple classification of the birds depending upon their
ability to use modified environments and their dependence upon native vegetation.
While this should be considered as a rough guide only, it indicates that 33 of the 78
landbird species utilize modified environments. The remaining 45 species (almost 40%
of the total avifauna) are reliant upon native upland vegetation.

Most of the species listed as dependent upon native upland vegetation are also listed as
CS3 because they are classified as having declined in the Perth urban area by the
Department of Environmental Protection (2000). Persistence of birds in the urban
environment is a complex issue, however, because the mobility of most species allows
them to traverse urban areas to select habitat patches they can utilise. Species most at
risk in the urban area are those that rely on native vegetation and have poor powers of
dispersal. Such species suffer from local extinction even in reserves of moderate size,
and therefore rely on linkage between reserves. Species most reliant on linkage between
remnants are the Splendid Fairy-wren, White-browed Scrubwren, Weebill, Inland
Thornbill, Western Thornbill, Yellow-rumped Thornbill, Scarlet Robin, Varied Sittella,



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                                 6
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


and Grey Shrike-thrush. The requirements of these species can be used as an indicator of
the degree of linkage or connectivity required to retain as much of the avifauna of an area
as possible. Of this suite of species, the Western Thornbill and Grey Shrike-thrush seem
to be most reliant on large tracts of native vegetation, and appear to be poor at dispersing.
In contrast, most of the other species listed above have been observed dispersing through
an urban garden, despite this being 200m from the next available habitat (M. Bamford
pers. obs). This dispersal required crossing several roads and a sterile urban landscape of
houses, concrete and lawns. The Splendid Fairy-wren has been observed utilizing a 5m
wide strip of acacia over weeds to travel between woodland remnants at Alfred Cove in
Melville.

With respect to species listed as CS3, important features of the project area are remnant
native upland vegetation and some degree of connectivity between the remnants. This
does not need to be direct connectivity, as it would appear that roads and unfavourable
habitat for distances of 100-200m are not insurmountable for most species. Effective
linkage may be as simple as a narrow strip of bushes. For example, a road verge planted
to create a simple version of eucalypt/banksia woodland could be effective, even if the
vegetation was discontinuous because of driveways and crossroads. What would be
important would be for the vegetation structure to consist of shrubs creating a thicket
beneath an overstorey of trees. Ideally, all shrubs and trees would be of local species.

Table 3 lists one species of CS2: the Masked Owl. The Masked Owl (Priority 3) may be
present mongst the Tuarts in the west of the project area, as it roosts and nests in hollows
of these trees. However, it appears to be very rare in the region, as there are few records
and targeted surveys undertaken by Bamford Consulting in the region in 2004 failed to
locate any birds.

Five species of CS1 are listed in Table 3. The Great Egret, Fork-tailed Swift and
Rainbow Bee-eater are listed as migratory under the EPBC Act. They are not listed as
threatened and are generally widespread. The Great Egret is very likely to occur
regularly at Long Swamp, the Fork-tailed Swift is likely to be an infrequent visitor that is
largely aerial and therefore independent of proposed developments, while the Rainbow
Bee-eater is likely to be a regular breeding visitor. It commonly nests in burrows on
cleared slopes but is not limited by nesting habitat in the Perth region.

The remaining two species of CS1 are the Peregrine Falcon (Schedule 4 of the WA
Wildlife Conservation Act) and Carnaby’s Cockatoo (Endangered under both the EPBC
and WA Acts). The Peregrine Falcon is very likely to be present in the project area, and
if a pair is resident, they may nest in a horizontally aligned tree hollow in a lage Tuart.
Carnaby’s Cockatoo is likely to feed on banksias in the area at any time of the year,
although particularly in summer and autumn, and a few pairs may nest in Tuart hollows
in spring. Because of its status as Endangered under the EPBC Act, any significant
impact of a proposal upon Carnaby’s Cockatoo would require the project to be referred to
the federal Department of the Environment and Heritage.




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                               7
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Mammals

The project area probably has a depauperate mammal fauna, in common with much of the
Perth region. Of the 21 mammal species listed on Table 4, six are introduced and over
half the native species are bats.

The bats are all tree-roosting species that could shelter anywhere trees provide hollows or
crevices in which they can hide, but for most species it is not known to what extent their
foraging activities are also confined to woodland. The White-striped Bat and Gould’s
Wattled Bat regularly forage in cleared areas and even over houses, but the remaining
species may be restricted to remnant native vegetation. The White-striped Bat, Gould’s
Wattled Bat, Southern Forest Bat and Lesser Long-eared Bat were recently (January
2005) recorded at Little Rush Lake in Beeliar Regional Park (Bamford Consulting
database), while the Western False Pipistrelle has been recorded in Harry Waring
Marsupial Reserve adjacent to the project area (Hosken and O’Shea 1994).

Of the six remaining native species (see Table 4), the Rakali is semi-aquatic and may
occur at Long Swamp. It is present at The Spectacles and persists around some suburban
wetlands, such as Lake Goollelal in the northern suburbs (Bamford Consulting database).
The Quenda is abundant in the general region both in dense vegetation around wetlands
and in banksia woodland, and it survives even where the native understorey is partly
replaced by grasses. It is therefore likely to be widespread in the project area.

The Grey Kangaroo and Brush Wallaby may both be present in the project area and are
present nearby in eastern branch of Beeliar Regional Park. It is not known if they are
present in the western area around Mt Brown. For both species, however, roads, fences
and development may limit their ability to move through the area. While the Grey
Kangaroo forages in open areas and can make use of limited shelter, the Brush Wallaby
appears to be more dependent upon large areas of dense understorey for shelter and
individuals appear to stay within an area of a few hectares (Bamford and Bamford 2002).
These factors mean the Brush Wallaby only persists in large tracts of suitable vegetation,
so its long-term survival in fragmented landscapes is unlikely.

The Brush-tailed Possum is probably present throughout the project area where there are
suitable trees that provide large hollows, but the status of the Honey Possum is more
difficult to ascertain. It was present around The Spectacles and as far north as Murdoch
University in the 1980s, and survives in large tacts of banksia woodland at Jandakot
airport (Bamford Consulting database), but woodland in the project area and adjacent
may now be too fragmented for the species.

In general, native mammals survive poorly in the urban landscape and require large areas
of continuous habitat. Exceptions are species with specialised habitat requirements, such
as the Rakali, and mobile species such as at least some of the bats. In contrast, the
introduced species thrive in the sort of landscape present in the project area. Some of
these introduced species interact with native species, with the Fox and Cat in particular
being of concern as predators.



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                              8
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy




The Honey Possum is considered to be of CS3 because it has declined throughout Perth
although, as noted above, it may now be absent from the project area. Most of the bat
species could also be listed as CS3 on the basis of decline in the Perth area, as could the
Grey Kangaroo, but there is little information available on the bats to demonstrate that
they have declined. The Grey Kangaroo, like the Brush-tailed Possum, displays a
surprising ability to persist in urban areas.

The Quenda, Brush Wallaby, Western False Pipistrelle and Rakali are all listed as
Priority 4 by CALM and therefore are CS2. With the exception of the Brush Wallaby, all
are almost certainly present in the project area. As noted above, the Rakali is probably
confined to Long Swamp, but individuals need to be able to disperse through woodland
with dense understorey in order to move between wetlands. If the species is present in
Mt Brown Lake and Brownman Swamp to the west, the project area needs to be able to
support dispersing individuals for the long-term survival of populations in the western
branch of Beeliar Regional Park.

The Quenda may be widespread in the project area where there is suitable dense, low
vegetation, and is present in both the eastern and western branches of Beeliar Regional
Park. The project area is therefore important for movement to occur between the two
sectors of the regional park, although the sectors are probably sufficiently large that
Quenda populations in each can be self-sustaining. The Western False Pipistrelle may
also be present throughout the area where there is woodland, but its ability to disperse is
greater than for terrestrial mammals for which roads and fences are significant barriers.

If the Brush Wallaby were present in both parts of Beeliar Regional Park, the project area
would be of particular significance as it would provide linkage between the two wallaby
populations. The site inspection indicated that habitats within the project area were
probably too small and fragmented and support resident Brush Wallabies, but they could
support animals moving between the sectors of the regional park. Such movement would
be important for the persistence of Brush Wallabies in the largely isolated western branch
of the regional park.

There are no mammal species of CS1 expected to occur in the project area because such
species are regionally extinct.

Invertebrates

Three species of native bees, a moth and a cricket were included in the results from
CALM’s Threatened Fauna Database.

The Graceful Sun-Moth Synemon gratiosa and the bee Neopasiphe simplicior are listed
under Schedule 1 of the WA Wildlife Conservation Act. The sun-moth occurs from
Wanneroo the Mandurah and is under great pressure from habitat loss due to urban
development. No information was provided as to its habitat, but its distribution suggests
that it occurs in banksia woodland. N. simplicior has been recently recorded only around



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                                 9
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Lake Forrestdale and Armadale Golf Course. It may therefore not occur as far west as
the Hope Valley area, although invertebrates are often not sampled extensively. It has
been collected from the flowers of a number of shrub species, including Goodenia
filiformis, Lobelia tenulor, Angianthus preissianus and Velleia sp..

The remaining invertebrate species are of Conservation Significance level 2, being listed
as Priority by CALM. The cricket Throscodectes xiphos is known only from Jandakot,
around Cutler Road, and is listed as Priority 1. The bees Leioproctus douglasiellus and
Hylaeus globuliferus are listed as Priority 3. The habitat of the cricket is unknown but
the two bees have been collected from flowers: L. douglasiellus from flowers of
Goodeniaceae shrubs and K. globuliferus from flowers of grevillea and banksia. The two
bees are very likely to be present in the eucalypt and banksia woodlands of the Hope
Valley area, while the cricket may be present.




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                            10
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


PATTERNS OF FAUNA PERSISTENCE IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

Summary

Frogs
Persist around wetlands.
Hydrocycle important for some species.
Upland species persist even when habitat degraded.
Physical barriers (eg. fences) to movement between wetlands and uplands are significant,
but frogs will move across cleared ground.
Probably low level of interaction between frog populations in the project area and Beeliar
Regional Park.

Reptiles
High level of persistence even in small remnants.
The persistence of many species in small remnants means that linkage may not be critical
at least in the short term. Note, however, that most reptiles do not appear to move far as
individuals, so to achieve gene flow between remnants may require sufficient habitat in a
linkage to support individuals.
Habitat condition may be important for some species with cleared areas supporting few
species.
A few species depend upon large areas of remnant vegetation.

Probably very low level of interaction between reptile populations in the project area and
Beeliar Regional Park.

Birds
A significant proportion of the avifauna sensitive to habitat fragmentation; remnant size
and linkage important.
Linkage can probably be narrow (road verge) and discontinuous. Minimum requirements
would be for an overstorey and understorey of preferably local plant species, with the
understorey forming thickets >2m wide, and with most gaps in the linkage <50m to
accommodate driveways and crossroads.
Species of conservation significance associated with nesting hollows in Tuarts and
foraging in banksia woodland.
A large proportion of the avifauna is wetland dependent.
A high level of interaction likely between bird populations in the project area and Beeliar
Regional Park, with the persistence of some species in the project area reliant on linkage
with the regional park.

Mammals
Low levels of persistence with very depauperate assemblage.
Terrestrial species require linkage via more or less continuous habitat, particularly
understorey. Verge planting to create a simple version of eucalypt/banksia woodland as
suggested for birds might be effective for mammals such as the Quenda over distances of
a few hundred metres. However, mammals are prone to being stuck on roads so both the



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                           11
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


road along which linkage may be created and crossroads are a threat.Aerial species (bats)
require old trees for shelter.
Long Swamp may be particularly important for several mammal species.
Introduced species are a significant component of the fauna and may interact with some
native species.
Species of conservation significance around Long Swamp, in understorey vegetation of
upland habitats and utilizing roosting hollows in trees.
A high level of interaction likely between mammal populations in the project area and
Beeliar Regional Park, with the persistence of some species in the project area and in the
west of the regional park reliant on linkage through the project area.

Implications

For the biodiversity strategy of the Hope Valley Wattleup proposal, the key points
summarised above have a number of implications.
   • Even small and isolated fragments of native vegetation are important for reptiles,
        and as “stepping stones” for birds.
   • Given the degree of clearing in the area, virtually any area of intact native
        vegetation is important.
   • Long Swamp is of particular importance and needs to retain a natural hydrocycle.
   • Features of significance for threatened species include Tuart trees, banksia
        woodland, dense understorey vegetation and Long Swamp.
   • Linkage between existing remnants is important and can be incomplete for birds,
        but needs to be as complete as possible for mammal. Linkage only a few metres
        wide can be effective for the majority of species.
   • Linkage through the project area between the west and east parts of Beeliar
        Regional Park is important both for fauna within the project area, and for the
        persistence of some fauna in the west of the regional park.
   • Habitat quality, and especially the level of weed invasion into the understorey, is
        important for some species.
   • Linkage may not be realistic for large species such as Grey Kangaroos and Brush
        Wallabies. This may impose management considerations for the western sector of
        the regional park if these species are present.


STRATEGIES FOR BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

Key areas of remnant habitat for protection
Key remnant areas are woodland in the vicinity of Russell Road, woodland on private
property in the east of the project area (between Alcoa’s tailings ponds and Dalison
Avenue), Long Swamp and associated vegetation, and woodland in the south of the
project area (Postans Reserve and south, including Conway Road and Hendy Road
Swamps). Most of these woodlands are banksia and eucalypt banksia woodlands that are
of particular importance for Carnaby’s Cockatoo. Groves of Tuart trees even without
understorey vegetation are also worthy of retention as the trees contain hollows used by a
range of species. There is a substantial grove just to the east of the waste disposal


Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                           12
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


facility. The three wetlands, but particularly Long Swamp and Conway Road Swamp,
are likely to be important for wetland associated species.

Key areas for the development of linkages
There are three main potential alignments for habitat linkage across the project area.
1. Along Russell Road, linking existing remnants in this area with Brownman Swamp in
the West and Thomson’s Lake and the Harry Waring Marsupial Reserve in the east.
There is some native vegetation already along Russell Road, including a large block of
Jarrah/banksia woodland between Russell and Torgoyle Roads. West of Henderson
Road, verge planting will be required to establish linkage. In addition to the east-west
linkage, vegetation in this area also links to vegetation that lies to the north of the project
area.

2. Along Dalison Avenue, from Mt Brown Lake to Harry Waring Reserve in Beeliar
Regional Park. This is the shortest distance between the two sectors of the regional park.
There is some remnant vegetation along the eastern end of Dalison Avenue, both inside
and just outside the project area, but otherwise linkage will need to be strengthened
through verge planting.

3. Along Hope Valley Road, linking Long Swamp with the western sector of the regional
park, and to the south-east to woodland around Alcoa’s tailings ponds and The
Spectacles. This linkage may also align with the proposed Fremantle Rockingham
Highway that has the potential to be a major north-south wildlife corridor.

These three key linkages are also identified in the Environmental Review, but that also
recognises linkage through the centre of the project area (just north of the Wattleup
townsite). This linkage cuts across a large sand quarry so would only be viable if the
quarry were to be rehabilitated. Note that the existing railway line runs the length of the
project area and, with rehabilitation, has the potential to be a major north-south linkage.

There will be many limitations to how complete these linkages can be, but the
information on patterns of persistence (see above) provide some guidelines as to what
needs to be achieved as a minimum. For example, the minimum requirement for verge
planting to achieve linkage for birds such as fairy-wrens and thornbills might be trees
with understorey shrubs forming “islands” no more than 100m apart.

In addition to these linkages, the relationship of native vegetation within the project area
with vegetation outside the project area needs to be considered. Beeliar Regional Park is
secure, but some of the native vegetation outside the project area belongs to Alcoa, small
land-holders and government agencies such as the Water Corporation (south of Anketell
Road). Ultimately, habitat linkages across the entire landscape need to be developed.

Development of secondary linkages
The key linkages outlined above will go some way to maintaining the biodiversity of the
larger areas of remnant vegetation within the project area, and will also benefit
particularly the western sector of Beeliar Regional Park. Throughout the project area,



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                                13
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


however, there are remnants of native vegetation of varying size and condition, and as a
general strategy where these can be retained, they should also be linked to other areas in
some way. The best approach may be to have a policy of vegetation retention, verge
planting and gardens through the re-development that emphasises the protection and
creation of habitat.

Management issues
A number of issues concerning habitat condition are important. For example, both Tuart
trees and banksias are important but will eventually senesce and lose their values.
Recruitment of these species is necessary as part of the management of remnant
vegetation. Degradation of understorey vegetation due to fire and weed invasion is a
major concern. Past experience in light industrial areas also indicates that habitat
degradation due to off-road vehicles and dumping of rubbish is very likely to occur and
can be difficult to manage.

Introduced species, especially Foxes, Cats and Rabbits, may be an issue for biodiversity
conservation. Measures may be needed to control these species, or at least to ensure they
are not encouraged.




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                            14
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Table 1. Amphibians expected to occur in the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment
project area. Conservation Significance (CS) as defined in Methods is indicated in the
status column.

                              Species                              Status   Recorded
Myobatrachidae (burrowing frogs)
Quacking Frog                          Crinia georgiana            CS3
Glauert’s Frog                           Crinia glauerti                           WAM
Sandplain Froglet                     Crinia insignifera                           WAM
Moaning Frog                          Heleioporus eyrei                            WAM
Pobblebonk Frog                  Limnodynastes dorsalis                            WAM
Turtle Frog                       Myobatrachus gouldii                             WAM
Guenther’s Toadlet              Pseudophryne guentheri                             WAM
Hylidae (tree-frogs)
Slender Tree Frog                   Litoria adelaidensis                           WAM
Motorbike Frog                            Litoria moorei                           WAM
                             Number of frog species expected:                  9


Table 2. Reptiles expected to occur in the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment
project area. Conservation Significance (CS) as defined in Methods is indicated in the
status column.

                              Species                              Status   Recorded
Gekkonidae (geckoes)
Marbled Gecko                    Christinus marmoratus                             WAM
Southern Spiny-tailed Gecko       Strophurus spinigerus
Barking Gecko                   Underwoodisaurus milii
Pygopodidae (legless-lizards)
Sand-Plain Worm-Lizard                   Aprasia repens                            WAM
Fraser’s Legless Lizard                   Delma fraseri                            WAM
Gray’s Legless Lizard                      Delma grayii
Burton’s Legless Lizard                  Lialis burtonis
Common Scaleyfoot                  Pygopus lepidopodus                             WAM
Agamidae (dragon lizards)
Western Bearded Dragon                    Pogona minor                             WAM
Varanidae (monitors or goannas)
Gould’s Sand Goanna                     Varanus gouldii                            WAM
Rosenberg’s Goanna                  Varanus rosenbergi              CS3
Tree Goanna                              Varanus tristis            CS3




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                            15
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Table 2 (cont.).

                              Species                              Status   Recorded
Scincidae (skink lizards)
South-West Cool Skink            Acritoscincus trilineatum                          WAM
Fence Skink               Cryptoblepharus plagiocephalus                            WAM
Western Limestone Ctenotus              Ctenotus australis                          WAM
West Coast Ctenotus                       Ctenotus fallens
Odd-striped Ctenotus                       Ctenotus impar
King’s Skink                                Egernia kingii
Glossy Swamp Egernia                     Egernia luctuosa           CS3
Salmon-bellied Skink                   Egernia napoleonis                           WAM
Two-toed Earless Skink           Hemiergis quadrilineata                            WAM
West Coast Four-toed Lerista               Lerista elegans                          WAM
Bold-striped Lerista                        Lerista lineata         CS2             WAM
Worm Lerista                            Lerista praepedita          CS3
Dwarf Skink                                 Menetia greyii                          WAM
West Coast Morethia                Morethia lineoocellata                           WAM
Dusky Morethia                          Morethia obscura
Western Blue-tongue                     Tiliqua occipitalis         CS3
Bobtail                                     Tiliqua rugosa                          WAM
Typhlopidae (blind-snakes)
Southern Blind Snake            Ramphotyphlops australis                            WAM
Elapidae (front-fanged snakes)
Narrow-banded Shovel-nosed Snake Brachyurophis fasciolata                           WAM
Southern Shovel-nosed Snake Brachyurophis semifasciata                              WAM
Yellow-faced Whip-Snake            Demansia psammophis
Crowned Snake                     Elapognathus coronatus                        WAM
Black-naped Snake                    Neelaps bimaculatus                        WAM
Black-striped Snake                     Neelaps calonotos           CS2         WAM
Western Tiger Snake                      Notechis scutatus                      WAM
Gould’s Snake                            Parasuta gouldii                       WAM
Dugite                                  Pseudonaja affinis                      WAM
Jan’s Bandy-Bandy                    Simoselaps bertholdi                       WAM
Chelidae (side-neck tortoises)
South-West Long-necked Tortoise        Chelodina oblonga
                   Number of reptiles observed or expected:                    41




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                             16
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Table 3. Birds expected to occur in the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment project
area. Conservation Significance (CS) as defined in Methods is indicated in the status
column. In the Habitat column, species are indicated as waterbirds (wb), landbirds
dependent upon native vegetation (nv) and birds that can survive in modified
environments (me).

                           Species                                  Status     Habitat
Phasianidae (pheasants and quails)
Stubble Quail                               Coturnix pectoralis                  me
Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans)
Freckled Duck                               Stictonetta naevosa      CS3         wb
Black Swan                                       Cygnus atratus                  wb
Australian Shelduck                       Tadorna tadornoides                    wb
Pacific Black Duck                           Anas superciliosus                  wb
Grey Teal                                     Anas gibberifrons                  wb
Australasian Shoveler                           Anas rhynchotis                  wb
Pink-eared Duck               Malacorhynchus membranaceus                        wb
Hardhead (White-eyed Duck)                      Aythya australis                 wb
Australian Wood Duck                         Chenonetta jubata                   wb
Musk Duck                                         Biziura lobata                 wb
Blue-billed Duck                               Oxyura australis                  wb
Podicepididae (grebes)
Great Crested Grebe                          Podiceps cristatus                  wb
Hoary-headed Grebe                 Poliocephalus poliocephalus                   wb
Australasian Grebe                Tachybaptus novaehollandiae                    wb
Anhingidae (darters)
Darter                                   Anhinga melanogaster                    wb
Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants)
Great Cormorant                           Phalacrocorax carbo                    wb
Pied Cormorant                            Phalacrocorax varius                   wb
Little Black Cormorant              Phalacrocorax sulcirostris                   wb
Little Pied Cormorant             Phalacrocorax melanoleucos                     wb
Pelecanoididae (pelicans)
Australian Pelican                     Pelecanus conspicillatus                  wb
Ardeidae (herons and egrets)
White-faced Heron                      Egretta novaehollandiae        +          wb
White-necked Heron                               Ardea pacifica                  wb
Great Egret                                        Egretta alba    CS1 (mig)     wb
Nankeen Night Heron                     Nycticorax caledonicus                   wb
Plataleidae (ibis and spoonbills)
Australian White Ibis                     Threskiornis molucca                 wb/me
Straw-necked Ibis                       Threskiornis spinicollis               wb/me
Yellow-billed Spoonbill                        Platalea flavipes                wb




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                            17
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Table 3 (cont.)
                            Species                                 Status   Habitat
Accipitridae (kites, hawks and eagles)
Black-shouldered Kite                             Elanus notatus               me
Square-tailed Kite                            Lophoictinia isura     CS3       nv
Whistling Kite                              Haliastur sphenurus      CS3       me
Swamp Harrier (Marsh Harrier)               Circus approximans                 wb
Brown Goshawk                                 Accipiter fasciatus    CS3       me
Collared Sparrowhawk                   Accipiter cirrhocephalus      CS3       me
Wedge-tailed Eagle                                 Aquila audax      CS3       me
Little Eagle                           Hieraaetus morphnoides        CS3       me
Falconidae (falcons)
Peregrine Falcon                               Falco peregrinus      CS1       me
Australian Hobby                              Falco longipennis                me
Nankeen Kestrel                               Falco cenchroides                me
Rallidae (crakes and rails)
Buff-banded Rail                             Rallus philippensis               wb
Baillon's Crake                                  Porzana pusilla               wb
Australian Spotted Crake                       Porzana fluminea                wb
Spotless Crake                                Porzana tabuensis                wb
Dusky Moorhen                               Gallinula tenebrosa                wb
Purple Swamphen                            Porphyrio porphyrio                 wb
Eurasian Coot                                        Fulica atra               wb
Turnicidae (button-quails)
Painted Button-quail                                Turnix varia               nv
Recurvirostridae (stilts and avocets)
Black-winged Stilt                     Himantopus himantopus                   wb
Charadriidae (plovers and lapwings)
Banded Lapwing                                  Vanellus tricolor              me
Laridae (gulls and terns)
Silver Gull                              Larus novaehollandiae               wb/me
Columbidae (pigeons and doves)
Rock Dove (feral pigeon)                          Columba livia      Int.      me
Spotted Turtle-Dove                       Streptopelia chinensis     Int       me
Laughing Turtle-Dove                  Streptopelia senegalensis      Int       me
Common Bronzewing                            Phaps chalcoptera                 nv
Cacatuidae (cockatoos)
Carnaby’s (Short-billed) Black-Cockatoo                              CS1       nv
                                    Calyptorhynchus latirostris
Long-billed Corella                        Cacatua tenuirostris      Int       me
Little Corella                               Cacatua sanguinea       Int       me
Galah                                      Cacatua roseicapilla                me
Psittacidae (lorikeets and parrots)
Rainbow Lorikeet                     Trichoglossus haematodus        Int       me
Purple-crowned Lorikeet         Glossopsitta porphyrocephala                   nv
Red-capped Parrot                     Purpureicephalus spurius                 nv
Australian Ringneck (twenty-eight)         Barnardius zonarius                 me
Elegant Parrot                               Neophema elegans                  nv



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                          18
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Table 3 (cont.)
                             Species                               Status    Habitat
Cuculidae (cuckoos)
Pallid Cuckoo                                Cuculus pallidus                  nv
Fan-tailed Cuckoo                      Cuculus pyrrhophanus                    nv
Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo               Chrysococcyx basalis                   nv
Shining Bronze-Cuckoo                   Chrysococcyx lucidus                   nv
Strigidae (hawk-owls)
Southern Boobook Owl                  Ninox novaeseelandiae                    nv
Tytonidae (barn owls)
Barn Owl                                             Tyto alba                 me
Masked Owl                              Tyto novaehollandiae        CS2        nv
Podargidae (frogmouths)
Tawny Frogmouth                           Podargus strigoides                  nv
Apodidae (swifts)
Fork-tailed Swift                               Apus pacificus     CS1 mig     me
Halcyonidae (forest kingfishers)
Laughing Kookaburra                     Dacelo novaeguineae          Int       nv
Sacred Kingfisher                       Todiramphus sanctus                    nv
Meropidae (bee-eaters)
Rainbow Bee-eater                             Merops ornatus       CS1 mig     me
Maluridae (fairy-wrens)
Splendid Fairy-wren                        Malurus splendens        CS3        nv
Pardalotidae (pardalotes)
Spotted Pardalote                       Pardalotus punctatus                   nv
Striated Pardalote                         Pardalotus striatus                 nv
White-browed Scrubwren                     Sericornis frontalis     CS3        nv
Weebill                               Smicrornis brevirostris                  nv
Western Gerygone                              Gerygone fusca                   nv
Inland Thornbill                            Acanthiza apicalis      CS3        nv
Western Thornbill                          Acanthiza inornata       CS3        nv
Yellow-rumped Thornbill                Acanthiza chrysorrhoa        CS3        nv
Meliphagidae (honeyeaters)
Red Wattlebird                      Anthochaera carunculata                    me
Western Wattlebird                     Anthochaera lunullata                   nv
Yellow-throated Miner                     Manorina flavigula                   nv
Singing Honeyeater                   Lichenostomus virescens                   me
Brown Honeyeater                         Lichmera indistincta                  me
White-naped Honeyeater                   Melithreptus lunatus       CS3        me
New Holland Honeyeater          Phylidonyris novaehollandiae        CS3        me
White-cheeked Honeyeater                   Phylidonyris nigra       CS3        nv
Tawny-crowned Honeyeater               Phylidonyris melanops        CS3        nv
Western Spinebill             Acanthorhynchus superciliosus                    nv
White-fronted Chat                       Epthianura albifrons                  me
Petroicidae (Australian robins)
Scarlet Robin                             Petroica multicolor       CS3        nv
Neosittidae (sittellas)
Varied Sittella                   Daphoenositta chrysoptera         CS3        nv



Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                          19
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Table 3 (cont.)
                           Species                                 Status   Habitat
Pachycephalidae (whistlers)
Rufous Whistler                      Pachycephala rufiventris                 nv
Golden Whistler                       Pachycephala pectoralis       CS3       nv
Grey Shrike-thrush                    Colluricincla harmonica       CS3       nv
Dicruridae (flycatchers)
Magpie-lark                               Grallina cyanoleuca                 me
Grey Fantail                              Rhipidura fuliginosa                nv
Willie Wagtail                           Rhipidura leucophrys                 me
Campephagidae (cuckoo-shrikes)
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike          Coracina novaehollandiae                   me
White-winged Triller                            Lalage sueurii                nv
Artamidae (woodswallows)
Black-faced Woodswallow                      Artamus cinereus       CS3       nv
Grey Butcherbird                           Cracticus torquatus                nv
Australian Magpie                         Gymnorhina tibicen                  me
Grey Currawong                             Strepera versicolor                nv
Corvidae (ravens and crows)
Australian Raven                            Corvus coronoides                 me
Motacillidae (pipits and true wagtails)
Richard's Pipit                       Anthus novaeseelandiae                  me
Dicaeidae (flower-peckers)
Mistletoebird                         Dicaeum hirundinaceum                   nv
Hirundinidae (swallows)
White-backed Swallow                Cheramoeca leucosternus                   nv
Welcome Swallow                              Hirundo neoxena                  me
Tree Martin                                 Hirundo nigricans                 me
Sylviidae (old world warblers)
Clamorous Reed-Warbler                Acrocephalus stentoreus                 wb
Little Grassbird                        Megalurus gramineus                   wb
Zosteropidae (white-eyes)
Silvereye                                   Zosterops lateralis               me
Number of species:                                         118




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                         20
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Table 4. Mammals expected to occur in the Hope Valley Wattleup Redevelopment
project area. Conservation Significance (CS) as defined in Methods is indicated in the
status column.

                                   Species                               Status
Peramelidae (bandicoots)
Quenda or Southern Brown Bandicoot            Isoodon obesulus            CS2
Phalangeridae (possums)
Brush-tailed Possum                      Trichosurus vulpecula
Tarsipedidae (honey possum)
Honey Possum                                 Tarsipes rostratus
Macropodidae (kangaroos and wallabies)
Western Grey Kangaroo                    Macropus fuliginosus
Brush or Black-gloved Wallaby                   Macropus irma
Mollosidae (mastiff bats)
White-striped Bat                            Tadarida australis
Western Freetail Bat                   Mormopterus planiceps
Vespertilionidae (vesper bats)
Gould’s Wattled Bat                       Chalinolobus gouldii
Chocolate Wattled Bat                      Chalinolobus morio
Western False Pipistrelle              Falsistrellus mackenzei            CS2
Southern Forest Bat              Vespadelus (Eptesicus) regulus
Lesser Long-eared Bat                     Nyctophilus geoffroyi
Gould’s Long-eared Bat                      Nyctophilus gouldii
Greater Long-eared Bat                 Nyctophilus timoriensis
Muridae (rats and mice)
Rakali or Water-Rat                    Hydromys chrysogaster              CS2
House Mouse                                      Mus musculus             Int.
Brown Rat                                     Rattus norvegicus           Int.
Black Rat                                          Rattus rattus          Int.
Leporidae (rabbits and hares)
Rabbit                                   Oryctolagus cuniculus            Int.
Canidae (foxes and dogs)
European Red Fox                                  Vulpes vulpes           Int.
Felidae (cats)
Feral Cat                                            Felis catus          Int.
                           Number of mammals observed or expected:         21




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                            21
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy



References

Bamford, M.J. and Bamford, A.R. (2002). A Study of the Brush or Black-gloved
      Wallaby Macropus irma (Jourdan 1837) in Whiteman Park. Whiteman Park
      Technical Report Series No. 1. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth.
Brooker, M. (2004). Whiteman Park Bird Surveys 1990 – 2003. Whiteman Park
      Technical Report Series No. 3. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth.
Bush, B., Maryan, B., Browne-Cooper, R. and Robinson, D. (1995). A Guide to the
       Reptiles and Frogs of the Perth Region. University of Western Australia Press,
       Perth.
Christidis, L. and Boles, W.E. (1994). The Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia
       and its Territories. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Monograph 2.
Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R.A. and Eggler, P. (1993). The Action Plan for
      Australian Reptiles. Endangered Species Programme Project Number 124,
      Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Cooper, N.K. (1995). Vertebrate fauna of an isolated bushland reserve (No 18325) in
      inner Perth. West. Aust. Nat. 20: 21-28.
Cooper, C.E., Withers P.C., Mawson, P.R., Bradshaw, S.D., Prince, J. and Robertson, H.
      (2002). Metabolic ecology of cockatoos in the south-west of Western Australia.
      Aust. J. Ecol. 50: 67-76.
Dell, J. and How, R. (1995). Faunal response to fire in urban bushland. In: ed. J. Harris.
         Burning Our Bushland. Urban Bushland Council, WA. pp. 35-41.
Department of Environmental Protection (2000). Bush Forever. Govt. of Western
      Australia, Perth.
Duncan, A., Baker, G.B. and Montgomery, N. (1999). The Action Plan for Australian
      Bats. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Environmental Protection Authority (2004). Guidance for the Assessment of
       Environmental Factors; Terrestrial Fauna surveys for Environmental Impact
       Assessment. No 56. EPA, Perth.
Garnett, S. and Crowley, G. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment
       Australia and the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union.
Hosken, D.J. and O’Shea, J.E. (1994). Falsistrellus mackenziei at Jandakot. Western
      Australian Naturalist 19: 351.
How, R.A. (1998). Long-term sampling of a herpetofaunal assemblage on an isolated
      urban bushland remnant, Bold Park, Perth.
How, R. and Dell, J. (1993). Vertebrate fauna of the Perth metropolitan region:
      consequences of a modified environment. In: M. Hipkins. (ed) Urban Bush
      Management. Australian Institute of Urban Studies, WA. pp. 28-47.




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                            22
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


How, R.A. & Dell, J. (2000). Ground vertebrate fauna of Perth’s vegetation remnants:
      impact of 170 years of urbanization.
How, R., Harvey, M.S., Dell, J. and Waldock, J.M. (1996). Ground Fauna of Urban
      Bushland Remnants in Perth. Report to the Australian Heritage Commission. WA
      Museum, Perth.
How, R.A. and Shine, R. (1999). Ecological traits and conservation biology of five
      fossorial “sand-swimming” snake species (Simoselaps: Elapidae) in south-western
      Australia. Journal of Zoology, London. 249: 269-282.
Lee, A.K. (1995). The Action Plan for Australian Rodents. Environment Australia,
       Canberra.
Mace, G. and Stuart, S. (1994). Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2. Species;
      Newsletter of the Species Survival Commission. IUCN – The World
      Conservation Union. No. 21-22: 13-24.
Maryan, B. Browne-Cooper, R. and Bush, B. (2002). Herpetofauna survey of Maralla
      Road bushland. West. Aust. Nat. 23: 197-206.
Maxwell, S., Burbidge, A.A. and Morris, K. (1996). Action Plan for Australian
     Marsupials and Monotremes. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Storr, G.M., Smith, L.A. and Johnstone, R.E. (1983). Lizards of Western Australia. II.
        Dragons and Monitors. W.A. Museum, Perth.
Storr, G.M., Smith, L.A. and Johnstone, R.E. (2002). Snakes of Western Australia.
        W.A. Museum, Perth.
Storr, G.M., Smith, L.A. and Johnstone, R.E. (1990). Lizards of Western Australia. III.
        Geckoes and Pygopods. W.A. Museum, Perth.
Storr, G.M., Smith, L.A. and Johnstone, R.E. (1999). Lizards of Western Australia. I.
        Skinks. 2nd edition. W.A. Museum, Perth.
Strahan, R. (Ed.) (1995). The Mammals of Australia. Australian Museum/Reed Books,
       Sydney.
Turpin, M.C. (1990). Ecological appraisal of an isolated woodland reserve No. 3694
       south of the Swan River, Perth. West. Aust. Nat. 18: 131-138.
Turpin, M.C. (1991a). Additions to the fauna of reserve No. 3694, Victoria Park. West.
       Aust. Nat. 18: 168-169.
Turpin, M.C. (1991b). Notes on fauna of a remnant bushland in Victoria Park. West.
       Aust. Nat. 18: 233-234.
Tyler, M.J., Smith, L.A. and Johnstone, R.E. (2000). Frogs of Western Australia. W.A.
       Museum, Perth.
Van Delft, R. (1997). Birding Sites Around Perth. 2nd Edition. Birds Australia – WA
      Group.
WA Museum. (2001). Checklists of the Vertebrates of Western Australia. Records of
    the WA Museum Supplement No. 63.


Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                            23
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Wykes, B. (1991). Perth Wildlife Watch. World Wide Fund for Nature Project 134.




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                     24
Hope Valley Wattleup; fauna assessment for Biodiversity Strategy


Appendix 1.

Categories used in the assessment of conservation status.

IUCN categories (based on review by Mace and Stuart 1994) as used for the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act and the WA
Wildlife Conservation Act.
Extinct. Taxa not definitely located in the wild during the past 50 years.
Extinct in the Wild. Taxa known to survive only in captivity.
Critically Endangered. Taxa facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the
immediate future.
Endangered. Taxa facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future.
Vulnerable. Taxa facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future.
Near Threatened. Taxa that risk becoming Vulnerable in the wild.
Conservation Dependent. Taxa whose survival depends upon ongoing conservation measures.
Without these measures, a conservation dependent taxon would be classed as Vulnerable or more
severely threatened.
Data Deficient (Insufficiently Known). Taxa suspected of being Rare, Vulnerable or
Endangered, but whose true status cannot be determined without more information.
Least Concern. Taxa that are not Threatened.

                   Schedules used in the WA Wildlife Conservation Act.
Schedule 1.   Rare and Likely to become Extinct.
Schedule 2.   Extinct.
Schedule 3.   Migratory species listed under international treaties.
Schedule 4.   Other Specially Protected Fauna.

WA Department of Conservation and Land Management Priority species (species
not listed under the Conservation Act, but for which there is some concern).
Priority 1. Taxa with few, poorly known populations on threatened lands.
Priority 2. Taxa with few, poorly known populations on conservation lands; or taxa with several,
poorly known populations not on conservation lands.
Priority 3. Taxa with several, poorly known populations, some on conservation lands.
Priority 4. Taxa in need of monitoring. Taxa which are considered to have been adequately
surveyed, or for which sufficient knowledge is available, and which are considered not currently
threatened or in need of special protection, but could be if present circumstances change.
Priority 5. Taxa in need of monitoring. Taxa which are not considered threatened but are subject
to a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species becoming
threatened within five years (IUCN Conservation Dependent).




Bamford CONSULTING ECOLOGISTS                                                                 25

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:12/23/2011
language:English
pages:212