pbe17027.01 m006 rev a0 section 38 referral form · 2018-03-02 · • an advert in the west...

2 of 14

Contact for the proposal (if different from the referrer)

Please include: name; physical address; phone; and email.

Tim Crosland

Unit 8, 89 Forrest Street, Cottesloe, Western

Australia 6011

0412 938 588

[email protected]

Does the proponent have the legal access required for the

implementation of all aspects of the proposal?

If yes, provide details of legal access authorisations /

agreements / tenure.

If no, what authorisations / agreements / tenure is required

and from whom?

☑ Yes ☐ No

A letter of authorisation in support of the

clearing permit application is provided as an

attachment to this application. A lease

agreement for the site is under development

between the Proponent and the Rottnest

Island Authority.

Proposal type

What type of proposal is being referred?

For a change to an approved proposal please state the

Ministerial Statement number/s (MS No./s) of the approved

proposal

For a derived proposal please state the Ministerial Statement

number (MS No.) of the associated strategic proposal

☑ significant – new proposal

☐ significant – change to approved

proposal (MS No./s: ___________)

☐ proposal under an assessed planning

scheme

☐ strategic

☐ derived (Strategic MS No.: ___________)

For a significant proposal:

• Why do you consider the proposal may have a significant

effect on the environment and warrant referral to the

EPA?

This project is not considered to have a

significant impact on the environment, but

rather there is the potential for community

interest given the Proposal location. It is for

this reason that this Section 38 Referral is

being lodged, as a risk management strategy

to pre-empt community interest.

For a proposal under an assessed planning scheme, provide

the following details:

• Scheme name and number

For the Responsible Authority:

• What new environmental issues are raised by the

proposal that were not assessed during the assessment of

the planning scheme?

• How does the proposal not comply with the assessed

scheme and/or the environmental conditions in the

assessed planning scheme?

Not applicable

Proposal description

Title of the proposal Pinky’s Beach Eco Retreat

Name of the Local Government Authority in which the

proposal is located.

City of Cockburn

Location:

a) street address, lot number, suburb, and nearest road

intersection; or

b) if remote the nearest town and distance and direction

from that town to the proposal site.

Lot 110976 on Deposited Plan 216860.

Strue Road, south of Pinky’s Beach and

immediately north of the Waste Water

Treatment Plant, Rottnest Island

3 of 14

Proposal description – including the key characteristics of the

proposal

Provide as an attachment to the form

Please see Attachment 1

Have you provided electronic spatial data, maps and figure in

the appropriate format?

Refer to instructions at the front of the form

☑ Yes ☐ No

What is the current land use on the property, and the extent

(area in hectares) of the property?

Crown Land (A Class reserve) vested in the

Rottnest Island Authority. The development

site partially encompasses a portion of the

former Wastewater Treatment Plant and

another part of the site is associated with the

existing Rottnest Island camp ground.

The balance of the site is currently

undeveloped comprising native vegetation of

variable condition but in the main in

Degraded to Completely Degraded condition,

with areas being planted (native and non-

native) as part of the former forestry trials on

the Island.

The proposed clearing area comprises 1.8 ha

within the Settlement Area of Rottnest Island

(Figure 1).

Have you had pre-referral discussions with the OEPA? If so,

quote the reference number and/or the OEPA contact.

The proposal was discussed over the phone

with the OEPA.

Part B: Environmental impacts

Environmental factors

What are the likely significant environmental

factors for this proposal?

Please note:

The proposal is not considered likely to have a

significant impact on any environmental factors.

However, we anticipate that there is potential for

community concern regarding the proposal, due

to its location on Rottnest Island, and in an A

Class nature reserve. For this reason, assessment

against relevant environmental factors has been

undertaken to pre-empt potential community

concerns and provide information from which the

EPA can make a determination.

☐☐☐☐ Benthic Communities and Habitat

☐☐☐☐ Coastal Processes

☐☐☐☐ Marine Environmental Quality

☐☐☐☐ Marine Fauna

☑☑☑☑ Flora and Vegetation

☑☑☑☑ Landforms

☐☐☐☐ Subterranean Fauna

☐☐☐☐ Terrestrial Environmental Quality

☑☑☑☑ Terrestrial Fauna

☑☑☑☑ Hydrological Processes

☐☐☐☐ Inland Waters Environmental Quality

☐☐☐☐ Air Quality

☑☑☑☑ Social Surroundings

☐☐☐☐ Human Health

For each of the environmental factors identified above, complete the following table, or provide the

information in a supplementary report

Please note that the proposal is not considered likely to have a significant impact on any

environmental factors. Despite this, consideration has been made for relevant environmental

4 of 14

factors considering potential community concern regarding the proposal, given its location on

Rottnest Island. The factors that have been considered are:

• Flora and vegetation

• Landforms

• Terrestrial fauna

• Hydrogeological processes; and

• Social surroundings

Consultation

The Rottnest Island Authority (RIA) granted a Development Approval for the Pinky’s Beach Eco

Retreat on 21 September 2017.

Public consultation for the Pinky Beach Development Application, commenced on Saturday 15 July

2017 and ended on Sunday 6 August, a period of 22 days.

The application was advertised via:

• An advert in the West Australian ‘Public Notices’ on 15 and 22 July;

• A Community Information Session was held on Wednesday, 26 July 2017 between 4.30pm

until 6.00pm in the Maritime Museum Kailis Boardroom on Level 1 in Victoria Quay,

Fremantle.

• A sign on site along Strue Road (adjacent to the Proposal site);

• The Rottnest Island Authority Website under ‘Community Consultation’;

• Correspondence provided to key stakeholder groups (see below);

• Opportunities to view the plans at the RIA Offices in ‘E Shed’ and at the Rottnest Island

Visitors Centre.

Stakeholder Groups via targeted correspondence included: Birdlife Australia; Boating Western

Australia; Cockburn City Council; Conservation Volunteers Australia; Department of Biodiversity,

Conservation and Attractions; Department of Water and Environmental Regulation; Department of

Fisheries; Department of Transport; Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage; Fremantle

Chamber of Commerce; Fremantle City Council; Fremantle Sea Rescue; Main Roads; Maritime

Archaeological Association of Western Australia; Rottnest Island Primary School; Winnit Club;

President RVGA; Rottnest Island Chamber of Commerce; Scouts Australia; South West Land and Sea

Council; State Heritage Office; Tourism Council WA; Tourism Western Australia; Yachting WA and

Rottnest Island Society.

A total of 254 submissions were received with the majority 201 (79%) ‘in-support’ of the proposal,

42 (17%) objecting, 6 (2%) government agencies and 5 (2%) neutral or incomplete.

Potential environmental impacts

1 EPA Factor Flora and Vegetation

2

EPA policy and guidance

Environmental Factor Guideline – Flora and Vegetation

Technical Guidance - Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact

Assessment

3 Consultation The consultation undertaken for the Proposal is provided as a summary in Part

B.

5 of 14

4 Receiving environment The Proposal area is within an A-Class reserve. A portion of the site is a former

WWTP which was decommissioned between 2016 and 2017. There is currently

a large depression within the project area which was the location of the final

settlement pond for the now decommissioned plant. Soil and groundwater

sampling by the RIA has confirmed that residual impacts are limited to nutrient

impacted groundwater, which is approximately 5 m below the surface. Given

the proximity of the impacted groundwater to the ocean < 100m, and that no

groundwater will be abstracted from the site, the impacted groundwater does

not represent a risk to retained vegetation of human health.

The Proposal area is largely cleared due to the sites former use. The remnant

vegetation on site is significantly degraded. The vegetation condition across the

Project area ranges from completely degraded to very good.

The native vegetation types and the area of disturbance of each within the

proposed clearing area include the following:

• 0.88 ha of *Eucalyptus gomphocephala to 20 m over Melaleuca

lanceolata to 6 m over Low Open Heath of Acanthocarpus preissii and

*Trachyandra divaricata

• 0.01 ha of *Eucalyptus utilis

• 0.04 ha of Closed low heath dominated by Spinifex longifolius with

Scaevola crassifolia and Lepidosperma gladiatum

• 0.07 ha of Heath of Olearia axillaris, Rhagodia baccata, Lepidosperma

gladiatum and Scaevola crassifolia over Poa poiformis and

*Trachyandra divaricata

• 0.07 ha of Low Heath of Scaevola crassifolia, Spinifex longifolius,

Lepidosperma gladiatum and *Trachyandra divaricata with occasional

Olearia axillaris

• 0.05 ha of Low Open Heath of Scaevola crassifolia, Olearia axillaris,

Rhagodia baccata and Acanthocarpus preissii over *Trachyandra

divaricata and Conostylis candicans subsp. calcicola

• Less than 0.01 ha of Melaleuca lanceolata

• 0.31 ha of Poa poiformis and *Trachyandra divaricata

• 0.31 ha of Tall, closed shrubland of Callitris preissii

Vegetation condition of native vegetation within the proposed clearing area and

the area proposed to be impacted is provided below.

Condition Area (ha) Area (%)

Excellent 0 0

Very Good – Good 0.04 2

Good 0.31 18

Good – Degraded 0.18 11

Degraded 0.88 51

Completely Degraded 0.32 19

Total 1.74 100

For the purpose of describing the potential impact to vegetation, an area of

1.8 ha is identified as a worst case scenario. Figures 2 and Figure 3, show the

vegetation types and vegetation condition respectively.

A NatureMap database search was undertaken and did not identify any TECs or

PECs, or their buffers, within the proposed clearing area (DBCA 2018). The RIA

has confirmed that no TEC’s or PEC’s or other vegetation of significance was

identified in their flora and vegetation survey.

A NatureMap database search was conducted to determine if there are any

Threatened or Priority flora taxa known to occur on Rottnest Island (DBCA

2018). A total of seven Threatened and Priority flora species were identified,

comprising one Threatened flora taxon, and six Priority flora taxa. Of these,

6 of 14

three were considered unlikely to occur (Banksia cuneata – Threatened,

Lachnagrostis nesomytica subsp. nesomytica – P1, and Lachnagrostis

nesomytica subsp. pseudofiliformis – P1), and two were considered possible

(Lepidium puberulum – P4, and Myosotis australis - P4).

No Threatened or Priority flora were identified within the Proposal during a

flora and vegetation survey undertaken by the RIA in December 2015.

5 Proposal activities The Proposal involves the direct clearing of approximately 1.8 ha of vegetation.

This could result in direct and indirect impacts on flora and vegetation.

6 Mitigation Avoidance:

The design of the Proposal footprint predominantly incorporates existing

disturbed areas where vegetation condition ranges from ‘Completely Degraded’

to ‘Good–Degraded’. Clearing will be limited to the minimal amount required

and construction activities will be developed to ensure that the clearing

footprint is limited to areas required to be cleared for building and structure

footprints, for example, boardwalk footprints will be marked, cleared and used

as trafficable areas during construction, limiting additional clearing required for

construction. Laydown areas have been identified on existing cleared areas in

proximity to the development (tennis courts).

Minimisation:

• Previously undeveloped or degraded areas within the Proposal area

will be subject to rehabilitation/landscaping works to improve the

condition of and environmental value of the vegetation (Figure 4).

• Clearing will be minimised by positioning a number of accommodation

tents in areas with no understory vegetation.

• Retention of landscape features characteristic of the area, including

large overstory vegetation will be maximised for the provision of shade

and contribution to visual amenity. An arboricultural assessment has

been undertaken to ensure that where possible overstory trees are

retained, and managed for retention, to ensure patron safety.

• Design of the accommodation units and walkways to sit above the

ground which limits ground disturbance and requirement for solid

foundations or footings (which would involve clearing of the entire

development footprint).

• Formalisation of controlled beach access to improve current

unmanaged access regime which is contributing to vegetation and

dune structure degradation.

• Implementation of a Construction Management Plan; action items will

include delineation of clearing boundaries and weed and dieback

hygiene measures.

• Implementation of a Landscape Plan; action items will identify

proposed revegetation areas including plant species, density of

plantings, vegetation to be cleared, any alteration of topography, hard

landscaping and lighting.

• implementation of a Vegetation Retention Management Plan and

Wildlife Management Plan, which details the management of flora,

fauna and terrestrial environment including rehabilitation which will

make use of native species for replanting and weed and dieback

hygiene measures.

• Operation of the proposed Eco-retreat will provide for ongoing

protection of the vegetation by ensuring that no informal pathways are

developed throughout the facility and from the facility to the beach.

Residual impacts

• Removal of 1.8 ha of vegetation.

7 of 14

7 Impacts Following the application of mitigation measures, the Proposal is expected to be

managed to meet the EPA objective for Flora and Vegetation through the

implementation of key mitigation strategies such as:

1. The Proposal footprint design utilising previously disturbed areas of

vegetation in ‘Completely Degraded’ and ‘Good–Degraded’ condition.

2. Implementation of a Vegetation Retention Management Plan and Wildlife

Management Plan.

These mitigation strategies are expected to be effective in mitigating potential

impacts to Flora and Vegetation from the Proposal and protect flora and

vegetation so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained.

The Proposal design positions accommodation tents in a vegetation community

type comprising of Tuarts and Rottnest Island tea tree identified as being in

‘Degraded’ condition owing to the absence of an understorey. This reduces

clearing and maximizes the retention of existing vegetative form and provision

of shade. The Proposal footprint of the development also aligns with areas in

‘Completely Degraded’ and ‘Degraded’ condition, with undeveloped areas being

subject to rehabilitation/landscaping works which will act to improve the

condition of and environmental value of the vegetation. Construction and

design techniques will ensure that impact to vegetation is minimised.

The removal of approximately 1.8 ha of vegetation is not expected to be

significant as 70% of the proposed clearing comprises of vegetation in

‘Completely Degraded’ and ‘Degraded’ condition.

The estimate of vegetation to be removed includes the thinning of existing

vegetation and under-pruning of all other existing trees in order to comply with

Bushfire requirements and standards i.e. APZ. This approach reflects the

competing objectives

The Proposal is not expected to result in any significant residual impacts to any

conservation significant flora species, threatened ecological communities or

ecosystems.

8 Assumptions None

1 EPA Factor Landforms

2 EPA policy and guidance Environmental Factor Guideline - Landforms


B.

4 Receiving environment The Proposal area occurs behind the primary dune system to the South of

Pinky’s Beach. Numerous areas of disturbance and erosion are evident within

the dunes, including a ‘blowout’.

5 Proposal activities The Proposal will result in the removal of 0.07 ha of secondary dune vegetation.

The Proposal will also provide formalised access both for visitors of the Eco-

retreat and users of Pinky's Beach and the Basin. The Proposal also includes the

stabilization and rehabilitation of an existing blowout which will be incorporated

into one of the formal access pathways.

Formalisation of access in this area is expected to have a net positive effect on

the foredune and secondary dune formations, providing an opportunity for

protection and rehabilitation by limiting informal access which is currently the

primary threatening process for the dune vegetation and therefore dune

stability.

8 of 14


• Formalised and hardened access routes to Pinky’s Beach and the Basin

are planned, which will manage and direct human traffic away from the

dunes which are currently being impacted from uncontrolled access.

Minimisation:

• Improve current uncontrolled access through dunes from existing

campground

• Stabilisation and rehabilitation of the large blowout in the dunes

adjacent to the northwest corner of the Proposal site will reduce the

current

• Due to high infiltration rates of Quindalup sands the dune areas

expected to be difficult to rehabilitate and will be temporarily irrigated

(during summer months) to encourage plant establishment and

growth.

Residual impact:

• Disturbance of 0.07ha of secondary foredune vegetation

7 Impacts The proposed Eco-retreat occurs behind the primary dune system to the South

of Pinky’s Beach. Numerous areas of erosion are evident within the dunes,

including informal access tracks and a blowout that has increased in size in

recent years.

Following the application of mitigation measures, the Proposal is expected to be

managed to meet the EPA objective for Landforms through the implementation

of key mitigation strategies such as:

1. Installation of formalised and hardened access routes to Pinky’s Beach and

the Basin to divert access away from the dunes.

2. Stabilisation and rehabilitation works on existing areas of erosion on the

dunes

3. Re-contouring of dunes to assist in the infilling of the existing WWTP

settlement pond

4. Revegetation of secondary dunes including temporarily irrigation to

encourage plant establishment and growth in dune areas difficult to

rehabilitate.

The disturbance of 0.07 ha of secondary foredune vegetation is not expected to

be significant as secondary dune vegetation will be rehabilitated with native

species to improve existing vegetation condition and dune stabilisation. The

Proposal results in a net positive outcome for the environment at Pinky’s Beach

and is expected to maintain the variety and integrity of distinctive physical

landforms so that environmental values are protected.

8 Assumptions None

1 EPA Factor Terrestrial Fauna

2 EPA policy and guidance Environmental Factor Guideline – Terrestrial Fauna

Technical Guidance - Terrestrial fauna surveys


B.

9 of 14

4 Receiving environment The Proposal area is within an A-Class reserve. A portion of the site is a former

WWTP which was decommissioned between 2016 and 2017. There is currently

a large depression within the project area which was the location of the final

settlement pond for the now decommissioned plant. Soil and groundwater


impacted groundwater, which is approximately 5 m below the surface. Given

the proximity of the impacted groundwater to the ocean < 100m, and that no


not represent a risk to retained vegetation of human health.

The Proposal area is largely cleared due to the sites former use. The remnant

vegetation on site is significantly degraded. The vegetation condition across the

Project area ranges from completely degraded to very good.

A fauna survey has not been specifically undertaken for the subject site. A

survey is not considered required given the scale and size of the development

footprint and the degraded nature of the receiving environment.

The following information has been supplied by the Rottnest Island Authority. A

total of 186 terrestrial vertebrate fauna species are known to occur on the

Rottnest Island, including two mammals, 157 birds, 24 reptiles and three

amphibians. All of Rottnest Island’s fauna is protected under the Rottnest Island

Authority Act 1987. however, of these, 50 are conservation listed. Of the 50

conservation listed vertebrate fauna species known to occur on the island, 39

are bird species that are vagrant or migrant visitors, and do not breed on

Rottnest Island. These species are highly unlikely to occur within the proposed

clearing area. The remaining 11 conservation listed taxa are known residents of

Rottnest Island, and are also known to breed on the island, these species are

considered to have a greater potential to occur within the proposed clearing

area. They are:

• Quokka (Setonix brachyurusi)

• Bridled Tern (Sterna anaethetus)

• Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia)

• Crested Tern (Sterna bergii)

• Eastern reef egret (Egretta sacra)

• Fairy tern (Sterna nereis)

• Rainbow bee-eater (Merops ornatus)

• Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii)

• Wedge tailed shearwater (Puffinus pacificus)

• Rottnest Island dugite (Pseudonaja affinis exilis)

• Rottnest island bobtail (Tiliqua rugosa konow)

Of these, only the Quokka is likely to occur, with the remaining ten conservation

listed species considered possible.

A portion of the Proposal has been identified to provide feeding habitat for the

Rock Parrot which occurs across the island. The Rock Parrot is known to occur

within low coastal heath and wetland environments, including the unnatural

environment formerly created by the WWTP settlement pond. The Rock Parrot

is listed as Least Concern under the IUCN list.

5 Proposal activities The Proposal involves the direct clearing of up to 1.8 ha of vegetation. May result

in direct and indirect impacts on fauna.

10 of 14


• Proposal design avoids clearing of vegetation in ‘Very Good–Good’

condition. Rather, the design of the Proposal footprint utilises existing

disturbed areas where vegetation condition ranges from ‘Completely

Degraded’ and ‘Good–Degraded’.

• A significant portion of the lease area remains vegetated and generally

vegetation structure will be retained throughout the Proposal area,

retaining current connectivity and relationship between vegetation

types / habitat types.

• A Pest Bird Management Plan has been developed and will be

implemented targeting design and operational actions. The

management plan is designed to reduce the opportunities for pest bird

species populations to be supported by the Proposal.

• A Wildlife Management Plan been developed and will be implemented

targeting design and operational actions. The management plan

provides for management of fauna and human interactions, through

design such as elevated boardwalks to facilitate ground fauna

movement and hard gates to exclude quokkas; deterrence via

management of food availability and waste management; and through

education of patrons.

Minimisation:

• Undeveloped and degraded areas within the Proposal will be subject to

rehabilitation/landscaping works to improve the condition and

environmental value of the vegetation, through replanting of species

endemic to the site and surrounds.

• Design of the walkways to allow the free and uninterrupted movement

of fauna.

• Implementation of a Vegetation Retention Management Plan and

Wildlife Management Plan to detail the management of flora, fauna

and terrestrial environment; action items to include response to fauna

encounters during construction and operation of the Proposal.

Residual impacts:

• Removal of approximately 1.8 ha of potential fauna habitat

• Removal Rock Parrot habitat. This approach has been endorsed by the

RIA having sought advice from Bold Park Bird Banding group.

11 of 14

7 Impacts Fauna is a key consideration of the proposal. Quokkas are known to access

properties, houses and food preparation/serving areas throughout the Island

creating health issues for both Island visitors and the Quokkas. Bird species

such as swallows can reside in very small spaces in buildings, while seagulls,

crows and ravens have all been known to create problems around food serving

areas. Reptiles such as snakes also have the potential to create a safety hazard

if encountered.

Following the application of mitigation measures, the Proposal is expected to be

managed to meet the EPA objective for Terrestrial Fauna through the

implementation of key mitigation strategies such as:

5. The Proposal footprint design utilising previously disturbed areas of

vegetation in ‘Completely Degraded’ and ‘Good–Degraded’ condition to

minimise vegetation in ‘Good’ or better condition being cleared.

6. The buildings will be designed to minimise roosting options for non-

indigenous bird species

7. The Pest Bird Management Plan provides for strategies to reduce the

potential effects from the proposal on pest bird species

8. The Wildlife Management Plan and Eco-retreat deign will manage fauna and

human interactions, through design such as elevated boardwalks to facilitate

ground fauna movement and hard gates to exclude quokkas; deterrence via

management of food availability and waste management; and through

education of patrons

9. Proposal design avoids clearing of vegetation in ‘Very good–Good’ condition.

10. Implementation of the Vegetation Retention Management Plan and Wildlife

Management Plan will minimize impacts to existing vegetation and enhance

retained vegetation.

These mitigation strategies are expected to be effective in mitigating potential

impacts to Terrestrial Fauna from the Proposal and protect terrestrial fauna so

that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained.

The Rock Parrot uses the Proposal area as foraging habitat but does not use the

Proposal area to nest. The opportunity to create a fresh water source or sources

of a suitable form were considered by the proposal but on advice from the RIA

and their consulted experts from Bold Park Bird Banding Group, it has been

determined that it is better to not specifically encourage the Rock Parrot into

proximity of human activity associated with the Proposal through the provision

of fresh water. The improvement in vegetation condition throughout the

Proposal area will increase foraging habitat for the Rock Parrot and other fauna

species. As a result, the removal Rock Parrot habitat, and potential fauna

habitat is not expected to be a significant impact to conservation significant

fauna species, or populations at a local or regional scale.

8 Assumptions None

1 EPA Factor Hydrogeological Processes

2 EPA policy and guidance Environmental Factor Guideline - Hydrological Processes


B.

12 of 14

4 Receiving environment The Proposal is located adjacent to the coast and is not hydrologically linked to

surface water systems and groundwater systems of conservation significance.

Groundwater has been identified at approximately 0.5 m ADH. At its closest

point, groundwater is therefore 5 m below ground level in the Proposal area.

The site is between 30 m and 200 m from the high-water mark.

A portion of the site is part of the former WWTP which was decommissioned

between 2016 and 2017. There is currently a large depression within the

project area which was the location of the final settlement pond for the now

decommissioned plant. Soil and groundwater sampling by the RIA has

confirmed that residual impacts are limited to nutrient impacted groundwater,

which is approximately 5 m below the surface. Given the proximity of the

impacted groundwater to the ocean < 100m, the direction of groundwater flow

which is generally toward the ocean and that no groundwater will be abstracted

from the site, the impacted groundwater does not represent a risk to

hydrological processes and the current environmental conditions are being

improved by the proposed development.

5 Proposal activities Dewatering is not proposed as part of construction activities this Proposal. The

Proposal expands an existing campsite so a change in land use that leads to

offsite discharge of wastes, such as nutrient generating activities on low

nutrient retentive soils is not proposed.

The site will be connected to the ton sewerage system. Limited irrigation will be

undertaken during landscape / revegetation establishment with scheme water

proposed to be used for these activities.

Stormwater will be minimal with runoff limited to rooves. All runoff will be

infiltrated in-situ, enabled by the small scale of buildings, soil type and very high

infiltration rates.

No impacts to Inland Waters Environmental Quality is expected.


Irrigation of landscaped areas cannot be avoided but will be minimized.

All wastewater connected to the Rottnest Island reticulated sewerage system.

Minimisation:

Irrigation is restricted to landscaped areas.

Residual impacts:

No residual impacts.

7 Impacts The Proposal will introduce water annually into the local environment through

irrigation of landscaped and degraded dune areas until rehabilitation is

successful. Given the proximity of the site to the ocean, the volume of water

will be beneficial to the local environment (for vegetation growth and recovery

purposes) and does not represent a risk to any terrestrial or hydrological values.

The Proposal also involves remediation of a redundant settlement pond to the

north of the upgraded Waste Water Treatment Plant. Soil and groundwater


impacted groundwater, which is approximately 5 m below the surface Given

the proximity of the impacted groundwater to the ocean < 100m, the direction

of groundwater flow which is generally toward the ocean and that no


not represent a risk to hydrological processes and the current environmental

conditions are being improved by the proposed development.

Proposal will generally maintain the existing relationship between natural

rainfall and local infiltration, with minimal formal management of stormwater

required. As a result, significant impacts to Hydrological Processes are not

expected.

8 Assumptions None

13 of 14

1 EPA Factor Social surroundings

2 EPA policy and guidance


B.

4 Receiving environment The Proposal area is not located within areas of cultural (registered Aboriginal

heritage sites under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972), economic and/or social

value significance. Notwithstanding this an Archaeological Management Plan

has been developed to support the development of the site.

The proposal is located in proximity to Bathurst Lighthouse and therefore

maintenance of built heritage values and associated viewsheds have been a key

consideration of the project.

An Interpretation Plan will be developed as a Condition of approval, identifying

and communicating all relevant historical layers for this area of the Island.

The Proposal area is within an A-Class reserve.

5 Proposal activities Construction and operation of the Proposal does not involve:

• activities that disturb the ground in a way to impact cultural

associations and heritage activities

• activities that generate noise or vibrations in proximity to sensitive

premises

The Proposal design is complementary to existing uses of the area. The

development has been required to demonstrate how it will blend into the

existing environment. The extent to which the profile dwellings and buildings

protrudes above the height of the foredune has been limited. The colour of the

materials has been similarly selected to match the existing receiving natural and

built environment.

The Proposal will increase visitor number to Pinky’s Beach.

No impacts to Social Surroundings is expected.

6 Mitigation The Proposal design is complementary to existing uses of the area. The

development has been required to demonstrate how it will blend into the

existing natural and built form environment. The extent to which the profile of

dwellings and buildings protrudes above the height of the foredune has been

limited. The colour of the materials has been similarly selected to match the

existing receiving natural and built environment.

An Interpretation Plan will be developed as a Condition of approval, identifying

and communicating all relevant historical layers for this area of the Island

An Archaeological Management Plan has been developed to support the

development of the site and provide a framework for the monitoring of site

works and procedures in the event that archaeological material is encountered.

7 Impacts The Proposal has been designed to minimise visual impacts to the Pinky’s Beach

and Bathurst Lighthouse viewsheds.

The Proposal will increase visitor numbers and utilisation of Pinky’s Beach. This

impact has been considered by the RIA as acceptable and consistent with the

strategic objective or increasing visitor numbers to Rottnest Island.

8 Assumptions None

14 of 14

Part C: Other approvals and regulation

State and Local Government approvals

Is rezoning of any land required before the proposal can be

implemented?

If yes, please provide details.

☐ Yes ☑ No

If this proposal has been referred by a decision-making

authority, what approval(s) are required from you?

The proposal has not been referred by a

decision making, however relevant

approvals have been provided below.

Proposal activities

e.g. clearing,

dewatering, mining,

processing, dredging,

Land tenure/access

e.g. Crown land – LA

Act, Min Act, CALM

Act specify type

Type of approval

e.g. Native Vegetation

Clearing Permit, licence,

mining proposal,

Legislation regulating the

activity

e.g. EP Act 1986 – Part V, RiWI

Act 1914, Mining Act 1979

Development Crown Development Approval Rottnest Island Authority Act

1987

Commonwealth Government approvals

Does the proposal involve an action that may be or is a controlled

action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)?

☐ Yes ☑ No

Has the proposed action been referred? If yes, when was it

referred and what is the reference number (EPBC No.)? ☐ Yes ☑ No

Date: ________

EPBC No.: _________

If referred, has a decision been made on whether the proposed

action is a controlled action? If ‘yes’, check the appropriate box

and provide the decision in an attachment.

☐ Yes ☐ No

☐ Decision – controlled action

☐ Decision – not a controlled action

Do you request that this proposal be assessed under the bilateral

agreement or as an accredited assessment? ☐ Yes - Bilateral ☑ No

☐ Yes - Accredited

Is approval required from other Commonwealth Government/s

for any part of the proposal?

If yes, describe.

☐ Yes ☑ No

Approval:

1 of 1

1 of 2

Attachment 1

Part A: Proposal description Table 1: Summary of the Proposal

Description

Proposal title Pinky’s Beach Rottnest Island

Proponent name Pinky’s Beach Pty Ltd

Short description The proposal is to develop Pinky’s Beach Eco-Retreat located adjacent to Pinkys Beach, on Rottnest Island.

The Eco-Retreat is to be located west of the existing campground and directly adjacent to an existing Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) to the east. The Proposal (within a lease area of 2.85 ha) will involve the construction and operation of the following:

• 83 small holiday canvas accommodation dwellings

• food and beverage “Beach Club” outlet with nearby shade structures

• managers residence permitting the site manager to remain onsite on a year-round basis.

• storage building

• formalised boardwalks walkways to each dwelling and through the dune system to both Pinky’s

Beach to the north and the Basin to the west, with some on-grade walkways throughout the site

to provide access to each accommodation site.

• swimming pool

• two fire water tanks (nominally 72 kL effective capacity each) with fire pump set to serve the onsite fire hydrant and fire hose reel system.

Table 2: Location and proposed extent of physical and operational elements

Element Location Proposed Extent

Physical elements

Accommodation dwelling Figure 1 Clearing of up to 1.8 ha of vegetation. The vegetation condition across the Project area ranges from completely degraded to very good. Eleven different vegetation types, and two areas void of vegetation, have been identified within the project area, they are:

The native vegetation types and the area of disturbance of each within the proposed clearing area include the following:

• 0.88 ha of *Eucalyptus gomphocephala to 20 m over Melaleuca lanceolata to 6 m over Low Open Heath of Acanthocarpus preissii and *Trachyandra divaricata


• 0.04 ha of Closed low heath dominated by Spinifex longifolius with Scaevola crassifolia and Lepidosperma gladiatum

• 0.07 ha of Heath of Olearia axillaris, Rhagodia baccata, Lepidosperma gladiatum and Scaevola crassifolia over Poa poiformis and *Trachyandra divaricata

• 0.07 ha of Low Heath of Scaevola crassifolia, Spinifex longifolius, Lepidosperma gladiatum and *Trachyandra divaricata with occasional Olearia axillaris

• 0.05 ha of Low Open Heath of Scaevola crassifolia, Olearia axillaris, Rhagodia baccata and Acanthocarpus preissii over *Trachyandra divaricata and Conostylis candicans subsp. calcicola




Vegetation condition of native vegetation within the proposed clearing area and the area proposed to be impacted is provided below.

“Beach Club

Managers residence

Storage building

Boardwalks

Swimming pool

Fire tanks

2 of 2

Element Location Proposed Extent

Condition Area (ha) Area (%)

Excellent 0 0

Very Good – Good 0.04 2

Good 0.31 18

Good – Degraded 0.18 11

Degraded 0.88 51

Completely Degraded 0.32 19

Total 1.74 100

For the purpose of describing the potential impact to vegetation, an area of 1.8 ha is identified as a worst case scenario.

A NatureMap database search was undertaken and did not identify any TECs or PECs, or their buffers, within the proposed clearing area.

A NatureMap database search was conducted to determine if there are any Threatened or Priority flora taxa known to occur on Rottnest Island (DBCA 2018). A total of seven Threatened and Priority flora species were identified, comprising one Threatened flora taxon, and six Priority flora taxa. Of these, three were considered unlikely to occur (Banksia cuneata – Threatened, Lachnagrostis nesomytica subsp. nesomytica – P1, and Lachnagrostis nesomytica subsp. pseudofiliformis – P1), and two were considered possible (Lepidium puberulum – P4, and Myosotis australis - P4).

No Threatened or Priority flora were identified within the Proposal during a flora and vegetation survey undertaken by the RIA in December 2015

Operational elements

Accommodation dwelling Figure 1 Clearing of approximately 1.8 ha of vegetation. The vegetation condition across the Project area ranges from completely degraded to very good. The native vegetation types and the area of disturbance of each within the proposed clearing area include the following:

• 0.88 ha of *Eucalyptus gomphocephala to 20 m over Melaleuca lanceolata to 6 m over Low Open Heath of Acanthocarpus preissii and *Trachyandra divaricata


• 0.04 ha of Closed low heath dominated by Spinifex longifolius with Scaevola crassifolia and Lepidosperma gladiatum

• 0.07 ha of Heath of Olearia axillaris, Rhagodia baccata, Lepidosperma gladiatum and Scaevola crassifolia over Poa poiformis and *Trachyandra divaricata

• 0.7 ha of Low Heath of Scaevola crassifolia, Spinifex longifolius, Lepidosperma gladiatum and *Trachyandra divaricata with occasional Olearia axillaris

• 0.05 ha of Low Open Heath of Scaevola crassifolia, Olearia axillaris, Rhagodia baccata and Acanthocarpus preissii over *Trachyandra divaricata and Conostylis candicans subsp. calcicola




A NatureMap database search was undertaken and did not identify any TECs or PECs, or their buffers, within the proposed clearing area.

A NatureMap database search was conducted to determine if there are any Threatened or Priority flora taxa known to occur on Rottnest Island (DBCA 2018). A total of seven Threatened and Priority flora species were identified, comprising one Threatened flora taxon, and six Priority flora taxa. Of these, three were considered unlikely to occur (Banksia cuneata – Threatened, Lachnagrostis nesomytica subsp. nesomytica – P1, and Lachnagrostis nesomytica subsp. pseudofiliformis – P1), and two were considered possible (Lepidium puberulum – P4, and Myosotis australis - P4).

No Threatened or Priority flora were identified within the Proposal during a flora and vegetation survey undertaken by the RIA in December 2015

Figure 1: Development layout

Path: Q:\Consult\2017\PBE\PBE17027\ArcMap_documents\PBE17027_G026_RevB.mxd

[email protected]

Note that positional errors may occur in some areasCoordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50

Date: 12/02/2018Author: vdinh

at A41:1,851Scale

¹

361800

361800

362000

362000

6459

600

6459

600

6459

800

6459

800

0 20 40 60 m

Source: Landgate: Aerial Imagery - 20180208.

LegendLease areaDevelopment layoutAsset Protection Zone

Application area

Figure 2: Vegetation Condition


[email protected]



at A41:2,000Scale

¹

361800

361800

362000

362000

362200

362200

6459

600

6459

600

6459

800

6459

800

0 20 40 60 m


LegendDevelopment layoutAsset Protection ZoneApplication area

Vegetation conditionGoodVery good to Good

Good to DegradedDegradedCompletely Degraded

Figure 3: Vegetation Type


[email protected]



at A41:2,000Scale

¹

361800

361800

362000

362000

362200

362200

6459

600

6459

600

6459

800

6459

800

0 20 40 60 m


LegendDevelopment layoutApplication areaAsset Protection Zone

Vegetation type*Eucalyptus gomphocephala to 20m over Melaleucalanceolata to 6m over Low Open Heath ofAcanthocarpus preissii and *Trachyandra divaricata*Eucalyptus utilis*Ficus sp.*Trachyandra divaricataClosed low heath dominated by Spinifex longifolius withScaevola crassifolia and Lepidosperma gladiatumDune blow-outHeath of Olearia axillaris, Rhagodia baccata,Lepidosperma gladiatum and Scaevola crassifolia overPoa poiformis and *Trachyandra divaricata

Low Heath of Scaevola crassifolia, Spinifex longifolius,Lepidosperma gladiatum and *Trachyandra divaricatawith occasional Olearia axillarisLow Open Heath of Scaevola crassifolia, Oleariaaxillaris, Rhagodia baccata and Acanthocarpus preissiiover *Trachyandra divaricata and Conostylis candicanssubsp. calcicolaMelaleuca lanceolataPoa poiformis and *TrachyandraTall, closed shrubland of Callitris preissiiCleared

5 10 20 30 50m0

REV AC1.103JOB NO. 17012041:500 @ A1

LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN

P I N K Y S B E A C H E C O R E T R E A T A N D B E A C H C L U B

COPYRIGHT THIS DOCUMENT IS AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF PLAN EJANUARY 2018

414 ROKEBY RD SUBIACO WA 6008

T: (08) 9388 9566 E: mai [email protected]

PLANT ZONE 1

PLANT ZONE 3

PLANT ZONE 2

PLANT ZONE 4

PLANT ZONE 5

ACACIA SPATHULIFOLIA ‘DWARF’CALLITRIS PREISSIICARPOBROTUS VIRESCENSGREVILLEA CRITHMIFOLIA ‘LOW SPREADING’MYOPORUM INSULARE ‘DWARF’POA POIFORMISSCAEVOLA CRASSIFOLIAWESTRINGIA ‘LOW HORIZON’WESTRINGIA DAMPIERI ‘PROSTRATE’

ACACIA SPATHULIFOLIA ‘DWARF’CALLITRIS PREISSIICARPOBROTUS VIRESCENSCHORIZEMA VARIUM ‘PROSTRATE’GREVILLEA CRITHMIFOLIA ‘LOW SPREADING’MELALEUCA LANCEOLATAMYOPORUM INSULARE ‘DWARF’POA POIFORMISSCAEVOLA CRASSIFOLIAWESTRINGIA ‘LOW HORIZON’WESTRINGIA DAMPIERI ‘PROSTRATE’

ACANTHOCARPUS PREISSIICARPOBROTUS VIRESCENSLEPIDOSPERMA GLADIATUMPOA POIFORMISRHAGODIA BACCATASCAEVOLA CRASSIFOLIASPINIFEX LONGIFOLIUS

CONOSTYLIS CANDICANSLEPIDOSPERMA GLADIATUMMYOPORUM INSULARE ‘PROSTRATE’WESTRINGIA ‘LOW HORIZON’

CALLITRIS PREISSIICALOTHAMNUS QUADRIFIDUSGREVILLEA CRITHMIFOLIA ‘LOW SPREADING’LEPIDOSPERMA GLADIATUMMYOPORUM INSULARE ‘DWARF’OLEARIA AXILLARISWESTRINGIA DAMPIERI ‘PROSTRATE’

pbe17027.01 m006 rev a0 section 38 referral form · 2018-03-02 · • an advert in the west...

Documents