In response to the Department’s - City of Busselton€¦ · laboratory analysis of sediment samples did not record high reactivity values, thus substantial MBO is not expected to

Level 1, 50 Subiaco Square Road, Subiaco, WA 6008 P.O. Box 243, Subiaco, WA 6904 Phone: (08) 9380 3100 Fax: (08) 9380 4606

177 Spencer Street, Bunbury, WA 6230 P.O. Box 287, Bunbury, WA 6231 Phone: (08) 9792 4797 Fax: (08) 9792 4708

Email: [email protected] Web: www.strategen.com.au ABN: 32 056 190 419

Rod Whyte

Project Assessments West Section

Department of the Environment and Energy

GPO Box 787

CANBERRA ACT 2601

Your reference: EPBC 2018/8155

Our reference: CIB16605.03

Dear Rod

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION EASTERN LINK PROJECT, BUSSELTON, WA

In response to the Department’s comments dated 29 November 2018, please find herein updated additional information to support the Department’s assessment of preliminary documentation for the Eastern Link Project (EPBC 2018/8155) and decision on the referral for the Causeway Bridge Duplication Project (EPBC 2018/8309).

The updated information is provided by Strategen Environmental (Strategen) on behalf of the proponent, the City of Busselton, and is structured according to Attachment A in the Department’s request for additional information on EPBC 2018/8155 dated 10 May 2018. The updated information supersedes the previous information submitted by Strategen on 24 October 2018.

The updated information is presented in the following attachments:

• Attachment A: Summary of additional information

• Attachment B: Construction Environmental Management Plan

• Attachment C: Acid Sulfate Soil and Dewatering Management Plan

• Attachment D: Drainage design drawings – biofiltration gardens

• Attachment E: Carter’s Freshwater Mussel, Environmental Management Plan

• Attachment F: Proponent commitments on environmental mitigation

• Attachment G: Design drawings – possum bridge

• Attachment H: Response to Department comments dated 29 November 2018 on

previously submitted information.

We trust the information provided is sufficient to support completion of the Department’s assessment of preliminary documentation for EPBC 2018/8155, and decision on referral for EPBC 2018/8309.

For any queries relating to the information, please contact the undersigned ([email protected], ph: 08 9380 3100).

For any queries on the Eastern Link or Causeway Bridge Duplication Projects in general, please contact Daniell Abrahamse at City of Busselton ([email protected], ph: 08 9781 0379).

Version: 1, Version Date: 01/02/2019Document Set ID: 3873486

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.strategen.com.au/



Page 2

Yours sincerely

Heath Morgan

ASSOCIATE

8 January 2019

Enclosures: As above

cc: Daniell Abrahamse, Manager Engineering & Tech Services, City of Busselton


Page 1

Attachment A: Summary of additional information

Item Additional information requested Additional information provided

Listed threatened species and ecological communities

1 – Carters Freshwater Mussel

1.1 The Department notes that at the time the referral was submitted the Carter's Freshwater Mussel (Westralunio carteri) was newly listed under the EPBC Act and therefore some relevant documents to the mitigation/management of this species were not provided with or discussed in the referral. Given this, please provide the following information:

Noted as an introductory paragraph.

1.2 • describe and assess the likely effectiveness of measures proposed to avoid and/or mitigate the direct and indirect impacts (e.g. sedimentation/contamination) the proposed action may have on the Carter's Freshwater Mussel

The following measures are proposed to avoid direct and indirect impacts on Carters Freshwater Mussel:

1. The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP, Attachment B) includes water quality protection measures

presented in CEMP Table 5, including:

o Maintain silt curtains either side of bridge abutments for the duration of bridge construction works and until turbidity levels are visually observed as equivalent to background levels upstream of silt fence.

o Maintain silt fences at the base of all embankments adjacent to waterways and wetlands.

o Stabilise embankments and earth worked areas as soon as practicable to minimise soil erosion.

o Provide temporary stormwater drainage to direct surface runoff to sumps for sediment retention and infiltration.

o No fuel storage or vehicle / equipment maintenance on site.

o Minimise on-site waste storage, with no waste storage within 10 m of the river.

o Maintain spill response equipment on site to respond to small spills.

o Immediately respond to all spills within construction site to prevent discharge into Vasse River, wetlands or groundwater. All contaminated soils, spill response materials and equipment to be disposed of at a licensed waste facility.

o Provide floating absorbent booms (at least 30 m long) to Busselton Fire & Rescue prior to construction commencing.

o Conduct a spill response drill in the Vasse River prior to construction commencing, in collaboration with Busselton Fire & Rescue.

2. The Acid Sulfate Soil and Dewatering Management Plan (ASSDMP, Attachment C) includes detailed management, monitoring

and reporting measures to minimise and manage potential impacts arising from disturbance to ASS and MBO during bridge

construction works, which will avoid and minimise potential construction impacts to water quality. The ASSDMP will be subject

to approval to the WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER), as part of a groundwater licence for the

construction dewatering under Section 5C of the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (RIWI Act).


Page 2


3. Temporary translocation of Carters Freshwater Mussel for duration of construction, in accordance with a licence approved by

the WA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) under Regulation 15 of the Wildlife Conservation

Regulations 1970.

4. The new road and bridge will drain away from the Vasse River and into biofiltration gardens that will treat and infiltrate

stormwater and capture spills if these occur on the road and bridge

Additional detail is provided below:

Construction water quality protection

Water quality protection presented in CEMP (Attachment B) Table 5 represents industry best practice in Western Australia, and is considered effective given the scale of construction proposed over the Vasse River. The CEMP has been reviewed by the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) during the referral of the proposed action under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act).

Management of ASS presented in the ASSDMP (Attachment C) is in accordance with the Guideline: Treatment and management of soil and water in acid sulfate soil landscapes (Department of Environment Regulation 2015) and National Acid Sulfate Soil Guidance, Overview and management of monosulfidic black ooze (MBO) accumulations in waterways and wetlands (Water Quality

Australia 2018)1

. River sediment sampling did not record any ooze like materials in the vicinity of the construction area and laboratory analysis of sediment samples did not record high reactivity values, thus substantial MBO is not expected to be present at the bridge construction site.

The ASSDMP incorporates a conservative soil liming rate of 82 kg/tonne for terrestrial soils and 142 kg/tonne for sediments. The ASSDMP indicates the groundwater is well buffered with a very high alkalinity given the limestone geology in the area. With implementation of the ASSDMP it is highly unlikely that Carters Freshwater Mussel will be impacted by ASS or groundwater changes.

Translocation program

A temporary translocation program is proposed for Carters Freshwater Mussel (Westralunio carteri), to mitigate the risk of direct impacts within the bridge footprint (e.g. covering with fill for bridge abutments) as well as the residual risk of water quality impacts in the unexpected event that the CEMP management targets are not met.

Attachment D presents a W. carteri Management Plan (WCMP) (Murdoch University 2018) to guide the translocation program. Murdoch University are specialists in the aquatic ecology of W. carteri, having been instrumental in the conservation listing of the species, and undertaken successful translocation programs for the Helena and Serpentine River pipehead dams (Klunzinger et al

20112

, 20123

).

1

http://www.waterquality.gov.au/issues/acid-sulfate-soils/monosulfidic-black-ooze-accumulation 2

Klunzinger, MW Beatty, SJ & Lymbery, AJ 2011, Freshwater mussel response to drying in the Lower Helena Pipehead Dam & mussel translocation strategy for conservation management, Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University Report to Swan River Trust.

3

Klunzinger, MW Beatty, SJ Allen, MG & Keleher J, 2012, Mitigating the impact of Serpentine Dam works on Carteri's Freshwater Mussel. Perth, Western Australia: Freshwater Fish Group & Fish Health Unit (Murdoch University), Report to the Department of Fisheries, Government of Western Australia.


http://www.waterquality.gov.au/issues/acid-sulfate-soils/monosulfidic-black-ooze-accumulation

Page 3


The WCMP has the following objectives:

a. Minimise the mortality of W. carteri at the Project site and its vicinity during the construction phase.

b. Minimise the mortality of relocated individual W. carteri during the construction phase.

c. Avoid mortality of the host population of W. carteri at the relocation site.

d. Ensure the abundance and population structure of W. carteri at the proposed action area is not significantly

different post-construction to that recorded prior to the commencement of the temporary relocation program.

Murdoch University (2018) have assessed the risk to translocated individuals and the host community as low based on the following:

• Baseline data indicating the relocation site to be suitable for the species and the fact that Murdoch have previously recorded the species in other systems within its range at densities 35 times higher than was recorded at the proposed relocation site, suggesting that the (at least temporary) carrying capacity of the site is much greater than is currently present.

• The proposed stocking densities within the cages are over 10 times less than have been recorded for the species in other systems.

• The water quality and habitat at the relocation site are suitable for the species based on past surveys at the site and an additional pre-relocation survey will occur to confirm conditions are still suitable.

• The cages will also be spaced well apart to further decrease the potential for density dependent effects.

• The 10 mm mesh width on the cages will ensure free water flow and the flushing of all organic waste.

• No morbidity or mortality associated with infectious disease has ever been recorded in the Vasse River or in other sites in W. carteri has been surveyed; between 2009 and 2011, 582 mussels were dissected for analysis of reproductive biology and health status, with no pathogens or parasites observed.

• The major predators of freshwater mussels generally are water birds and some mammals, such as water-rats. The cages that will be used will be constructed of hi-strength plastic mesh and fully sealed to prevent access by predators. Therefore, while increasing the time in captivity will increase the probability of predators being present, it will not affect the low risk of predation by animals.

Murdoch University (2018) note that the risk posed to the translocated mussels and host community may potentially rise to medium in the unexpected event that water quality at the proposed action area remains unsuitable for relocating the mussels for an extended period of time (e.g. more than one year). This risk is mitigated through monitoring the health of the translocated and host mussels and implementation of contingency actions if required.

Stormwater and spill capture

Potential impacts to Carters Freshwater Mussel during operation of the new road and bridge will be mitigated through appropriate stormwater and spill management.

Attachment E presents drainage design drawings for the new road and bridge (Calibre Consulting 2018). As shown on the drawings, the new bridge and road will be provided with barrier kerbs on either side, with grading that directs stormwater runoff away from the Vasse River and to the north into new biofiltration gardens to be established along Peel Terrace.


Page 4


The new biofiltration gardens are designed in accordance with DWER guidelines for water sensitive urban design in WA4

. Biofiltration gardens (also known as biofilters or rain gardens) are excavated basins filled with porous filter media and planted with selected vegetation to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. They are an established and approved method for treatment of urban stormwater runoff in the South-West Region of Western Australia.

In the unlikely event of a major spill of fuel, oil or chemicals occurring on the new bridge (e.g. following a vehicle accident) the barrier kerbs will contain the spill on the bridge deck where it can be contained and cleaned up. Should spill volumes be great enough to exceed immediate spill response capability, the spills will drain to the north, away from the river and into biofiltration gardens. The biofiltration gardens will have capacity to retain spill volumes before overflowing into the river. Should spills enter the biofiltration gardens then the gardens will be pumped out and cleaned to remove the spill materials. The contaminated soil and vegetation will be removed from the affected bio-filtration gardens and the gardens reinstated with clean soil and new vegetation to maintain their primary function of stormwater treatment.

DWER have supported the proposed approach to stormwater treatment and spill capture for the proposed action (Seewraj K. 2017, Land Use Planning Program Manager, pers. comm., 23 November).

The combination of comprehensive avoidance measures (CEMP and ASSDMP), mitigation of residual risk via translocation (WCMP) with evidence of previous successful translocations, and mitigation through drainage design, are expected to be effective to mitigating impacts from construction and operations such that there are not expected to be any significant impacts on the species.

1.3 • provide the documents submitted to the Western Australian government regarding the proposed translocation and relocation program for the Carter's Freshwater Mussel and confirm whether the proponent commits to undertaking these measures for the purpose of the EPBC Act assessment

Attachment D presents the WCMP (Murdoch University 2018) which has been submitted to DBCA, in support of an application for licence under Regulation 15, of the Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970.

A Regulation 15 licence is required to ‘take’ threatened fauna for public purposes5

, which includes translocations of threatened species for infrastructure construction such as the proposed action.

The WCMP has been developed in accordance with specific advice from DBCA on the management plan requirements, including a comprehensive risk analysis, monitoring and contingency actions (Williams K. 2018, Regional Leader Nature Conservation, pers. comm., 31 May).

Attachment F provides evidence of the proponent’s commitment to undertake the translocation program in accordance with a Regulation 15 licence and approved WCMP.

1.4 • discuss whether the policy statement Translocation of Listed Threatened Species - Assessment under chapter 4 of the EPBC Act (2013) (EPBC Act translocation policy) has been considered when

The WCMP (Murdoch University 2018) has been developed with consideration to the EPBC Act translocation policy, including the impacts on the translocated mussels and impacts to mussels, habitat and other species at the relocation site. The WCMP also includes post-release monitoring and contingency actions to address the uncertainties in translocation.

Potential impacts to the translocated species

4

http://www.water.wa.gov.au/urban-water/urban-development/urban-water-design 5

https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/licences-and-permits


http://www.water.wa.gov.au/urban-water/urban-development/urban-water-design

https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/licences-and-permits

Page 5


designing the proposed translocation/relocation program, including whether:

o the proponent is proposing to undertake a post-release monitoring program as recommended by the EPBC Act translocation policy

o the proponent has considered the uncertainties involved with translocating individuals of the species.

The proposed temporary relocation site is located on the Lower Vasse River approximately 5 km upstream of the proposed action area and 100 m downstream of the Vasse Diversion Drain. The relocation site has been previously surveyed for aquatic fauna and habitat, and is assessed as suitable for the translocation, including a mean baseline > 0.5 m, > 50% shading, cool water temperatures and low salinity. The site is assessed as supporting a viable population of W. carteri of mean density of 14.5 ± 5.6 mussels/m2. The site is downstream of the Vasse Diversion Drain, which reduces the impact of flooding and first flush runoff events. The site has minimal public visibility and is difficult to access, reducing the potential for vandalism or other interference.

Translocation will involve an estimated 1260 ± 560 mussels, transported in approximately 25 cages placed over an area of approximately 200 m2 (approximately 8 m2 of habitat per cage). Murdoch University (2018) consider this ample spacing to avoid potential impacts on light attenuation, water flow and density dependent effects including with the host population. Housing the translocated mussels in cages will support intensive monitoring and collection, and will avoid disturbance of host mussels during collection.

W. carteri have an aggregated distribution, with a maximum recorded density of 512 mussels/m2. The species can survive water emersion for considerable periods of time (up the three months) if they are shaded from direct sunlight. No morbidity or mortality associated with infectious disease has ever been recorded in the Vasse River or in other sites in which W. carteri has been surveyed. These characteristics indicate the mussels are tolerant of caging and transport, and reduce the risk of mortality of the translocation and resident population. The hardiness of the species has been demonstrated by successful translocation programs

in the Helena and Serpentine Rivers, which recorded no mussel mortality (Klunzinger et al 20116

, 20127

).

Based on the above factors, Murdoch University (2018) assess the risk posed to translocated mussels as low (see WCMP Table 2).

Potential impacts to habitat and species at the relocation site

Murdoch University (2018) assess the risk posed to the host mussel population as low (see WCMP Table 2), due to the following:

• Density of existing host population is substantially less than found at other sites, which have been recorded at up to 35 times higher than the relocation site.

• No recorded morbidity or mortality of mussels associated with infectious disease at either the proposed action area or the relocation site in the Vasse River.

• Regular monitoring will trigger further management actions if required (see WCMP Table 3)

The proposed translocation is unlikely to establish pest populations, spread pathogens or impact genetic diversity, due to the following:

6

Klunzinger, MW Beatty, SJ & Lymbery, AJ 2011, Freshwater mussel response to drying in the Lower Helena Pipehead Dam & mussel translocation strategy for conservation management, Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University Report to Swan River Trust.

7

Klunzinger, MW Beatty, SJ Allen, MG & Keleher J, 2012, Mitigating the impact of Serpentine Dam works on Carteri's Freshwater Mussel. Perth, Western Australia: Freshwater Fish Group & Fish Health Unit (Murdoch University), Report to the Department of Fisheries, Government of Western Australia.


Page 6


• The translocation will use cages with 10 mm mesh, which will prevent the translocated mussels from escaping into the

relocation site and spreading in an uncontrolled manner.

• The species is not known to be subject to infectious diseases.

• Both the proposed action area and relocation site lie on the same river, with similar degraded water quality and riparian

condition, and a high degree of connectivity (i.e. no barriers to fish passage), therefore any aquatic pests or pathogens

present in one area are likely to be present in the other.

Apart from W. carteri, no other threatened aquatic species has been recorded in the Lower Vasse River. The river was surveyed in

2003 and 2004 to determine the distribution and abundance of fish (Morgan and Beatty 2004)8

. Sampling upstream and downstream of the proposed action area recorded common fish species, including native freshwater western pygmy perch (Edelia vittata) and nightfish (Bostockia porosa), and estuarine Swan River goby (Pseudogobius olorum) and western hardyhead (Leptatherina wallacei). No threatened fish species were recorded during the surveys. The surveys identified the Lower Vasse River to be heavy infested with introduced mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) and goldfish (Carassius auratus) which have become established due to the heavily altered riverine habitat and flow regime (Morgan and Beatty 2004).

The relocation site comprises degraded riverine habitat heavily infested with exotic grasses (see WCMP Figure 3) and is subject to an altered flow regime and high nutrient loading from the river’s agricultural catchment. The relocation site is not expected to support any other Matters of National Environmental Significance and the translocation program is not expected to cause impacts to other plant or fauna species of significance.

Post-release monitoring program

The WCMP incorporates a post-release monitoring program. Monitoring will occur at one, two and six months after restocking at the proposed action area, recording density and population structure (WCMP Table 2) and comparing against trigger values (WCMP Table 3). Contingency actions will be triggered in the event of a statistically significant reduction in population density or abnormal mussel mortality (WCMP Table 3).

Reports will be provided at six weeks and eight months following restocking, issued to DBCA under the Regulation 15 license and (if required) to the Department under the EPBC Act approval.

Contingency actions to address uncertainty

Irrespective of the suitability of the proposed relocation site and the expected low risk to translocated and host populations, the WCMP identifies a number of potential uncertainties:

• conditions at the relocation site are identified as no longer suitable prior to relocation (e.g. poor water quality, evidence of mortality of host population)

8

Morgan D and Beatty SJ 2004, Fish fauna of the Vasse River and the colonisation by feral goldfish (Carassius auratus), Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research (Murdoch University) report to Geocatch.


Page 7


• conditions at the relocation site decline unexpectedly (e.g. water emersion/drying, poor water quality, evidence of mortality of existing or translocated population, vandalism or human interference)

• extended period of impacted water quality at proposed action area requiring extension of the temporary relocation period causing chronic effects (e.g. reproduction, growth, disease, waste accumulation).

The WCMP (Table 2 and 3) addresses these uncertainties through includes monitoring prior to and during the translocation program to identify any impacts to the translocated and host population, and provides contingency actions in the event that trigger values are exceeded. The key contingency action is the relocation of the translocated population to a bio-secure facility at the Fish Health Unit at Murdoch University until conditions in the proposed action area are suitable for re-stocking.

2 – Western Ringtail Possum

2.1 The Department considers that clearing and construction activities associated with the proposed action will likely result in impacts to the Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) (WRP) through fragmentation of existing habitat linkages and clearing in a remnant patch of habitat that is greater than 0.5 ha in size. Given this, please provide the following information:

Noted as an introductory paragraph.

2.2 • further information on the potential alternatives to the proposed action and/or potential engineering or design controls that can be implemented to reduce/avoid the clearance of WRP habitat or better maintain habitat linkages for the species

Potential alternatives to proposed action

The proposed action is one component of a suite of complimentary road upgrades within Busselton, which collectively are termed the Busselton Strategic Network Corridors.

The Strategic Network Initiatives were developed based on the City’s Busselton Traffic Study Report Study, which comprised a process of investigation including several reports and workshops informed by traffic modelling.

The Busselton Traffic Study acknowledged the State Government’s plans for progressive, significant upgrades to the regional Main Roads network, but considered that population and economic growth would place increased pressure on key local roads including the town’s gateway entrance at Causeway Road Bridge and the intersections with Peel Terrace, Queen Street and Albert Street. These intersections are currently subject to significant congestion, particularly at times of peak tourism inflow such as Friday afternoons through much of the summer and prior to long weekends and major events throughout the rest of the year. This congestion is expected to become a daily and continuous occurrence (this is already starting to occur) based on the City’s growth excluding the seasonal variances.

On the basis of the above reasoning, the City has considered a program of road upgrades in the vicinity of Causeway Road as the priority for the short and medium term.

The proposed action is a priority, short term road upgrade on the basis that it will effectively divert traffic from and alleviate congestion at the town’s gateway entrance. The focus of the proposed action is to divert the traffic heading into the City to the eastern side of the CBD, carparks, the newly developed foreshore, caravan parks and sports grounds. The proposed action would


Page 8


also reduce congestion at the Causeway/Peel/Queen and Albert Street intersections thus improving traffic flow heading north and to the west.

Other road upgrades will be required over the medium to long term to alleviate traffic congestion across Busselton, however they are complimentary rather than alternatives to the proposed action.

Potential to vary the road alignment

There is limited flexibility to move the location of the proposed action away from WRP habitat, as the alignment is primarily dependent on providing the required road connection and associated traffic distribution. The WRP habitat runs as an east-west band parallel to the Vasse River, thus any crossing of the Vasse River would involve clearing of habitat. The proposed crossing point lies close to the existing Causeway Bridge over the Vasse River and within an existing recreational reserve bordered by active roads, thus the minimising the extent and impact to WRP habitat along the river.

Avoidance and reduction of clearing

As noted in the City’s letter to the Department dated 26 February 2018, the City carefully reviewed the proposed road design and construction works within the aim of minimising clearing in particular to habitat for WRP. The outcome of this review was a reduction in the extent of clearing from 17 down to seven mature Peppermint trees (Agonis flexuosa).

Maintenance of habitat linkages

The City has committed to establishing a rope bridge fauna overpass and vegetated underpass on the north and south sides of the Vasse River adjacent to the proposed action area, connecting to adjacent riparian vegetation. The provision of a fauna overpass and underpass for the proposed action was recommended by DBCA (Williams K., 2017, Regional Leader Nature Conservation,

pers. comm. 17 October) and local Non-Government Organisation FAWNA9

. Details of the bridge are discussed under 2.3 below.

The new road and bridge will have shuttered lighting to avoid light spill onto the adjacent riparian canopy, to improve utilisation of the rope bridge overpass by nocturnal fauna.

2.3 • the specific design, placement and likely usage by the WRP of the proposed faunal rope bridges discussed in the referral documentation, this should include information on how the faunal rope bridges will be integrated into the surrounding habitat to increase its use by arboreal species and a discussion on the likely effectiveness

Attachment G presents design drawings for the proposed fauna rope bridges. A total of four rope bridges will be provided (see General Arrangement, Drawing 809): one each running parallel to the river and crossing the new road on the north and south foreshores; and two bridges running perpendicular to and crossing the river, connecting to the rope bridges on the north and south foreshores. This approach will provide connectivity for the riparian canopy along the north and south foreshores, as well as providing connectivity between the two sides of the river to enhance utilisation of the riparian habitat. This approach to linking the two foreshore habitats has been supported by an independent researcher with experience monitoring previous WRP rope bridges in the South-West Region (Bencini R. 2018, University of Western Australia, School of Agriculture and Environment, pers. comm., 25 July).

The rope bridges will be suspended across the new road and river from four self-supporting poles that are appropriately anchored to resist the tensile forces of the ropes (see Possum Bridge Sections, Drawing 810). Ropes will be connected from the poles to the

9

https://www.fawna.com.au/


https://www.fawna.com.au/

Page 9


of this measure in maintaining habitat linkages

nearest mature Peppermint tree on the north foreshore, and the nearest native tree (e.g. juvenile Peppermint or Flooded Gum) on the south foreshore as there are no mature Peppermint trees present. The ropes will be free of tension from the poles, to avoid stress injury to the trees.

Each rope will be attached to a tree branch at least 100 mm in diameter, with healthy foliage, and at a height at least 3.0 m above ground to improve utilisation by arboreal species. The attachment of ropes to the trees will be directed and inspection by a qualified environmental professional with experience in WRP ecology.

The effectiveness of rope bridges to provide safe passage for WRP has been demonstrated for a rope bridge developed by Main

Roads WA on Caves Road west of Busselton (Bencini and Yokochi 201710

, Yokochi and Bencini 201511

). Monitoring indicated that the WRP began investigating the bridge during its construction, with the first complete crossing recorded at 36 days after installation. The frequency of crossings rose gradually over an eight month period, peaking at an average of approximately 12 complete crossings per night.

The monitoring of the Caves Road bridge indicated that WRP used the bridge at higher rates than previously reported for other possums and gliders, which may be a lack of avoidance behaviour towards unfamiliar objects and the less dense canopy of their habitat (Bencini and Yokochi 2017). The monitoring also indicated that two generations of possums used the bridge, which suggests it will be used over generations and help increase gene flow across the road. The researchers suggested that WRP can learn to use rope bridges quickly and that rope bridges have potential to be very effective mitigation against the impacts of roads to the species.

Monitoring at Caves Road indicated a lower frequency of crossings on brighter nights likely due to a higher risk of predation (Bencini and Yokochi 2017). The proposed action will incorporate shuttered lighting on the new road and bridge, to minimise light spill into the canopy and rope bridge, reduce the risk of predation and increase utilisation of the bridges.

2.4 • any other measures proposed to reduce the risk of WRP vehicle strike, including fencing and other barrier systems, and discussion of the likely effectiveness of these measures

The proposed action will incorporate traffic signs placed at the new roads north and south of the new bridge to warn motorists of potential fauna crossing, to reduce the potential for mortality of WRP crossing the new road.

Fencing is not incorporated into the design due to the urban location and existing cleared understorey, which increases the risk of predation from ground predators through barring WRP escape, concentrating WRP movements and creating predator ambush points.

10

Bencini R and Yokochi K, 2017, Bridging the gap for the western ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis): rope bridges provide safe passage across roads for a critically endangered marsupial, Conference Paper, 12 International Mammalogical Congress, Perth 2017.

11

Yokochi K and Bencini R, 2015, A remarkably quick habituation and high use of a rope bridge by an endangered marsupial, the western ringtail possum, In: Seiler A, Helldin J-O (Eds) Proceedings of IENE 2014 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Malmö, Sweden. Nature Conservation 11: 79–94. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.11.4385.


Page 10


2.5 • a commitment to ongoing monitoring and maintenance for the faunal rope bridges including a description on how it will be undertaken and information on the anticipated lifespan (and if necessary replacement regime for this infrastructure)

Attachment F includes the City of Busselton’s commitment to undertake ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the rope bridges as part of its asset management regime for roads and reserves. The rope bridges lie within and adjacent to recreational reserves vested in the City of Busselton, and will be regularly monitored by grounds maintenance staff, who will report any damage to the bridges.

Annual inspections will be undertaken over the life of the bridges, to detect any signs of wear or damage and undertake repairs as necessary.

The rope bridges will lie over an active road and river foreshore at the City’s gateway, which is subject to a high level of public visibility. Any damage or excessive wear of the bridges is expected to be noticed very quickly (within a day or so) by City staff or members of the public.

The lifetime of the poles is expected to be approximately 50 years or more. The lifetime of the ropes is expected to be at least 10 years. In the event of a damaged rope being reported, the timeframe for effecting a repair is estimated at 1-2 weeks, due to the simple construction and materials required, which can be contracted from the region or using the City’s workforce.

2.6 • details of pre-clearance surveys to be conducted to ensure WRP are not harmed during clearing.

Pre-clearance surveys will be conducted by a qualified fauna spotter/handler who is licensed under Regulation 15 of the WA Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970.

The pre-clearance surveys will be undertaken in accordance with DBCA procedures (formerly Parks and Wildlife, 2015).

The fauna spotter will attend the proposed clearing area the day before clearing commences to be familiar with the location of any WRP individuals and dreys. The fauna spotter will then provide advice and direction on fauna matters to the contractor/s undertaking the clearing.

The fauna spotter and clearing contractor/supervisor will inspect all trees to be removed and agree on a process and timing for clearing. The fauna spotter will also inspect the understorey where this is present fringing the river (the majority of the mature Peppermint trees have a cleared understorey). Trees that have WRP in them may need to be left to vacate the tree over the subsequent day. Clearing will be undertaken in a progressive pattern than encourages WRP to move to adjacent riparian habitat.

Should WRP remain in trees to be removed, the tree will be gently bumped or shaken to encourage the animal/s to move to adjacent trees to be retained. Should the animals be observed to remain in the tree, then the WRP will be removed by the fauna spotter, either through use of an elevated platform or by having the tree lowered to the ground. All WRP removed by the fauna spotter will be relocated into the adjacent riparian habitat, at least two trees away from the construction site.

Dreys will be inspected prior to clearing and removed if practicable. Any trees found with dreys will be lowered to the ground and immediately inspected by the fauna spotter in case baby WRP are present. They dreys will be removed from fallen trees to ensure that WRP do not move to vegetation stockpiles.

The fauna spotter will inspect all vegetation stockpiles prior to chipping, and will relocate any WRP individuals found residing to adjacent riparian habitat.

The City of Busselton will prepare a report on the WRP survey and translocation during clearing and submit to DBCA within 28 days of the completion of clearing works. This includes records of WRP observations, relocations, injuries (including the responsible rehabilitation or veterinarian surgery) and dreys.


Page 11


2.7 On the basis of this information, please discuss whether there is potential for ongoing impacts to the WRP as a result of the proposed action.

The clearing of mature Peppermint trees is limited to seven individuals at approximately 0.05 ha, representing a loss of approximately 10% of tree canopy of remnant and planted Peppermint trees (approximately 0.5 ha total of canopy over mostly cleared understorey) on the northern foreshore of the Vasse River between the Causeway Bridge to the west and Old Butter Factory to the east. The seven mature Peppermint trees to be cleared will be replaced with at least fourteen Peppermint trees (two trees planted for every mature tree cleared), located within the proposed action area and along the Vasse River.

Surveys in the proposed action area (Ecosystem Solutions 2017, as attached to the EPBC referral) indicate the presence of a small number of WRP individuals (about 2-4) inhabiting the riparian vegetation along the north and south foreshore. Given the small extent of clearing, a small number of WRP individuals (one or two) may require translocation. Any WRP requiring relocation will be released into the adjacent riparian habitat, which represents part of the translocated animals’ existing territory with the same plant species (mature Peppermint trees) present in similar condition. The translocation of a small number of animals into their adjacent territory and similar habitat is expected to be successful. Use of a fauna spotter and DBCA guidelines will reduce the risk of injury or death of WRP during clearing.

The merit of using rope bridges for the proposed action was confirmed through advice from DBCA as the State agency responsible for threatened fauna protection, FAWNA (a local environmental NGO) and a UWA researcher experienced in monitoring WRP rope bridges. Given the results of monitoring of the Caves Road bridge, the proposed approach to selecting and attaching to adjacent habitat trees, and use of shuttered street lighting, the rope bridges are expected to be successful in maintaining WRP movements along and between the north and south foreshores of the Vasse River.

The above avoidance, mitigation and rehabilitation measures are expected to minimise ongoing impacts to WRP by maintaining the habitat linkage, foraging resources and population along the Vasse River and minimising death through collision and predation.

3 – Consistency with relevant recovery plans, threat abatement plans and conservation advice

3.1 Demonstrate that the action is not inconsistent with any relevant recovery plan or threat abatement plan, and that any conservation advices have been considered, including (but not limited to):

• Department of Parks and Wildlife (2017). Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) Recovery Plan. Wildlife Management Program No. 58. Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth, WA.

• Department of the Environment (2013). Approved Conservation Advice for Pseudocheirus occidentalis (western ringtail possum). Canberra: Department of the Environment.

• Department of the Environment (2015). Threat abatement plan for

Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) Recovery Plan (DPaW 2017)

Objective 1: Habitat critical for survival for western ringtail possums is identified and protected in each key management zone

• Proposed action is consistent with Action 1.2: Identify and implement effective strategies to achieve the protection of higher ranked habitat, on public and private land.

• The proposed action incorporates effective strategies to protect WRP habitat, including minimising clearing, replanting Peppermint trees, provision of fauna overpasses and underpasses, shuttered street lighting and fauna crossing signs.

• Other actions are not relevant to the proposed action.

Objective 2: Threatening processes that are constraining the recovery of western ringtail possums are mitigated in each key management zone

• Not relevant to the proposed action.

Objective 3: An evidence-based approach is applied to the management and recovery of western ringtail possums

• Not relevant to the proposed action.

Objective 4: The management of displaced, orphaned, injured and rehabilitated western ringtail possums aids the conservation outcome for the species

• Proposed action is consistent with Action 4.2: Where the need to relocate animals is unavoidable, develop protocols and standard operating procedures.

• The proposed action will utilise DBCA procedures for any relocation of WRP individuals during construction

• Other actions are not relevant to the proposed action.


Page 12


predation by feral cats. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

• Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008). Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox. DEWHA, Canberra.

• Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2018). Conservation Advice Westralunio carteri Carter's freshwater mussel. Canberra: Department of the Environment and Energy.

Approved Conservation Advice for Pseudocheirus occidentalis (western ringtail possum) (DotE 2013)

The proposed action is consistent with the following management actions:

• Statutory and local government planning approvals, including conditions placed on developments to deal with the impacts on the western ringtail possum. The primary objective is to reduce the direct and indirect threat to western ringtail possum from developments by retaining and protecting habitat (particularly older growth peppermint trees).

• Relocation of WRPs at risk from development sites, as an action of last resort, to prevent mortality.

• Review of habitat availability that provides a basis for the identification, protection and enhancement of key habitats, and is used for informing environmental impact assessment of development proposals.

• Protect and effectively manage habitat critical for survival to maintain viable subpopulations, including ongoing implementation of strategies to reduce and mitigate the effect of development on the species and its habitat.

• Manage displaced, orphaned, injured and rehabilitated western ringtail possums for the best conservation outcome for the species; including development of rehabilitation protocols, standard operating procedures and improving husbandry techniques to ensure best-practice rehabilitation and to maximise survival after release to the wild, and criteria to select appropriate release sites and monitoring of strategic sites to quantify rehabilitation success.

• Investigate the efficacy of (e.g. trial and implement) rope bridges to mitigate road mortality in different situations, particularly in areas with high numbers of vehicle impacts reported and habitat fragmentation.

The proposed action will implement the management actions through:

• minimising clearing to mature Peppermint trees

• relocation (if required) of WRPs from construction areas

• ecological survey (Ecosystem Solutions 2017) that identified WRP habitat for protection and enhancement

• protection and management of WRP habitat through minimising clearing, provision of fauna overpasses and underpasses, shuttered lighting and WRP crossing warning signs

• relocation of WRP undertaken by a qualified fauna spotter, licenced under Regulation 15 and in accordance with DBCA guidelines

• installation of rope bridges across an active road.

Other management and research actions identified or recommended in the Conservation Advice are not relevant to the proposed action.

Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats (DotE 2015)

Objective 1: Effectively control feral cats in different landscapes

• Actions not relevant to proposed action.

Objective 2: Improve effectiveness of existing control options for feral cats


Objective 3: Develop or maintain alternative strategies for threatened species recovery


Objective 4: Increase public support for feral cat management and promote responsible cat ownership



Page 13


While the threat abatement plan is not directly relevant to the proposed action, consideration has been given to the very high to extreme threat rating posed by feral cats to WRP (DotE 2015). The proposed action seeks to maximise WRP use of the tree canopy to avoid predation by ground predators, through provision of fauna rope bridges to connect canopy along and between the north and south foreshores. The proposed action also avoids fencing along the road that may increase the risk of predation.

Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox (DEWHA 2008)

Objective 1: Prevent foxes occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate foxes from high-conservation-value ‘islands’


Objective 2: Promote the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological communities that are affected by fox predation


Objective 3: Improve knowledge and understanding of fox impacts and interactions with other species and other ecological processes


Objective 4: Improve the effectiveness, target specificity, integration and humaneness of control options for foxes


While the threat abatement plan is not directly relevant to the proposed action, consideration has been given to the threat posed by the red fox to WRP (DotE 2015). The proposed action seeks to maximise WRP use of the tree canopy to avoid predation by ground predators, through provision of fauna rope bridges to connect canopy along and between the north and south foreshores. The proposed action also avoids fencing along the road that may increase the risk of predation.

Conservation Advice Westralunio carteri Carter's freshwater mussel (TSSC 2018)

The proposed action is consistent with the following management requirements in the Threatened Species Nomination Form:

• Maintain shading riparian vegetation … revegetate where necessary; avoid clearing along waterways;

• Reduce nutrient runoff; utilize nutrient-stripping technologies to intercept nutrients before they enter the waterways.

The proposed action will implement the management requirements through:

• maintenance of shading riparian vegetation, through minimising clearing and replanting cleared mature Peppermint trees

• provision of biofiltration gardens to treat stormwater runoff including nutrient attenuation, consistent with DWER design guidelines and advice.

Other management and research actions identified or recommended in the Conservation Advice are not relevant to the proposed action.

4 & 5 – Offsets

4 To the extent that impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated, provide details of any offset(s)

The proposed action is not expected to cause residual significant impacts on EPBC Act listed species or ecological communities, due to the provision of avoidance and mitigation measures as noted under Items 1 and 2 above.

The proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on WRP (Vulnerable) due to:


Page 14


intended to compensate for residual significant impacts on EPBC Act listed species and

ecological communities (if any), including:

o the type of offset/s proposed

o the extent to which the proposed offset correlates to, and adequately compensates for, the residual significant impacts of the proposed action on EPBC Act listed species and communities

o the suitability of the location of any proposed offset site for EPBC Act listed species and communities

o the conservation gain to be achieved by the offset i.e. positive management strategies that improve the site or averting the future loss, degradation or damage of the protected matter

o the time it will take to achieve the proposed conservation gain

o the level of certainty that the proposed offset will be successful

o the current land tenure of any proposed land-based offset and the method of securing

o and managing that offset for 20 years or the period of the impact (whichever is less).

• minimising clearing, replanting and provision of fauna bridges/underpasses that are expected to maintain the area and connectivity of habitat, avoiding a decline, contraction or fragmentation of an important population

• the small scale of habitat clearing and provision of mitigation being unlikely to result in the species declining or disruption to the breeding cycle of an important population

• clearing a small portion of a 0.5 ha patch of canopy (2-3 trees wide) with cleared understorey and bordered by existing arterial/distributor roads which is not expected to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species or impact an important population

• provision of hygiene management and construction occurring within an existing public recreation reserve (with introduced grasses subject to regularly mowing and pedestrian/pet access) are unlikely to introduce an invasive species or disease.

It is noted that while the listing status for WRP was upgraded to Critically Endangered on 11 May 2018, at the time of the referral decision the species was listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act and therefore the WRP Vulnerable status is relevant for the assessment (due to Section 158A of the EPBC Act).

The proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on W. carteri (Vulnerable) due to:

• best practice water quality management that preserves riverine habitat, avoiding a population decline, contraction or fragmentation

• small scale of habitat disturbance and provision of construction mitigation being unlikely to result in the species declining or disruption to the breeding cycle of a population

• translocation program that avoids reduction in a population size or introduction of a disease (either in the translocated or host population)

• predominantly terrestrial construction program with no importation of river/estuarine water from elsewhere is highly unlikely to introduce an aquatic pest or disease

• provision of hygiene management and construction occurring within an existing public recreation reserve are unlikely to introduce an invasive species of riparian vegetation that could impact the species.

Based on the above, the City do not propose to offer offsets for the proposed action.


Page 15


5 Demonstrate how any proposed offset is consistent with the Department's EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (October 2012). If relevant this should include the submission of a completed Offsets Assessment Guide for any proposed offset area including further discussion/justification of the figures used to complete the offset calculations.

Not applicable.

Social and Economic matters

6 Please provide further detail on the social and economic costs and/or benefits of undertaking the proposed action, including:

o basis for any estimations of costs and/or benefits

o potential employment opportunities expected to be generated at each phase of the proposed action

o details of any public and stakeholder consultation activities, including the outcomes.

Estimations of costs and/or benefits

Construction costs have been estimated based on engineering design and current industry rates provided by the construction industry.

In terms of project justification, Busselton experiences peak traffic conditions during holiday periods and these are forecast to grow with population and tourism growth. Busselton’s population has grown by 21% from 2006 to 2011, with a forecast rise to 42,000 in 2026 and 54,000 in 2036. The benefits of the proposed action in reducing traffic congestion are demonstrated through traffic modelling, which are viewable as videos as well as tabular summaries (see Fact Sheet 1 – Traffic Growth and Management) on the

City website12

. In summary, the modelling indicates that the proposed action will reduce traffic by approximately 27% to 37% at the Causeway Road / Queen Street intersection and in Peel Terrace. Modelling also indicates that without the proposed action, Busselton will experience network gridlock by 2036.

Potential employment opportunities

The proposed action is intended primarily as a public/ social benefit for the purposes of alleviating existing and forecast worsening traffic in Busselton. The improved traffic conditions are expected to maintain the attractiveness of Busselton as a tourist destination, which is expected to have broader economic benefits and stimulate employment in the tourism industry, however the proposed action in of itself is not intended as an employment generating activity.

Public and stakeholder consultation

The City has undertaken a number of rounds of consultation on the proposed action, including:

1. Government agencies (meetings and/or emails) including:

• DBCA:WRP and W. carteri management, samphire condition/rehabilitation, Vasse River delta wetlands, waterbirds

12

https://www.busselton.wa.gov.au/Developing-Busselton/Priority-Projects/Eastern-Link-Project


https://www.busselton.wa.gov.au/Developing-Busselton/Priority-Projects/Eastern-Link-Project

Page 16


• DWER: stormwater/spill and ASS/MBO management, Vasse Estuary tidal/saltwater influence, approvals for bed/banks work and groundwater abstraction

• State Heritage Office: impacts to State heritage listed buildings.

2. Aboriginal consultation, including written notification to the South West Land and Sea Council (SWALSC) on 23 May 2017, and

ethnographic survey involving consultation with a team of ten Aboriginal representatives selected by SWALSC.

3. Stakeholder consultation sessions involving tailored letter invitations to the following key stakeholders to attend briefings and

Q&A sessions at City offices on 28 and 30 November 2017:

• Busselton Chamber of Commerce and Industry

• Geographe Catchment Council

• St Mary’s Anglican Church

• Busselton Historical Society

• FAWNA

• Possum Centre Busselton Inc

• Busselton-Dunsborough Environment Centre

• Busselton and Districts Residents' Association Inc

• Busselton Volunteer Fire & Rescue Service

• Residents/business owners in nearby streets.

4. Public advertisement in the Busselton-Dunsborough Times on 15 November 2017 and the City of Busselton Facebook page

inviting members of the public to a briefing and feedback session held at the City offices on 5 December 2017.

5. A slide show was presented during the three briefing and feedback sessions, including a Q&A session at the end, and

factsheets available for all attendees. Attendees were encouraged to provide written submissions to the City and advised that

the Proposal was to be referred to the EPA and Commonwealth DEE and that submissions could be made when the referrals

were advertised by those agencies.

6. Factsheets for the Eastern Link and other road upgrades were made available on the City of Busselton website13

and hard

copies in the City offices foyer.

7. A total of 21 attendees were recorded on 28 and 30 November 2017 sessions, and a total of 64 attendees recorded on 5

December 2017. The matters raised by attendees during the information sessions were recorded and responded to in the s38

referral documentation submitted to the EPA. The matters raised included Western Ringtail Possum habitat, amenity,

preference for Ford Road, and traffic planning / other road upgrade options.

8. It is understood that a total of 61 submissions were made during the public comment period on the EPA referral. The matters

raised included Western Ringtail Possum habitat, amenity, preference for Ford Road, and traffic planning / other road

upgrades.

13

Ibid.


Page 17


9. Three appeals were made against the EPA decision to not assess the proposed action. The matters raised included

preference for Ford Road, amenity, traffic planning / other road upgrades, Western Ringtail Possum habitat and Carters

Freshwater Mussel. The appeals were dismissed by the WA Minister for the Environment on 27 August 201814

.

10. Key outcomes of the consultation included:

• reduction in clearing footprint, with clearing of mature Peppermint trees reduced from 17 to seven

• replanting Peppermint trees at the rate of at least two per mature tree cleared

• provision and design of fauna overpasses and underpasses

• comprehensive and risk based scope for the WCMP to guide translocation

• provision of cultural monitoring by Aboriginal representatives during construction.

14

https://www.appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au/busselton-eastern-link-project


https://www.appealsconvenor.wa.gov.au/busselton-eastern-link-project


Page 18

Attachment B: Construction Environmental Management Plan



Busselton Eastern Link Project

Construction Environmental Management Plan

Prepared for

City of Busselton

by Strategen

January 2018




Construction Environmental Management Plan

Strategen is a trading name of

Strategen Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd

Level 1, 50 Subiaco Square Road Subiaco WA 6008

ACN: 056 190 419

January 2018


Limitations Scope of services

This report (“the report”) has been prepared by Strategen Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd (Strategen) in accordance

with the scope of services set out in the contract, or as otherwise agreed, between the Client and Strategen. In some

circumstances, a range of factors such as time, budget, access and/or site disturbance constraints may have limited the

scope of services. This report is strictly limited to the matters stated in it and is not to be read as extending, by

implication, to any other matter in connection with the matters addressed in it.

Reliance on data

In preparing the report, Strategen has relied upon data and other information provided by the Client and other

individuals and organisations, most of which are referred to in the report (“the data”). Except as otherwise expressly

stated in the report, Strategen has not verified the accuracy or completeness of the data. To the extent that the

statements, opinions, facts, information, conclusions and/or recommendations in the report (“conclusions”) are based in

whole or part on the data, those conclusions are contingent upon the accuracy and completeness of the data.

Strategen has also not attempted to determine whether any material matter has been omitted from the data. Strategen

will not be liable in relation to incorrect conclusions should any data, information or condition be incorrect or have been

concealed, withheld, misrepresented or otherwise not fully disclosed to Strategen. The making of any assumption does

not imply that Strategen has made any enquiry to verify the correctness of that assumption.

The report is based on conditions encountered and information received at the time of preparation of this report or the

time that site investigations were carried out. Strategen disclaims responsibility for any changes that may have

occurred after this time. This report and any legal issues arising from it are governed by and construed in accordance

with the law of Western Australia as at the date of this report.

Environmental conclusions

Within the limitations imposed by the scope of services, the preparation of this report has been undertaken and

performed in a professional manner, in accordance with generally accepted environmental consulting practices. No

other warranty, whether express or implied, is made.

Client: City of Busselton

Report Version Revision

No. Purpose

Strategen author/reviewer

Submitted to Client

Form Date

Draft Report A For client review D White / H Morgan Electronic 5 January 2018

Final Report 0 For submission with EPA referral

D White / H Morgan Electronic 5 January 2018

Filename: CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0 - 5 January 2018


Executive Summary

CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 i

Executive Summary

This Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been prepared to support referral of the

Busselton Eastern Link Project (the Proposal) under s 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP

Act). The CEMP demonstrates that appropriate management measures will be in place during

construction of the Proposal to ensure that the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA’s) objectives for

key environmental factors will be achieved.

Table ES-1 provides a summary of the preliminary key environmental factors, objectives and CEMP

provisions for the Proposal.

Table ES-1: Construction environmental management summary

Required information Response

Title of proposal Busselton Eastern Link Project

Proponent name City of Busselton

Purpose of the CEMP To support referral of the Proposal under s 38 of the EP Act and demonstrate that appropriate management measures will be in place during construction to ensure that the EPA’s objectives for key environmental factors will be achieved.

Preliminary key environmental factors and CEMP objectives

Flora and Vegetation

• Minimise impacts to flora and vegetation outside of Development Envelope as far as practicable.

Terrestrial Environmental Quality

• Minimise impacts from acid sulfate soils, monosulfidic black ooze and site contamination as far as is practicable.

Terrestrial Fauna

• Minimise impacts to terrestrial fauna during construction as far as practicable

Inland Waters Environmental Quality

• Minimise impacts to water quality and aquatic ecology of Lower Vasse River and Vasse River Delta Wetlands as far as is practicable.

Social Surroundings

• Minimise disturbance to nearby residential, commercial and heritage properties and impacts to amenity of Vasse River and wetlands as far as is practicable.

Key provisions in the CEMP

Management target 1:

• No environmental impacts occur that are attributable to lack of awareness in construction personnel.


• No native vegetation is cleared outside of designated clearing areas.


• No construction vehicle or plant access occurs outside of designated access tracks / areas.


• Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan targets are met.


• No weed infestation present within Development Envelope at the completion of construction.


• Acid Sulfate Soil and Dewatering Management Plan targets are met.


• Monosulfidic Black Ooze Management Plan (if required) targets are met.


• All suspected contamination is characterised and appropriately managed.


• No mortality of threatened, priority or migratory fauna species during clearing works.


• All fauna identified as injured, abandoned or visibly distressed is handled by a qualified fauna spotter / catcher or in accordance with DBCA wildcare hotline instruction.


Executive Summary

CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 ii

Required information Response


• No mortality of threatened, priority or migratory fauna species in trenches or excavations.


• Turbidity of Vasse River outside of silt curtains remains comparable to reference point upstream.


• No noticeable sediment deposition in wetlands adjacent to Development Envelope.


• No spills or leaks of hazardous materials or wastes enter the Vasse River, Vasse River Delta Wetlands or groundwater.


• Translocation management targets for Carters Freshwater Mussel are met.


• No complaints received due to lack of notification of property owners.


• All complaints received are documented and responded to within 24 hours for severe impacts and five business days for minor impacts.


• No repetitive / sustained complaints received due to dust, noise or traffic and parking impacts.


• Any burials uncovered during excavation works are managed in accordance with directions of Aboriginal cultural monitors.


Table of Contents

CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0 7-Jan-18

Table of contents

1. Context, scope and rationale 2 1.1 Proposal 2 1.2 Key environmental factors 5 1.3 Rationale and approach 6

1.3.1 Survey and study findings 6 1.3.2 Key assumptions and uncertainties 6 1.3.3 Management approach 6 1.3.4 Rationale for choice of provisions 6

2. CEMP provisions 7

3. Adaptive management and review of the CEMP 21

4. Stakeholder consultation 23

5. References 24

List of tables Table 1: Key environmental factors, construction activities and site characteristics 5 Table 2: CEMP provisions – Flora and Vegetation 8 Table 3: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Environmental Quality 10 Table 4: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Fauna 11 Table 5: CEMP provisions – Inland Waters Environmental Quality 13 Table 6: CEMP provisions – Social Surroundings 17 Table 7: Adaptive management for CEMP provisions 21

List of figures Figure 1: Proposal location 3 Figure 2: Proposal layout 4



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 2

1. Context, scope and rationale This Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been prepared to support referral of the

Busselton Eastern Link Project under s 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). The CEMP

demonstrates that appropriate management measures will be in place during construction of the Proposal

to ensure that the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA’s) objectives for key environmental factors will

be achieved.

The CEMP has also been prepared in accordance with Instructions on how to prepare Environmental Protection Act 1986 Part IV Environmental Management Plans (EPA 2017).

1.1 Proposal

This CEMP addresses the scope of the Proposal as presented in the Environmental Review Document

(Strategen 2018) that supports the s 38 referral. A summary of the Proposal is presented below.

The City of Busselton propose to construct a new two-lane road crossing linking Causeway Road to

Cammilleri Street including a new bridge over the Vasse River in Busselton, Western Australia (‘the

Proposal’). The Proposal is located directly south of the Busselton CBD and approximately 1 km from the

coastline of Geographe Bay (Figure 1).

The new bridge will have a width of 12 m and a span of 22 m between abutments. The new road will run

approximately 240 m in length to connect Causeway Road to Cammilleri Street. The Proposal involves

clearing of approximately 0.56 ha of native vegetation over a total disturbance envelope of approximately

2.64 ha (Figure 2).

The Proposal will be constructed over a period of 12 to 18 months and involve the following key activities:

• establish construction compound south of Rotary Par

• construct road embankment south of the river using imported fill material

• remove soft silt and mud from river banks and bed and construct temporary platforms into the river

• drive pre-cast concrete piles into the river banks then construct reinforced concrete abutments on

top of the piles

• construct temporary hard stand near the river’s southern bank to provide crane access

• lay large steel girders between abutments using a crane on the river’s southern bank

• construct reinforced concrete bridge deck on top of steel girders, and concrete slabs on north and

south approaches

• construct asphalt pavements, vehicle / cyclist barriers, kerbing, stormwater drainage and bio-

filtration gardens

• install lighting and electrical services

• provide landscaping and erosion protection, including fauna under-passage and planting of

Peppermint (Agonis flexuosa) trees

• remove temporary hard stand, construction platforms and construction compound.

Construction vehicle access will use Causeway Road as much as possible and minimise use of Causeway

Bridge and Peel Terrace. Construction will be limited to between 7:00am to 7:00pm Monday to Friday, with

construction on Saturdays by exception and limited to between 7:00am to 7:00pm. No construction works

will be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.


GEOGRAPHE BAY

BROADWATER

BUSSELTONCBD

GEOGRAPHE

PORTGEOGRAPHE

VASSE RIVERDELTA WETLANDS

NEW RIVER

VASSE ESTUARYVASSE RIVER

(LOWER)

VASSE

DIVERSION DRAIN

AMBERGATE

FAIRLAWN

YALYALUP

BUSSELTON -MARGARET RIVER

REGIONAL AIRPORT

VASSE RIVER(UPPER)

VASSE HWY

LAYMANRD

MARINE TCE

LINDB

ERG R

DBUSSELL HWY

CHAPMAN HILL RD

QUEEN ELIZABETH AV

KENT ST

WEST

ST

PEEL TCE

ACTO

N PA

RK R

D

OLS EN R D

COLLEGE AV

PINNACLE AV

GEOGRAPHE BAY RD (EAST)

AMBERGATE RD

MORAVA DR

STRELLYST

F ORDR D

DORSET STHARRIS RD

FAIR

WAY D

R

BUSSELTON BYPA

RENDEZVOUS RD

C OO K ST

MOLL

OY ST

KOOKABURRA WY

GALE

ST

BLUM BVD

HIGH

ST

ST ANDREWS L

BARRACKS DR

LANCASTER DR

AURELIAN AV

SANTONS APP

IRONS RD

KE E L RTT

TUART DR

LANE B

DUKE ST

JO S EPH DR

MILL

RD

LINDSAYDR

GORDON RD

BARLEE ST

ESTUARY WATERS DR

MELALEUCA DR

AVOCET BVD

HAY SHED RD

EVERWOOD GLD

SOUTH ST

ALMOND PWY

AN GUS CL

GEOGRAPHE BAY RD (TOWN)

SPINNAKER BVD

KOORDEN PL

LYDDY RD

PORT

L

NEVILLE ST

MANSON ST

FAIRLAWN RD (LIA)

WEBST

ER RD

CABL

E SAN

DS R

D

APEX

RISE

JENSEN WY

RECREATION L

AMBERGATE RD

BUSSELL HWYBUSSELL HWY

C:\GIS\Jobs\Strategen\CIB16605.01 R006 - Busselton Eastern Link Project - Construction Environmental Management Plan\Figures\CIB16605-01_R006_RevA_F01_180104.mxd

Figure1

Busselton Eastern Link ProjectConstruction Environmental Management Plan

Proposal Location

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 20.2km

Scale: 1:50,000 @ A4

LegendProposal LocationRoadWatercourse

¹

Crea

ted by

ENVIR

ONMA

PS |

p

: 040

6 590

006

e: sim

oncro

fts@

envir

onma

ps.co

m.au

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Note: Position errors may occur in some areasDate: 4/01/2018Author: ENVIRONMAPSSource: Ortho - Nearmaps


VASSE RIVER

ROTARYPARK

VASSE RIVERDELTA WETLANDSVASSE RIVER

DELTA WETLANDS

FOOTBRIDGE

CAUSEWAYBRIDGE OLD RAILWAY

EMBANKMENT

PEEL TCE

CAUSEWAY RD

HARRIS RD

SOUTH

ERN DR

STANLEY PL BROWN STALBERT ST

CAMMILLERI ST

PRINCE STTAYLOR CL

YATE L

QUEEN ST

42

45

68

37

44

38

46

502

502

1

353

3

1

31

69

340 4

230

77

1

1

10

11

1

5

4 19

26

1

100

220

9

2

7

4

1

11

187

7

9

1

5

5

8

106

22

101

16

27

17

26

1817

49

3239

21

12

10

48

61

2

38

17

16

25

500

1

19

1

25

62

20

19

14

6

11

20

1

1

12 13

19

2

14

32

33

34

32

226

10

101

110

15

1341 342 343

34

337338339

100

251

19

63

11 40

328

2

312326

107

190

102

108

30

100

3

3 62

64

12

2

417

6

14

73

40

35

11

109

170

38

15355356

17501

15

3

3

123

31 10

501

461

3380

55

37

14

16

15

19

C:\GIS\Jobs\Strategen\CIB16605.01 R006 - Busselton Eastern Link Project - Construction Environmental Management Plan\Figures\CIB16605-01_R006_RevA_F02_180104.mxd

Figure2

Busselton Eastern Link ProjectConstruction Environmental Management Plan

Proposal DevelopmentEnvelope and Layout

0 25 50 75 100 12512.5m

Scale: 1:3,000 @ A4

LegendDevelopment EnvelopeCadastreProposed Road and Bridge Layout

¹

Crea

ted by

ENVIR

ONMA

PS |

p

: 040

6 590

006

e: sim

oncro

fts@

envir

onma

ps.co

m.au

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50Note: Position errors may occur in some areasDate: 4/01/2018Author: ENVIRONMAPSSource: Ortho - Nearmaps, 06.02.17



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 5

1.2 Key environmental factors

Six preliminary key environmental factors are identified in the referral for the Proposal, as follows:

1. Flora and Vegetation.

2. Terrestrial Environmental Quality.

3. Terrestrial Fauna.

4. Hydrological Processes.

5. Inland Waters Environmental Quality.

6. Social Surroundings.

Of these factors, Hydrological Processes is identified with respect to potential impacts during operations,

with impacts during construction expected to be insignificant (Strategen 2018). Accordingly, this CEMP does

not include provisions for Hydrological Processes.

Table 1 presents the five preliminary key environmental factors relevant to construction, the Proposal

activities that would affect the factors and the site-specific environmental values, uses and sensitive

components that will be affected.

Table 1: Key environmental factors, construction activities and site characteristics

Preliminary key environmental factor

Proposal construction activities that would affect the factor

Site specific environment values, uses and sensitive components

Flora and Vegetation

• Clearing of up to 0.56 ha of native vegetation.

• Soil erosion and sediment.

• Storage and handling of hazardous materials and wastes.

• Vegetation comprises planted and remnant vegetation varying in condition from completely degraded to very good, representing 0.01% of estimated remaining extent of Vasse vegetation complex.

• No threatened or priority ecological communities or flora species will be impacted.

Terrestrial Environmental Quality

• Excavation, dewatering and dredging of riverine sediments.



• Presence of acid sulfate soils (ASS) on land and potential presence of monosulfidic black ooze (MBO) in river sediments.

Terrestrial Fauna • Clearing of up to 0.56 ha of native vegetation including up to 17 Peppermint trees (0.1 ha).

• Construction vehicle movements.

• Construction plant operation.



• Peppermint trees comprise habitat for threatened species Western Ringtail Possum.

• Western Ringtail Possums identified during fauna survey.

• No significant habitat for Black Cockatoos, with no roosting or breeding trees.

• Potential waterbird habitat in Vasse River and Vasse River Delta Wetlands adjacent / downstream to Proposal.

Inland Waters Environmental Quality

• Excavation, dewatering and dredging of riverine sediments.



• Threatened species Carters Freshwater Mussel located in Vasse River within bridge footprint.

• Vasse River has poor water quality and low fish species diversity. No threatened fish species recorded in surveys.

• Vasse River mapped as a conservation category wetland. Adjacent Vasse River Delta Wetlands mapped as multiple use wetlands.

• Potential presence of MBO in river sediments.



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 6

Preliminary key environmental factor

Proposal construction activities that would affect the factor

Site specific environment values, uses and sensitive components

Social Surroundings

• Construction vehicle movements.

• Construction plant operation including pile driving.



• Residential and commercial properties in the vicinity.

• Vasse River foreshore comprises public open space and connections to walk trails.

• State heritage listed buildings (St Mary’s Anglican Church and Old Butter Factory) in the vicinity.

• No Aboriginal heritage sites present.

• Potential for burials on northern bank of river.

1.3 Rationale and approach

The CEMP provisions have been developed with consideration of the key environmental factor objectives,

the findings of surveys and studies, and the environmental risks posed by the Proposal construction

activities.

1.3.1 Survey and study findings

This CEMP has been prepared with consideration of the following site specific environmental investigations:

• Reconnaissance Flora, Vegetation and Fauna Survey (Ecosystem Solutions 2017)

• Detailed Flora and Vegetation Survey (Strategen 2017a)

• Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report (Strategen 2017a)

• Baseline assessment of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel (Beatty et al. 2017)

• Report of an Aboriginal Heritage Survey (Brad Goode & Associates 2017).

The reports and findings from these environmental investigations are provided in the Environmental Review

Document (Strategen 2018) supporting the Proposal referral. The key findings are summarised in Table 1.

1.3.2 Key assumptions and uncertainties

Key uncertainties include the following:

• seasonal usage of wetlands by migratory waterbirds

• potential horizontal and vertical variation in ASS properties and specific properties in excavation

and dewatering areas may potentially vary from those in investigation bores

• presence and characteristics of MBO within the Development Envelope remain uncertain

• presence of subsurface burials along the Vasse River banks remain uncertain.

To address these uncertainties the CEMP adopts a conservative approach to protecting wetlands, managing

ASS and MBO, and monitoring for subsurface burials.

1.3.3 Management approach

This CEMP adopts a risk based approach to identify and prioritise actions, which addresses the key

environmental values, uses and sensitive components summarised in Table 1.

1.3.4 Rationale for choice of provisions

This CEMP adopts provisions based on industry standard practices for minimisation and rehabilitation of

environmental impacts during construction. The provisions reflect the potential for intermittent, episodic and

acute impacts posed by construction activities, such as un-authorised clearing, dust emissions during high

winds, or accidental spills of hazardous materials or wastes.



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 7

2. CEMP provisions This section of the CEMP presents the proposed provisions for environmental management during

construction of the Proposal. The CEMP provisions represent the Proponent’s commitments for

environmental management and demonstrate that construction activities will be appropriately managed to

achieve the EPA’s objectives for the key environmental factors identified for the Proposal.

This CEMP utilises management-based provisions. The selection of management based provisions rather

than outcome based provisions is due to the Proposal construction activities posing environmental risks that

are generally intermittent, episodic or acute impact events that are less applicable to objective measurement

and reporting.



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 8

Table 2: CEMP provisions – Flora and Vegetation

EPA factor objective: To protect flora and vegetation so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained.

CEMP objective: Minimise impacts to flora and vegetation outside of Development Envelope as far as practicable.

Key environmental values: Riparian vegetation and samphire surrounding Proposal is representative of Vasse vegetation complex and provides habitat for threatened and migratory species.

Key impacts and risks:

• clearing beyond the defined clearing areas of Development Envelope

• introducing and/or spreading weeds and dieback

• soil erosion and sediment discharge

• accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials or wastes

Management actions Management targets

Monitoring Reporting

Induct all construction personnel in:

• avoiding clearing and access outside designated areas, particularly clearing of Peppermint trees

• reporting all un-authorised clearing and access.

Risk priority: High

Timing: Prior to construction commencing

No environmental impacts occur that are attributable to lack of awareness in construction personnel.

Induction records. Post-construction report.

Clearly mark all clearing areas on construction drawings and on the ground (e.g. pegging) and ensure areas of vegetation nominated to be excluded from clearing (e.g. mature trees where practicable) are visually identifiable to construction personnel.

Risk priority: High

Timing: Prior to clearing

No native vegetation is cleared outside of designated clearing areas.

Visual inspection of boundaries of clearing areas for evidence of un-authorised clearing.

Daily inspection during clearing works.

Weekly inspection once clearing is completed.

Post-construction report.

Report of all un-authorised clearing.

Restrict all construction vehicle and plant access to designated access tracks / areas.

Risk priority: High

Timing: At all times

No construction vehicle or plant access occurs outside of designated access tracks / areas.

Visual inspection of boundaries of designated access tracks / areas for evidence of un-authorised access.


Report of all un-authorised access.

Undertake re-planting and rehabilitation of vegetation in accordance with a Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan approved by Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.

Risk priority: Moderate

Timing: to be specified in Revelation and Rehabilitation Plan

Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan success criteria are met.

As specified in Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan

As specified in Revegetation and Rehabilitation Plan

Ensure all imported fill, soil, mulch, plants and seedlings used on site are certified weed and dieback free.

Risk priority: High


No weed infestation present within Development Envelope at the completion of construction.

Reconciliation of earthworks and landscaping against delivery certification.




CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 9

EPA factor objective: To protect flora and vegetation so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained.

CEMP objective: Minimise impacts to flora and vegetation outside of Development Envelope as far as practicable.

Key environmental values: Riparian vegetation and samphire surrounding Proposal is representative of Vasse vegetation complex and provides habitat for threatened and migratory species.


• clearing beyond the defined clearing areas of Development Envelope

• introducing and/or spreading weeds and dieback



Management actions Management targets

Monitoring Reporting

Control all weed outbreaks within construction area using mechanical or chemical means. All use of herbicides to be approved by the City Representative.


Timing: throughout construction.


Weekly inspection of construction area for weed infestation.


All construction plant and vehicles entering the construction compound and construction work areas to be free of soil, plant and organic material.

All plant and vehicles found to contain soil, plant or organic material to be turned away for washing off-site or else washed down at the construction compound with washwater draining into a sump. Sump contents to be regularly cleaned out and disposed of at a licenced landfill.

Risk priority: High



Inspection of all construction plant and vehicles upon entry to the construction compound or construction works areas.

Inspection to include tyres, underside and earthmoving components.

Report all incoming plant and vehicles washed to remove soil, plant or organic material.

Soil erosion and sediment controls as specified in Table 5: CEMP provisions – Inland Waters Environmental Quality

See Table 5 See Table 5 See Table 5

Hazardous materials and waste management as specified in Table 5: CEMP provisions – Inland Waters Environmental Quality




CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 10

Table 3: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Environmental Quality

EPA factor objective: To maintain the quality of land and soils so that environmental values are protected.

CEMP objective: Minimise impacts from acid sulfate soils, monosulfidic black ooze and site contamination as far as is practicable.

Key environmental values: Development Envelope lies in proximity to wetlands that support threatened Carters Freshwater Mussel and migratory waterbird habitat.


• excavation and dewatering of acid sulfate soils or contaminated material

• dredging of riverine sediments potentially containing monosulfidic black ooze


• excavation of unexpected contamination


Management actions Management targets Monitoring Reporting


• reporting all suspected contamination encountered during earthworks.



All staff inducted. Induction records. Post-construction report.

Undertake excavation and dewatering in accordance with an Acid Sulfate Soil and Dewatering Management Plan (ASSDMP) approved by Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER).

Risk priority: High

Timing: ASSDMP approved prior to commencement of excavation.

As specified in ASSDMP As specified in ASSDMP Approved ASSDMP.

ASSDMP implementation reporting as specified in ASSDMP

Riverine sediments to be removed for abutment construction will be subject to sampling and management in accordance with advice of DWER. This will include

• sampling of sediments over the proposed footprint and depth of construction platforms

• laboratory analysis of samples to determine MBO characteristics

• assessment of hazard posed by MBO characteristics and proposed volume/method of removal

Prepare MBO Management Plan (MBOMP) to address the hazard, incorporating advice from DWER and guidance from the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. MBOMP to be reviewed and approved by DWER.

Risk priority: High

Timing: MBOMP approved prior to commencement of dredging.

As specified in MBOMP As specified in MBOMP MBO investigation report.

Approved MBOMP (if required).

MBOMP implementation reporting as specified in MBOMP

In the event of excavation encountering suspected contaminated materials, the excavation works are to be stopped and advice sought from a qualified environmental professional. If required, the suspected contamination will be sampled and analysed to determine the appropriate remediation and disposal.


Timing: throughout excavation works.

All suspected contamination is characterised and appropriately managed.

Visual monitoring during excavation. Reporting of all suspected contamination.

Contamination report from environmental professional.





CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 11

EPA factor objective: To maintain the quality of land and soils so that environmental values are protected.

CEMP objective: Minimise impacts from acid sulfate soils, monosulfidic black ooze and site contamination as far as is practicable.






• excavation of unexpected contamination





Table 4: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Fauna

EPA factor objective: To protect terrestrial fauna so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained.

CEMP objective: Minimise impacts to terrestrial fauna during construction as far as practicable.

Key environmental values: Development Envelope contains habitat for Western Ringtail Possum and migratory waterbirds.


• clearing of native vegetation comprising fauna habitat

• construction vehicle movements

• construction plant operation

• excavation of trenches




Vegetation clearing controls as specified in Table 2: CEMP provisions – Flora and Vegetation


Weed and dieback controls as specified in Table 2: CEMP provisions – Flora and Vegetation


Re-vegetation and rehabilitation as specified in Table 2: CEMP provisions – Flora and Vegetation




CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 12













• avoiding injury or harassment of native fauna during operation of vehicles or equipment

• reporting all injured, abandoned or otherwise visibly distressed fauna

• prohibition on feeding fauna, hunting or keeping of firearms or pets on site.

Risk priority: High




Engage qualified fauna spotter / catcher prior to and during clearing works to inspect vegetation and remove all threatened fauna species.

Risk priority: High

Timing: Prior to and during clearing

No mortality of threatened, priority or migratory fauna species during clearing works.

Visual monitoring of clearing areas. Post-clearing report.

Reporting of all threatened fauna species mortality.

Conduct clearing in a sequential manner and in a way that encourages escaping wildlife away from the activity into adjacent natural areas and not onto roads, trenches or other areas of threat.


Timing: During clearing

No mortality of threatened, priority or migratory fauna species during clearing works.

Visual monitoring of construction work areas.

Post-clearing report.


Ensure a qualified fauna spotter / catcher is on call during clearing works to handle any injured, abandoned or otherwise visibly distressed fauna.

If any injured, abandoned or otherwise visibly distressed fauna are observed when a wildlife handler/fauna spotter is not available, contact the Department of Biodiversity and Conservation (DBCA) wildcare hotline on 08 9474 9055.

Risk priority: High


All fauna identified as injured, abandoned or visibly distressed is handled by a qualified fauna spotter / catcher or in accordance with DBCA wildcare hotline instruction.

Visual monitoring of construction work areas.


Reporting of all fauna handling.

Check open excavations and trenches for fauna and remove any trapped animals by authorised fauna handlers

Risk priority: High

Timing: immediately prior to backfill and twice daily when trenching present.

No mortality of threatened, priority or migratory fauna species in trenches or excavations.

Visual monitoring of excavations and trenches.




CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 13












Ensure trenches remain open only for the time required for construction purposes and be backfilled as soon as the trenches are no longer required.


Timing: Throughout construction.

No mortality of threatened, priority or migratory fauna species in trenches or excavations.

Visual monitoring of excavations and trenches.






Table 5: CEMP provisions – Inland Waters Environmental Quality

EPA factor objective: To maintain the quality of groundwater and surface water so that environmental values are protected.

CEMP objective: Minimise impacts to water quality and aquatic ecology of Lower Vasse River and Vasse River Delta Wetlands as far as is practicable.





• dredging of riverine sediments containing Carters Freshwater Mussel





• maintaining soil erosion and sediment controls

• hazardous materials and waste management, including reporting and responding to spills and leaks.

Risk priority: High






CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 14











Soil erosion and sediment controls

• Maintain silt curtains either side of bridge abutments for the duration of bridge construction works and until turbidity levels are visually observed as equivalent to background levels upstream of silt fence.

• Maintain silt fences at the base of all embankments adjacent to waterways and wetlands.

• Stabilise embankments and earth worked areas as soon as practicable to minimise soil erosion.

• Provide temporary stormwater drainage to direct surface runoff to sumps for sediment retention and infiltration.

Risk priority: High

Timing: throughout construction

Turbidity of Vasse River outside of silt curtains remains comparable to reference point upstream.

No noticeable sediment deposition in wetlands adjacent to Development Envelope.

Visual inspection of turbidity in Vasse River within and adjacent to silt curtains and at a reference point upstream. Daily inspection during abutment construction period and weekly inspection thereafter.

Visual inspection of wetlands adjacent to Development Envelope. Daily inspection during road embankment construction and weekly inspection thereafter.

Weekly inspection of erosion and sediment controls during construction and following rainfall events exceeding 10 mm in one day.




CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 15











Hazardous materials and waste management

• All refuelling of construction vehicles and plant to be via mobile tankers – no fuel storage on site.

• All scheduled / major maintenance of construction vehicles and plant to be undertaken off-site.

• Minimise on-site storage and handling of hazardous materials.

• Maintain an inventory and materials safety data sheets (MSDS) for all hazardous materials on site.

• Clearly label and placard all hazardous materials.

• Hazardous materials to be stored in bunded facilities within construction compound. No storage to occur within 10 m of waterways or wetlands.

• Putrescible wastes to be stored in covered containers and collected at least weekly to prevent odours, insect breeding and animal scavenging.

• Waste storage areas to be located within construction compound and kept in a clean and tidy condition. No storage to occur within 10 m of waterways or wetlands.

• Wind-blown litter to be managed through daily collection and provision of wind fencing, if required.

• Portable toilets maintained at construction compound.

• Maintain spill response procedure.

• Maintain spill response equipment on site to response to small spills.

• Immediately respond to all spills within construction site to prevent discharge into Vasse River, wetlands or groundwater. All contaminated soils, spill response materials and equipment to be disposed of at a licensed waste facility.

• Provide floating absorbent booms (at least 30 m long) to Busselton Fire & Rescue prior to construction commencing.

• Conduct a spill response drill in the Vasse River prior to construction commencing, in collaboration with Busselton Fire & Rescue.

Risk priority: High

Timing: prior to and throughout construction

No spills or leaks of hazardous materials or wastes enter the Vasse River, Vasse River Delta Wetlands or groundwater.

Daily inspection of hazardous material and waste storage areas for evidence of spills, leaks and litter.

Visual monitoring of construction work areas for evidence of spills and litter.


Reporting of all spill / leak incidents into waterways, wetlands or groundwater.

Contamination reporting as required under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003.



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 16











Undertake translocation of Carters Freshwater Mussel in accordance with a Regulation 17 licence and approved translocation proposal.

Risk priority: High

Timing: as specified in translation proposal.

As specified in translocation proposal As specified in translocation proposal

As specified in translocation proposal

ASS and dewatering management as specified in Table 3: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Environmental Quality.


MBO management as specified in Table 3: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Environmental Quality.


Contamination management as specified in Table 3: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Environmental Quality.




CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 17

Table 6: CEMP provisions – Social Surroundings

EPA factor objective: To protect social surroundings from significant harm.

CEMP objective: Minimise disturbance to nearby residential, commercial and heritage properties and impacts to amenity of Vasse River and wetlands as far as is practicable.

Key environmental values: Development Envelope lies in proximity to residential and commercial properties, State heritage listed buildings. Vasse River foreshore comprises public open space and linkage to walk trails.


• dust emissions from cleared and earthworked areas and stockpiles

• noise from construction vehicles and equipment

• impacts to Vasse River amenity through excavation, dewatering, dredging, sediment discharge, accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials or wastes.



• restrictions in vehicle and plant movements and operations to minimise noise and traffic impacts to nearby properties and roads

Risk priority: High




Inform the public and nearby properties of construction activities, timing and query / complaints hotline. Nearby properties informed via letter drops. Public informed via City newsletter / facebook page.

Risk priority: High


No complaints received due to lack of notification of property owners.

Not applicable. Not applicable.

Maintain complaints hotline throughout construction. For all complaints received, determine the impact (if any) associated with construction works, any corrective and/or remedial action required, and provide a response to the complainant within 24 hours for severe impacts and within five business days for minor impacts.

Risk priority: High


All complaints received are documented and responded to within 24 hours for severe impacts and five business days for minor impacts.

Not applicable Post-construction report.



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 18









Dust management

• Minimise area of clearing and earthworks to that required for construction activities.

• Schedule vegetation clearing to occur immediately before planned earthworks to minimise duration of exposure of cleared ground, as far as practicable.

• Avoid dust generating activities during unfavourable weather conditions (e.g. high wind speed) and unfavourable wind directions, where practicable.

• Stabilise cleared areas and any dry, dust-prone areas or stockpiles to prevent dust lift off. Stabilisation methods may include wetting, application of hydromulch or other sealing material.

• Restrict site access to designated access and construction areas.

• Enforce maximum speed limit in construction areas to reduce dust lift off.

• Implement dust suppression (e.g. water spray/wet down of unsealed tracks\stockpiles) if high levels of dust are observed or considered likely to occur.

• Dust suppression equipment maintained on site.

• Ensure haul truck loads are covered to prevent dust emissions.



No repetitive / sustained complaints received due to dust impacts.

Ongoing visual inspection of dust levels in construction areas.

Daily check of weather conditions that may affect dust emissions.


Noise management

• Construction limited to 7 am and 7 pm Monday to Friday. Any works for Saturday to be authorised in writing by City Representative.

• Operation of construction plant restricted to within Development Envelope.

• Construction vehicles and plant maintained in accordance with manufacturers specification.

• Trucks not left idling and construction traffic minimised along Peel Terrace and local roads north of Development Envelope.



No repetitive / sustained complaints received due to noise impacts.

Daily check of noise levels in construction areas.




CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 19









Traffic management

• Construction vehicles to use Causeway Road to access construction compound from the south rather than use Peel Terrace from the north, as far as is practicable.

• Stage construction works to minimise the duration of traffic impacts at any particular location along Causeway Road, Peel Terrace and Camilleri Street.

• Provide traffic controllers during all works on Causeway Road, Peel Terrace and Camilleri Street.

• Develop and implement a strategy for maintaining access to the Old Butter Factory Museum during construction works, in consultation with the Busselton Historical Society.

• Prohibit parking, standing or access by construction vehicles to verges alongside the Old Butter Factory and St Mary’s Church.

• Prohibit parking of construction vehicles in public carparks including Rotary Park or Peel Street outside of construction hours. Construction vehicle parking to be provided at construction compound.

Risk priority: High


No repetitive / sustained complaints received due traffic and parking impacts.

Not applicable. Post-construction report.

Engage Aboriginal cultural monitors during excavation works on the northern banks/foreshore of the Vasse River.


Timing: during excavation works on north side of river

Any burials uncovered during excavation works are managed in accordance with directions of Aboriginal cultural monitors.

Aboriginal cultural monitoring. Post-construction report.

ASS and dewatering management as specified in Table 3: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Environmental Quality.


MBO management as specified in Table 3: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Environmental Quality.


Contamination management as specified in Table 3: CEMP provisions – Terrestrial Environmental Quality.








CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 20



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 21

3. Adaptive management and review of the CEMP The Proponent will apply an adaptive management approach to implementation of the CEMP as follows:

• response actions in the event of failure to achieve key management targets, as presented in

Table 7

• review of CEMP provisions at three months and nine months from commencement of construction

works.

Table 7: Adaptive management for CEMP provisions

Trigger Indicators Response actions

Clearing or access outside of designated areas.

• Cleared vegetation outside of demarcated boundary

• Damage of clearing boundary fencing / demarcations.

• Access tracks outside of demarcated boundary.

1. Investigate cause.

2. Report and investigate as an incident.

3. Stop construction activities.

4. Re-establish approved boundary with temporary fencing.

5. Rehabilitate impacted area.

6. Implement corrective action (e.g. induction, CEMP revision) based on cause findings.

New weeds, declared pests of high priority weed species observed within construction area.

Visual inspection of construction area during construction.



3. Arrange for weed control by a suitably qualified contractor, ensuring no spray drift into adjacent native vegetation or wetland areas.

4. Undertake inspection of treated areas after an expected re-growth period (considering species and season) and apply further weed control (if required) to knock back any re-growth.

5. Implement corrective action (e.g. plant washing, supplier warning, CEMP revision) based on cause findings.

Weeds present within Development Envelope at completion of construction.

Visual inspection of construction area at completion of construction.

1. Arrange for weed control by a suitably qualified contractor, ensuring no spray drift into adjacent native vegetation or wetland areas.

2. Undertake inspection of treated areas after an expected re-growth period (considering species and season) and apply further weed control (if required) to knock back any re-growth.

Threatened, priority or migratory fauna species mortality during clearing works or within trenches or excavations.

Native fauna present onsite during construction.

Visual identification of dead fauna during construction.

1. Engage fauna spotter / catcher to confirm species.



4. Stop construction works associated with the mortality.

5. Fauna spotter / catcher to inspect vicinity of mortality to identify and relocate any fauna deemed to be at risk from the construction works.

6. Implement corrective action (e.g. induction, trench fencing, CEMP revision) based on cause findings.



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 22

Trigger Indicators Response actions

Turbidity of Vasse River outside of silt curtains is noticeably greater than reference point upstream.

Noticeable sediment deposition in wetlands adjacent to Development Envelope.

• Visual observation of turbidity.

• Visual observation of sediment deposition.



3. Stop construction activities.

4. Repair / reinstate all affected sediment and erosion controls.

5. Establish additional sediment and erosion controls (if required) to prevent ongoing impacts.

6. Conduct daily inspections of turbidity / deposition for one month to verify effectiveness of sediment and erosion controls.

Spill or hazardous material or waste entering Vasse River, wetlands or waterways

• Visual observation of spill contents in standing water.

• Visual observation of contamination in groundwater upon excavation of contaminated soil during on-site spill / leak response.

1. Immediately contact Busselton Fire & Rescue to recover any spill contents within waterways or wetlands, using floating booms provided for the purpose.

2. Identify cause of the spill/leak and implement corrective action to prevent re-occurrence.

3. Implement remedial works to repair any damage from the spill (e.g. contaminated soils, groundwater, vegetation or deposition) under direction of a qualified environmental professional.

4. Any site contamination to be managed and reported in accordance with the Contaminated Sites Act 2003.

Sustained / repetitive complaints received due to dust, noise, traffic or parking impacts.

• Sustained / repetitive complaints received with verified impacts from construction.

1. Stop construction works associated with the specific impacts.

2. Review construction activities and replan as required to reduce impacts such as route selection, staging, parking restrictions, timing of works, and application of site controls (e.g. dust suppression / stabilisation).

3. Provide inductions to personnel (if required) on the replanned construction works / controls.

4. Undertake monitoring to verify the effectiveness of the replanned works / controls.

5. Update CEMP if required.



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 23

4. Stakeholder consultation Consultation has been undertaken with relevant government agencies and key stakeholders to identify

potential environmental impacts and mitigation strategies for the Proposal. The consultation is presented in

Section 3 of the Environmental Review Document (Strategen 2018).



CIB16605_01 R006 Rev 0

7-Jan-18 24

5. References Beatty S, Ma L, Morgan D & Lymbery A 2017, Baseline assessment of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel,

Westalunio carteri, at proposed bridge construction sites on the Lower Vasse River, Freshwater Fish

Group & Fish Health Unit, Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University report to

Strategen Environmental.

Brad Goode & Associates 2017, Report of an Aboriginal Heritage Survey for the Busselton Strategic Network Corridors Project in the City of Busselton, Western Australia, prepared for Strategen

Environmental on behalf of the City of Busselton, September 2017.

Ecosystem Solutions 2017, Reconnaissance Flora, Vegetation and Fauna Survey, Busselton Strategic Network Corridors, prepared for Strategen Environmental on behalf of City of Busselton, November

2017.

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2017, Instructions on how to prepare Environmental Protection Act 1986 Part IV Environmental Management Plans, Government of Western Australia, Perth.

Strategen 2017a, Causeway Road and Eastern Link Bridge, Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Report, prepared for City of Busselton, October 2017.

Strategen 2017b, Detailed Flora and Vegetation Survey, Eastern Link, prepared for City of Busselton,

December 2017.

Strategen 2018, Busselton Eastern Link Project, Environmental Review Document, prepared for City of

Busselton, January 2018.


Page 19

Attachment C: Acid Sulfate Soil and Dewatering Management Plan



Page 20

Attachment D: Drainage design drawings – biofiltration gardens



Peg

9

2

181

182

109

110

10

5

3

265

231

230

251

87

14

5

6

7

2

1

511

510

43

1

2

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH100.0

CH0.0 CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH100.0

CH0.0

CH20

.0

CH40.0

CH60

.0

CH80

.0

CH10

0.0

CH12

0.0

CH14

0.0

CH16

0.0

CH18

0.0

CH20

0.0

CH22

0.0

CH24

0.0

CH26

0.0

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH53.5

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH100.0

CH120.0

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH100.0

CH120.0

S

W E

N

ALBERT STREET

JOINS 16-003167 303

JOIN

S 16

-003

167 3

04

MAKE SMOOTH NEATCONNECTION TO EXISTING



ROAD 1 HINGE LINE 1ROAD 1 HINGE LINE 2

REMOVE AND DISPOSEEXISTING ROAD PAVEMENT

REMOVE AND DISPOSEEXISTING ROAD PAVEMENTAND PATH

REMOVE AND DISPOSEEXISTINGSEAL. ROADPAVEMENT MAY BESALVAGED AND REUSED IFDEEMED SUITABLE BYSUPERINTENDENT

BRIDGENo. 5394

THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DRAWING WAS PRODUCED USING COLOURSEPARATION FOR GREATER CLARITY. WORKING WITH A BLACK AND

WHITE COPY MAY CAUSE ERRORS. IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT IN COLOURTHEN YOU DO NOT HAVE THE CORRECT PRESENTATION.

WARNINGSERVICES LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE INDICATIVE ONLY AND MUSTNOT BE USED FOR EXCAVATIONS. THE "ONE CALL 1100" SYSTEM

SHALL BE USED TO OBTAIN ACCURATE SERVICE LOCATIONS.

REFER TO PLAN 16-003167-304FOR NOTES AND LEGEND

VASSE RIVER

VASSE RIVER

- SEAL WIDTH

- ROAD RESERVEPEEL TERRACE (WEST)

7.0m20.0m

, PLUS ROAD SIDE PARKING

- SEAL WIDTH

- ROAD RESERVEPEEL TERRACE (EAST)

7.4m20.0m

- SEAL WIDTH

- ROAD RESERVECAMMILLERI COURT

10.0m20.0m

- SEA

L WID

TH- R

OAD

RESE

RVE

ROAD

1VA

RIES

VARI

ES

- SEAL WIDTH

- ROAD RESERVESTANLEY PLACE

7.4m20.0m


EXTEND EXISTING PAVEMENT MATCHINGEXISTING CROSSFALL TO ACHIEVE 5.0mLANE WIDTH

EXTEND EXISTING PAVEMENT AT SAMEGRADE TO ACHIEVE 5.0m LANE WIDTH

INSTALL NEWPRAM RAMP

MAKE SMOOTH NEAT CONNECTIONTO EXISTING PATH, INSTALL NEWPRAM RAMP

INSTALL NEWPRAM RAMP



KERB TYPE LEGENDSEMI-MOUNTABLE (SMK)

MOUNTABLE (MK)

BARRIER (BK)

FLUSH (FK)

RAMP (RK)

MK

MK

MK

MK

MK

MK

MK

MK

MK

MK

BKBK

BK

BK

BKBK

BK

BKSMK

SMK

MK

EXISTING DRIVE WAY AND VERGE TO BEREINSTATED TO SUIT NEW KERB LEVELS (TYP)

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

A

A 15/11/17 ISSUED FOR APPROVAL KJB LRR RWEDRAWING No. REVISIONPROJECT No.

PROJECTCLIENT DRAWING TITLESTATUS SCALE

This document and the copyright contained in this document is the property of Calibre Professional Services Pty Ltd andmust not be used, copied, reproduced, modified, adapted or developed wholly or in part without the prior written consent ofCalibre Professional Services Pty Ltd.

© COPYRIGHT

REV DATE ISSUE DESCRIPTION DESIGNDRAWN CHECK

calibregroup.comC

CITY OF BUSSELTON BUSSELTON ROAD NETWORK

UPGRADE - STAGE 1

PEEL TERRACE, CAUSEWAY

ROAD, STRELLY STREET

ROAD WORKS PLAN

SHEET 1 OF 4

16-003167 302

SCALE 1:10

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

EXISTING CROSSOVERS TO BERECONSTRUCTED TO SUIT NEW KERBLEVEL (TYP0

ADJUST ASPHALT ANDKERB CROSS OVER TOSUIT

REMOVE AND DISPOSEEXISTINGSEAL. ROADPAVEMENT MAY BESALVAGED AND REUSED IFDEEMED SUITABLE BYSUPERINTENDENT

REINSTATE EXISTINGPARKING LINE MARKING

MAKE SMOOTH NEATCONNECTION TOEXISTING PEDESTRIANBRIDGE

TAPER PATH OVER 10.0m TOMATCH EXISTING BRIDGE WIDTH


48

49

69

100

1

53

54

47

2

38

39

40

41

42

44

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH0.0

CH20

.0

CH40

.0

CH60

.0

CH0.0

CH20

.0

CH40

.0

CH60

.0

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH140.0

CH160.0

CH180.0

CH200.0

CH220.0

CH240.0

CH140.0

CH160.0

CH180.0

CH200.0

CH220.0

CH240.0

S

W E

N

SOUTHERN DRIVE

CAUSEWAY ROAD

JOINS DWG 16-003167 302 JOINS DWG 16-003167 304

ROAD 1 HINGE LINE 1

ROAD 1 HINGE LINE 2

CAUSEWAY (WEST) HINGE LINE 2

CAUSEWAY (WEST) HINGE LINE 1

CAUSEWAY (EAST)

CAUSEWAY (EAST) HINGE LINE 1HINGE LINE 2

MAKE SMOOTH NEATCONNECTION TOEXISTING










REFER TO PLAN 16-003167-304FOR NOTES AND LEGEND


- SEAL WIDTH

- ROAD RESERVE

CAUSEWAY ROAD

3.7m x249.0m

- SEA

L WID

TH- R

OAD

RESE

RVE

ROAD

1VA

RIES

VARI

ES

- SEAL WIDTH

- ROAD RESERVE

CAUSEWAY ROAD

7.7m48.0m

- SEA

L WIDTH

- ROAD

RESER

VE

ROSEMAR

Y DRIVE

5.0m

20.0m

KERB TYPE LEGENDSEMI-MOUNTABLE (SMK)

MOUNTABLE (MK)

BARRIER (BK)

FLUSH (FK)

RAMP (RK)

PRELIMINARY


A




© COPYRIGHT


calibregroup.comC


UPGRADE - STAGE 1



ROAD WORKS PLAN

SHEET 2 OF 4

16-003167 303

SCALE 1:10

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

SMKSMK

SMK

SMK

SMK

SMK

SMK

SMK

SMK

MK

MK

MK

MK

MK

PATH TO BACK OFBIORETENTIONGARDENS


-0.227

-0.205

-0.173

-0.181

-0.151

-0.167

0.054

0.235

Peg

0.9531.014

1.581

0.831

0.890

1.250

0.912

0.891

1.054

1.047

1.075

1.225

0.987

0.423

0.758

0.386

0.359

0.289

0.512

0.548

0.328

1.084

SEP

SEP

Gully

Gully

Gully

Gully

SEP

Gully

MH

Gully

Gully

Gully

Gully

Creek

Creek

MH

MH

MH

Gully

MH

Gully

MH

MH

1.30

1.30

1.35 1.35

1.35

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.401.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.501.50

1.501.5

5

1.55

1.55

1.55 1.551.60

1.60

1.60 1.60

1.65

1.65

1.65

1.65

1.65

1.70

1.701.70

1.70

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.80

1.80

1.801.80

1.80

1.80

1.85

1.85

1.85

1.85

1.85

1.85

1.85

1.90

1.90 1.90

1.90

1.90

1.90

1.95

1.951.95

1.95

1.95

1.95

1.95

2.00

2.002.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.102.10

2.15

2.15

2.15

2.15

2.15

2.20

2.20

2.202.20

2.20

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.30

2.30

2.30

2.30

2.30

2.35

2.35

2.40

2.40

2.45

2.452.502.55

2.602.65

2.702.75

-0.35-0.30

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15-0.10

-0.10-0.05

-0.05

0.00 0.000.05

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.15

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.35

0.35

0.35 0.40

0.40

0.40

0.45

0.450.45

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.60

0.600.60

0.60

0.65

0.65

0.65

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.95

0.95

0.95

1.00

1.00

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.10

1.10

1.15

1.15

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.25

1.251.30

1.30

1.35

1.35

1.40

1.40

1.45

1.45

1.50

1.50

1.55

1.55

1.60

1.60

1.65

1.65

1.65

1.70

1.70

1.75

1.75

1.80

1.801.85

1.85

1.901.901.95

1.95

1.95

1.95

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.10

2.10

2.10 2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.152.15

2.15

2.15

2.15

2.202.20

2.20

2.20

2.20

2.20

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.30

2.30

2.302.30

2.30

2.30

2.35 2.35

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.40

2.402.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.402.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.45

2.45

2.45

2.45

2.45

2.45

2.45

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

-0.10

-0.05

-0.00 0.05

0.10

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.400.4

50.50

0.55

0.55

0.60

0.600.65

0.700.750.800.850.900.951.001.05

1.10

1.50

1.551.60

9

2

181

182

109

110

10

5

3

265

231

230

251

87

14

5

6

7

2

1

511

510

43

1

2

1.351.40

1.451.50

1.50

1.55

1.55

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.65

1.65

1.70

1.751.80

1.851.90

1.95

1.95

2.00

2.00

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.15

2.15

2.15

2.20

2.20

2.20

2.20

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.25

2.30

2.30

2.30

2.30

2.30

2.30

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.35

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.452.45

2.45

2.50

2.502.50

2.55

2.60

2.65

2.70

2.90

2.90

2.95

2.95

3.00

3.00

3.05

3.05

3.10

3.10

3.00

2.90

2.80

2.70

2.60

2.50

2.40

2.30

2.20

2.10

2.00

3.002.90

2.802.70

2.602.50

2.402.30

2.20

2.102.00

T

T

T

T

TT

T

OFOF

OFOF

OF

OF

OF

OFOF

OFOF

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

GG

W

TT

TT

T

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

T

T

DD

DD

DD

DD

DD

DD

DD

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

DD

DD

DD

DD

D

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OF

OF

OFOF

OFOF

OF

OF

OF

OFOF

OFOF

OF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

UG_HV

UG_HV

UG_HV

UG_HV

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

G

GG

GG

GG

GG

G

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

G

G

GG

G

G

G

G

G

G

SS

S S

SS

SS

SS

SS

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

W

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

W

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

W

W

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

GG

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH100.0

CH0.0 CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH100.0

CH0.0

CH20

.0

CH40.0

CH60

.0

CH80

.0

CH10

0.0

CH12

0.0

CH14

0.0

CH16

0.0

CH18

0.0

CH20

0.0

CH22

0.0

CH24

0.0

CH26

0.0

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH53.5

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH100.0

CH120.0

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH100.0

CH120.0

S

W E

N

ALBERT STREET

PEEL TERRACE (EAST)

CAMMILLERI COURT

PEEL TERRACE

(WEST)

STANLEY PLACE

ROAD

1JOINS 16-003167 313

JOIN

S 16

-003

167 3

14

PRELIMINARY


A




© COPYRIGHT


calibregroup.comC


UPGRADE - STAGE 1



DRAINAGE PLAN

SHEET 1 OF 3

16-003167 312

SCALE 1:10

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

U/S300Ø20.8m1 in D/S

EXISTING


EXISTING

U/S1050Ø105.1m1 in D/S

EXISTING

U/S

62.0m1 in D/S

EXISTING

U/S

6.2m1 in D/S

EXISTINGU/S

48.7m1 in D/S

EXISTING

U/S 0.27375Ø36.5m1 in 243D/S 0.12

U/S 0.30375Ø7.8m1 in 250D/S 0.27

U/S 0.80300Ø11.3m1 in 188D/S 0.74

CUT SEP INTO EXISTINGDRAINAGE NETWORK

SEP1

CH46

SEP2

CH46

GP3

CH56.4

SEP4

CH56.4JP5

CH20.0

SEP6

CH29.0

JP7

CH40.0SEP

8CH18.5

SEP9

CH18.5

GP13

CH85.6

GP12

CH130.7

GP11

CH187.8

SEP10

CH187.8

DOUBLE

CUT INTO EXISTINGDRAINAGE NETWORK

U/S -0.01375Ø2.4m1 in 240D/S -0.02

U/S 0.19375Ø44.8m1 in 224D/S -0.01

U/S 0.48300Ø57.0m1 in 196D/S 0.19

U/S 0.55300Ø13.7m1 in 200D/S 0.48

U/S 1.10300Ø9.6m1 in 192D/S 1.05

U/S 1.05300Ø13.7m1 in 196D/S 0.98

U/S 1.25300Ø11.6m1 in 43D/S 0.98

HW16

SEP15

CH115.8

SEP14

CH115.8

DOUBLE DOUBLE

U/S 1.00300Ø12.9m1 in D/S 0.93U/S 0.93

300Ø11.6m1 in 9.8D/S -0.25

U/S 0.75300Ø61.4m1 in 200D/S 0.45

CONFIRM EXISTING GASINVERT LEVEL PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION

EXISTING SEWER I.L. = 0.17mPROPOSED DRAINAGE I.L = 0.50mCLEARANCE = 0.18m

EXISTING P.M. I.L. = -0.80mPROPOSED DRAINAGE I.L = 0.54mCLEARANCE = 1.09m

EXISTING 250MDPE FORD STREET PRESSURE MAIN


-0.019

0.070

-0.005

0.138

-0.029

-0.135

-0.005

0.089

0.098

-0.167

-0.257

-0.270

-0.276

-0.303

-0.187

-0.168

-0.100

-0.150

-0.183

-0.219

-0.231

0.021

-0.049

-0.133

0.181

0.496

0.279

0.282

0.363

0.80

0.85

0.95

1.00

1.00

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.051.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.151.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.251.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.35

1.35

1.351.35

1.351.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.351.3

5

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.401.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75

-0.65

-0.60

-0.55

-0.55

-0.50

-0.50

-0.45

-0.45

-0.40

-0.40

-0.40

-0.35

-0.35

-0.30

-0.30

-0.25

-0.25

-0.25

-0.20

-0.20

-0.20

-0.15

-0.15

-0.15

-0.15

-0.10

-0.10

-0.10-0.10

-0.10

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.100.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.20

0.200.20

0.200.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.400.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.500.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.550.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.60

0.650.65

0.65

0.65

0.65

0.65

0.65

0.65

0.650.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.700.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.80

0.800.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80 0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.850.85

0.85

0.85

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.950.95

0.95

0.95

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.001.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.05

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.10

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.15

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.201.20

1.20

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.25

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.30

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.35

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.40

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.45

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.55

1.551.55

1.55

1.55

1.60

1.601.60

1.60

1.60

1.65

1.651.65

1.65

1.65

1.70

1.70

1.70

1.70

1.75

48

49

69

100

1

53

54

47

2

38

39

40

41

42

44

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.45

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.55

1.55

1.55 1.55

1.60

1.60

1.60

1.65

1.65

1.65

1.65

1.65

1.70

1.70

1.70

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.75

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.85

1.85 1.85

1.85

1.90

1.901.90

1.90

1.95

1.95

1.95

1.95

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.05

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.10

2.15

2.15

2.15

2.15

2.20

2.20

2.20

2.20

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

SS

SS

S

S

S

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

HV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

LV

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OF

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH0.0

CH20

.0

CH40

.0

CH60

.0

CH0.0

CH20

.0

CH40

.0

CH60

.0

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH60.0

CH80.0

CH0.0

CH20.0

CH40.0

CH140.0

CH160.0

CH180.0

CH200.0

CH220.0

CH240.0

CH140.0

CH160.0

CH180.0

CH200.0

CH220.0

CH240.0

S

W E

N

ROSEMAR

Y DRIVE

SOUTHERN DRIVE

CAUSEWAY ROAD

ROAD 1

CAUSEWAY ROAD

JOINS DWG 16-003167 312 JOINS DWG 16-003167 314

PRELIMINARY


A




© COPYRIGHT


calibregroup.comC


UPGRADE - STAGE 1



DRAINAGE PLAN

SHEET 2 OF 3

16-003167 313

SCALE 1:10

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

U/S 0.260

30.0m1 in 250D/S 0.140

EXISTING

U/S

96.0m1 in D/S

EXISTING


EXISTING

U/S 0.353375Ø15.1m1 in 129D/S 0.236

EXISTING

U/S

5.0m1 in D/S

EXISTING

U/S 0.326375Ø93.6m1 in 3342D/S 0.298

EXISTING


EXISTING

U/S

50.1m1 in D/S

EXISTING

U/S

76.9m1 in D/S

EXISTINGU/S 0.94375Ø10.8m1 in 14.6D/S 0.20

EXISTING

U/S 0.97375Ø61.0m1 in 6100D/S 0.96

EXISTING

U/S 0.31375Ø13.2m1 in 188D/S 0.24

EXISTING

U/S 0.85

5.6m1 in D/S 0.32

EXISTING

U/S 0.45300Ø7.8m1 in 195D/S 0.41

SEP31

CH52.0

DOUBLE

U/S 0.60300Ø11.5m1 in 191D/S 0.54

U/S 0.17375Ø24.0m1 in 240D/S 0.07

U/S 0.30300Ø26.3m1 in 200D/S 0.17

U/S 0.35300Ø9.1m1 in 182D/S 0.30

U/S 0.07375Ø26.7m1 in 243D/S -0.04

U/S -0.04375Ø69.6m1 in 248D/S -0.32

U/S -0.32450Ø30.7m1 in 307D/S -0.42

U/S 0.62300Ø21.5m1 in 195D/S 0.51

U/S 0.72300Ø19.0m1 in 190D/S 0.62U/S 0.80

300Ø15.7m1 in 196D/S 0.72

U/S 0.66300Ø7.6m1 in 190D/S 0.62

U/S -0.42450Ø14.5m1 in 290D/S -0.47

U/S -0.47525Ø12.2m1 in 406D/S -0.50

U/S 0.85300Ø23.2m1 in D/S 0.32

U/S 0.85300Ø12.9m1 in D/S 0.32

U/S 0.85300Ø15.7m1 in D/S 0.32

SEP17

CH161.9

SEP18

CH161.9

JP19

CH186

SEP27

CH234

SEP1

CH

JP30

SEP29

CH11

SEP28

CH11

SEP33

CH10.1

SEP32

CH10.1

SEP24

CH39

SEP25

CH39

SEP26

CH11.3

JP23

CH63

SEP22

CH90.7

SEP21

CH90.7

DOUBLEDOUBLE

HW20

JP19

CH186

CUT PIPE INTOEXISTING PIT

CUT PIPE INTOEXISTING PIT

U/S0.70300Ø6.5m1 in 162D/S0.66

EXISTING GAS I.L =PROPOSED DRAINAGE I.L = -0.40mCLEARANCE =


PRELIMINARY


A




© COPYRIGHT


calibregroup.comC


UPGRADE - STAGE 1



STANDARD DETAILS

SHEET 7 OF 7

16-003167 807

EFFECTIVE LENGTH VARIES

FKFK MKMK MK MK

DSEP AT LOW POINT IN THE ROAD1.0m

1:3 1:31:3

GUTTERFLOW

1/2 EFFECTIVE LENGTH

1:3

EXITING MANHOLEREMOVABLE END CAP ON PIPE DRAINAGE PLANS. PROVIDESHOWN ON ROADS AND DN 100 SUBSOIL DRAIN WHERE

SUBSOIL UNDER (TYP)

CONCRETE APRONAT ENTRY

1.0m

ROAD PAVEMENT EDGE

ROAD RESERVE BOUNDARY OR PATH

1:3

500x500x100 DEEPMORTARED LATERITE ROCK SILT TRAP (TYP)

FK

1.0mFK1.0m

SEP AT LOW POINTIN THE ROAD


FKMK

1:3

GUTTERFLOW

TRANSITIONKERB

TRANSITIONKERB

1.0m

SUBSOIL UNDER (TYP)

1:3

500x500x100 DEEPMORTARED LATERITEROCK SILT TRAP (TYP)

FK MK

TRANSITIONKERB

TRANSITIONKERB

1.0m

1:31:3

KERB DEFLECTOR

ROAD PAVEMENT EDGE


MK MK

1:3

CONCRETE APRONAT ENTRY


500x500x100 DEEPMORTARED LATERITEROCK SILT TRAP (TYP)

B-

FKFK

1.0m 1.0m

OVERFLOW OVERFLOW

SUB BASEAND BASE

SANDSUBGRADE

50mmPEA GRAVEL

PLANTING BY OTHERS

300

MIN

300100

1100 VARIESLOOSE LATERITEROCK PITCHING TO BATTER

BIORETENTION AT KERB SECTION (TYP)SCALE 1:20

ROOTBARRIER

300

100 THICK TRANSITION LAYER(e.g. COARSE SAND)150 THICK DRAINAGE LAYER

(e.g. COARSE SAND/GRAVEL)2 TO 5mm WASHED.TO MEET WITH SUBSOIL PIPE.

1.1m

VARI

ESMI

N 70

0mm

(AS

DETA

ILED)

DIA

VARI

ES

90mm

3%500 THICK BIORETENTION (e.g. LOAMYSAND OR NUA MIX). WELL GRADEDMATERIAL WITH NO GAPS IN PARTICLESIZE. TOTAL SILT & CLAY CONTENT >3%, ORGANIC MATTER <100mg/kg.CONDUCTIVITY 150-300mm/hr

3 (TYP)1

NOTE:ROOT BARRIER TO BE INSTALLED TO FULLPERIMETER OF BIORETENTION GARDEN.

PLANTING BY

OR GARDENBARRIER TO FULL PERIMETER1.0m DEEP PLASTIC ROOT

TOP OF KERB

BIORETENTION GARDEN

50mm PEA GRAVEL TO FULL SURFACE OF BIORETENTION LAYER

MATERIAL WITH NO GAPS IN PARTICLESIZE. TOTAL SILT & CLAY CONTENT>3%, ORGANIC MATTER <100mg/kg.CONDUCTIVITY 150-300mm/hr100 THICK TRANSITION LAYER

(e.g. COARSE SAND)

150 THICK DRAINAGE LAYER(e.g. COARSE SAND/GRAVEL)2 TO 5mm WASHED.TO MEET WITH SUBSOIL PIPE.

SECTION B-1:40

(TYP)

500 THICK BIORETENTION (e.g. LOAMYSAND OR NUA MIX). WELL GRADED

300

STOR

AGE

BIORETENTION GARDEN TYPE 3 (PLAN)SCALE 1:40

BIORETENTION GARDEN TYPE 2 (PLAN)SCALE 1:40

500x350x240LIMESTONE BLOCKS


CONTRACTOR TO INSTALLGEOFABRIC TO SURFACEOF GARDEN IMMEDIATELYUPON COMPLETION OFPEA GRAVEL



OTHERS

1.

WHE

RE C

ONCR

ETE

DUP

ADJA

CENT

TO

BIOR

ETEN

TION

GAR

DEN

WID

TH O

F GA

RDEN

TO B

E AD

JUST

ED S

O TH

AT LI

MEST

ONE

BLOC

K W

ORK

ABUT

TS A

GAIN

ST D

UP.

(REF

ER T

YPIC

AL D

ETAI

L).

TRANSITIONKERB

TRANSITIONKERB

OVERFLOWOVERFLOW

TRANSITIONKERB

TRANSITIONKERB

KERB DEFLECTOR

CONTRACTOR TO INSTALLGEOFABRIC TO SURFACEOF GARDEN IMMEDIATELYUPON COMPLETION OFPEA GRAVEL

TYPICAL DUAL USE PATH/BIOGARDEN DETAIL1:20

10mm GAP WITH ABLEFLEX


DUAL USE PATH

BIOGARDEN

BIORETENTION GARDEN TYPE 1 (PLAN)


FKFK MK

1.0m

MK

1:3

SCALE 1:40

GUTTERFLOW

OVERFLOW

TRANSITIONKERB

TRANSITIONKERB

TRANSITIONKERB

1:3


ROAD PAVEMENT EDGE

SUBSOIL UNDER (TYP)


1:4

1:4

1:4

1:4

1.0m KERB DEFLECTOR

SIDE ENTRY PIT


NOTE:SIDE ENTRY PIT ONLY SHOWN ON STANDARD DETAILS, REFER13269.012-311 FOR PIT TYPES AND LOCATIONS FOR EACHBIORETENTION GARDEN.

TWL



Page 21

Attachment E: Carter’s Freshwater Mussel, Environmental Management Plan



January 2019

Busselton Eastern Link and

Causeway Bridge Duplication

Projects

Carter’s Freshwater Mussel Westralunio carteri

Environmental Management Plan

Prepared for:

Strategen Environmental

Prepared by:

Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems

Harry Butler Institute

Murdoch University


Carter’s Freshwater Mussel Environmental Management Plan

Busselton Eastern Link and Causeway Bridge Duplication Projects

2

Prepared for: Strategen Environmental

Contact: Heath Morgan

[email protected]

Level 1, 50 Subiaco Square Road

Subiaco Western Australia 6008

Prepared by: Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems

Harry Butler Institute

Murdoch University, South St

Murdoch, Western Australia 6150

Ph +61 08 9360 2813

Mob: 0408906356 Distribution List:

Document Control:

Disclaimer: Neither Murdoch University nor the authors of this report give any warranty in respect of the

contents of this report (including but not limited to that the contents are accurate, patentable, valuable,

reliable, safe, fit for any purpose or do not breach any third party’s intellectual property rights). Any use,

transfer or licence of this report is done at the users/transferors/licensors own risk.

Organisation Contact Name Date

Strategen Heath Morgan 27/07/2018



Document Status Prepared By Reviewed by Date

Draft report Stephen Beatty, Alan Lymbery David Morgan 27/07/2018

Draft report Version 2 Stephen Beatty, Alan Lymbery David Morgan 1/10/2018

Draft report Version 3 Stephen Beatty, Alan Lymbery Heath Morgan 15/10/2018


Draft report Version 5 Stephen Beatty, Alan Lymbery David Morgan 18/12/2018





3

Executive Summary

The Busselton Eastern Link and Causeway Bridge Duplication Projects (‘the

Projects’) involve construction of a new bridge and duplication of an existing

bridge, respectively, over the Lower Vasse River in Busselton, Western Australia

(WA). The Lower Vasse River contains populations of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel

(Westralunio carteri), which is listed as a threatened species under

Commonwealth and WA legislation. The Projects require temporary

translocation of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel to mitigate potential impacts to the

species during the construction phases.

This W. carteri Management Plan (WCMP) has been prepared to guide the

temporary translocation program and support environmental approvals under

Commonwealth and WA legislation.

The Projects have been referred to environmental agencies under

Commonwealth and WA legislation. The Commonwealth Department of the

Environment and Energy (DEE) has deemed the Busselton Eastern Link (EPBC

2018/8155) a controlled action under the Environmental Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), requiring an Assessment of

Preliminary Information (API). As part of the API, the DEE has requested

documents relating to the proposed translocation of Carters Freshwater Mussel.

The Causeway Bridge Duplication has also been referred to DEE (EPBC

2018/8309) under the EPBC Act. To inform its decision on the referral, the DEE

has requested documents relating to the proposed translocation of Carters

Freshwater Mussel.

The WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decided not to assess the

Busselton Eastern Link under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, however

their public advice noted that a management plan is to be prepared for the

proposed translocation of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel, which requires a

Regulation 15 Licence under the WA Wildlife Conservation Regulations 1970.

The EPA public advice states that the purpose of the WCMP is to:

• Design an effective temporary relocation program for the Carter’s

Freshwater Mussel population to be actioned during the Project.

The Causeway Bridge Duplication was not referred to the EPA, however

translocation for this Project will also require a Regulation 15 Licence.

This WCMP has been developed to address the approval requirements under

the EPBC Act and Regulation 15 Licence for both Projects.




4

Herein, the WCMP first considers the known habitat requirements and sensitivity

to environmental stressors by the species or related species, outlines the

methods to be used during the relocation program, details the monitoring

program to effectively assess the health of the relocated population during

construction, conducts a risk analysis of relevant aspects of the relocation and

pre- and post-release monitoring programs, and develops triggers and

respective corrective actions that will be taken.

The environmental objectives and criteria to measure their achievement via the

implementation of the WCMP are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Management objectives and criteria to measure achievement of the W. carteri

Management Plan (hereafter ‘WCMP’)

Management Objectives Management Targets

Minimise the mortality of W. carteri at

the Project bridge construction sites

on the Lower Vasse River during

construction

• Remove all W. carteri from the

impact sites including within a

20 m buffer zone upstream and

downstream of the bridge

construction footprints

• Relocate all captured W.

carteri to appropriate habitat

upstream in the Lower Vasse

River and maintain in purpose

built cages for the duration of

the construction phases

Minimise the mortality of relocated

individuals during the bridge

construction phases of the Project

• No deaths of relocated W.

carteri during the construction

phases of the Project.

Avoid mortality of the host population

of W. carteri at the relocation site

• No deaths or reduction in

density of the existing host

population recorded during the

relocation periods

Restore the population abundance of

W. carteri post- bridge construction

phase of the project to equal the pre-

construction abundances at the

Eastern Link and Causeway Bridge

sites

• No change in the density and

population viability of W. carteri

at the construction sites

following the completion of the

construction phases of the

Project




5

Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3

Context, scope and rationale ........................................................................................................... 6

Project description ........................................................................................................................... 6

Approvals framework ...................................................................................................................... 6

Baseline survey ................................................................................................................................. 6

Location ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Habitat requirements and environmental preferences of W. carteri ..................................... 11

Potential impacts of the Projects on W. carteri ............................................................................. 11

Objectives of the W. carteri management plan ........................................................................... 12

Risks associated with the WCMP ..................................................................................................... 12

Rationale and approach for meeting the objectives .................................................................. 13

Species characteristics .................................................................................................................. 13

Relocation precedents ................................................................................................................. 13

Relocation timing ........................................................................................................................... 14

Relocation site characteristics ..................................................................................................... 14

Use of cages ................................................................................................................................... 15

Stocking densities ........................................................................................................................... 15

Inclusion of buffer zones in collection sites ................................................................................. 16

Host population and predation ................................................................................................... 17

Post-construction release .............................................................................................................. 17

Post-construction habitat .............................................................................................................. 17

Contingency for permanent relocation ..................................................................................... 18

Risk assessment ............................................................................................................................... 18

Environmental management plan provisions ................................................................................ 19

Roles and responsibilities ................................................................................................................... 30

Audit and review ............................................................................................................................... 30

Adaptive management between Projects ................................................................................ 31

References .......................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 35




6

Context, scope and rationale

Project description

The Busselton Eastern Link and Causeway Bridge Duplication Projects (‘the Projects’)

involves construction of a new bridge and duplication of an existing bridge, respectively

over the Lower Vasse River in Busselton, Western Australia (WA). The two proposed bridge

construction sites for the Projects are hereafter collectively referred to as the 'Project sites'.

The Lower Vasse River contains populations of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel (Westralunio

carteri), which is listed as a threatened species under Commonwealth and WA legislation.

The Project requires temporary translocation of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel to mitigate

potential impacts to the species during the construction phases of the bridges.

This W. carteri Management Plan (WCMP) has been prepared to guide the temporary

translocation program and support environmental approvals under Commonwealth and

WA legislation.

Approvals framework

The Projects have been referred to environmental agencies under Commonwealth and WA

legislation. The Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) has

deemed the Busselton Eastern Link (EPBC 2018/8155) a controlled action under the

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), requiring an

Assessment of Preliminary Information (API). As part of the API, the DEE has requested

documents relating to the proposed translocation of Carters Freshwater Mussel.

The Causeway Bridge Duplication has also been referred to DEE (EPBC 2018/8309) under the

EPBC Act. To inform its decision on the referral, the DEE has requested documents relating

to the proposed translocation of Carters Freshwater Mussel.

The WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decided not to assess the Busselton

Eastern Link under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, however their public advice

noted that a management plan is to be prepared for the proposed translocation of

Carter’s Freshwater Mussel, which requires a Regulation 15 Licence under the WA Wildlife

Conservation Regulations 1970.

The Causeway Bridge Duplication was not referred to the EPA, however translocation for

this Project will also require a Regulation 15 Licence.

This WCMP has been developed to address the approval requirements under the EPBC Act

and Regulation 15 Licence for both Projects.

Baseline survey

Freshwater mussels are known to be keystone aquatic species and can contribute to

enhancing water quality through their filtration activities and have positive effect on

biodiversity through their burrowing behavior (Chowdhury et al., 2016). River engineering




7

works are known to negatively impact freshwater mussels elsewhere by their accidental

removal (e.g. McIvor, 2004).

Carter’s Freshwater Mussel, Westralunio carteri, is the only freshwater mussel species in the

south-west of Western Australia and has lost approximately 50% of its former habitat through

salinisation and habitat degradation. The species is classified as Vulnerable under the EPBC

Act and the IUCN Red List of threatened species, and as Schedule 3 Vulnerable under the

Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950.

Westralunio carteri was previously known to occur in the Lower Vasse River (Lymbery et al.,

2008). Therefore, a baseline survey was undertaken at the Project sites to confirm the

presence of W. carteri and enable a preliminary assessment of the potential impact of the

Project on the species (Beatty et al., 2017). The survey examined the distribution and

population density and structure of the species at the impact and reference sites and

provided recommendations to mitigate any identified impacts associated with the Project.

The survey revealed that W. carteri were present at the Project sites and also at upstream

and downstream reference sites. The Project sites had higher densities (mean 1.8 and 2.5

mussels/m2 at the Eastern Link and Causeway Bridge sites, respectively) and a greater

range of age cohorts than the reference sites (mean 0.6 mussels/m2) and would contribute

to the viability of the population in the Lower Vasse River by providing preferred habitat.

From a regional perspective, the densities of W. carteri recorded at the Project sites are

lower than the mean density of 4.4 mussels/m2 recorded over 17 survey sites in the South

West, and comparable to the density of 2.0 mussels/m2 recorded in the Helena River;

another system that is subjected to flow regulation (Morgan and Beatty, 2008).

Given the disturbance of the river bed and potential increased turbidity and reductions in

dissolved oxygen that may occur due to resuspension of anoxic sediments (in particularly

monosulfidic black ooze MBO) associated with the construction phase of the Project, it was

recommended that active management of the species occurs to mitigate the effects of

the bridge construction at the impact sites.

The baseline survey by Beatty et al. (2017) produced the following recommendations that

aim to mitigate the impacts of the Project on the species.

1) Prior to any disturbance of the river banks or bed associated with the bridge

developments, undertake a temporary relocation program of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel to

mitigate the likelihood of mortality of the species. This should involve thorough searching of

the impact site, including sieving of sediments to locate juvenile mussels.

2) The temporary relocation site should be upstream, where known suitable habitat

exists and should be at a distance that would avoid any adverse conditions that may arise

from the construction works (such as elevated turbidity). The upper Vasse River, in the

vicinity of the junction with the Vasse Diversion Drain, would provide a suitable site for the

temporary relocation because it supports a large, viable population of mussels (Lymbery et

al. 2008) and is protected from public access.

3) Mussels can be maintained in cages within the relocation site, with weekly

monitoring to ensure that an adequate flow of water is maintained in the cages. Following

completion of the construction phase of the developments, mussels should be relocated to




8

the sites in which they were collected to avoid density dependent impacts on the

population and to ensure the ecosystem services (particularly water filtration) provided by

the species are maintained at the impact sites.

4) Prior to relocation, the water quality (particularly DO2 and turbidity) of the impact

site should be monitored to ensure that conditions are suitable before the mussels are

released.

5) It is recommended that the translocation process be undertaken or overseen by

qualified freshwater biologists to ensure that all mussels, including juveniles, are collected

and to minimise the risk of mortality during mussel relocation.

The current WCMP expands on these recommendations and provides an assessment of

their efficacy and associated risks with the proposed management actions that aim to

mitigate the negative impacts of the Project on W. carteri.

Location

The Project sites are located east of the existing footbridge (-33.6528, 115.3481)

for the Eastern Link Bridge and east of the existing bridge on the Bussell Hwy for

the Causeway Bridge (-33.6537, 115.3459) on the Lower Vasse River (Figures 1, 2).

The proposed temporary relocation site (hereafter referred to as ‘the relocation

site’) is within the Lower Vasse River 100 m downstream of the Vasse River

Diversion Drain (-33.686781, 115.365091) (Figures 1, 3). The relocation site is

located on Crown Reserve 45588 (Lot 5136 on Diagram 42478) and is accessed

through a track used to manage the Vasse River Diversion Drain valve. It is

surrounded by freehold land (Lot 23 on Diagram 42478 and Lot 80 on Plan

70429).

The relocation site will be used for both Projects, which will occur sequentially.

The Eastern Link construction and translocation program occur in 2019 and 2020.

The timeframe for the Causeway Bridge Duplication remains uncertain but

construction is expected to commence no earlier than 2021.




9

Figure 1: Busselton Eastern Link and Causeway Bridge sites (i.e., the proposed W. carteri capture sites) on

the Lower Vasse River and the proposed relocation site (immediately downstream of the Vasse Diversion

Drain).




10

Figure 2: The quadrats surveyed for W. carteri by Beatty et al. (2017) and the proposed bridge

development sites on the Lower Vasse River, Busselton.

(Project site)




11

Habitat requirements and environmental preferences of W. carteri

Westralunio carteri is unique in being the only species of freshwater mussel found

in south-western Australia and the only member of the genus Westralunio in

Australia. Klunzinger et al. (2015) found that the range of W. carteri has

contracted by 49% in less than 50 years, principally as a result of secondary

salinisation. The species is now confined to non-salinised rivers and streams,

principally in forested catchments along the west and south coasts. In the

Geographe Bay catchment, W. carteri has apparently been lost from the

Sabina River and the Buayanup River (Lymbery et al. 2008; Klunzinger et al.

2015). Maintaining existing populations is crucial for the survival of the species

and, considering the importance of freshwater mussels in improving water

quality, for the maintenance of freshwater ecosystem function.

The negative impacts of sedimentation on W. carteri have been discussed in

previous studies (Klunzinger et al., 2015). There is potential for monosulfidic black

ooze (MBO) to be present within the sediments of the Vasse River (P. Hanly

[DBCA] 2017, pers. comm. 13 October). MBO is an organic ooze enriched by

iron monosulfides. Disturbance of MBO during bridge construction works has

potential to impact water quality, as sulfides from mono-sulfidic black ooze

(MBO) may react with metal cations, produce toxic metal sulfides and decrease

the dissolved oxygen level (Sheldon & Walker, 1989; Bush et al. 2004). While

specific toxicity tests for metal sulfides have not been undertaken for W. carteri,

freshwater mussels elsewhere are known to be sensitive to such contaminants

(Wang et al., 2013) and prolonged periods of low dissolved oxygen is also known

to negatively impact other mussel species (Chen et al., 2001).

Potential impacts of the Projects on W. carteri

The following aspects of the Projects have the potential to negatively affect W.

carteri.

• Direct mortality during construction phases within the construction

footprints via the crushing or burying of individuals.

• Indirect mortality of W. carteri within and outside of the construction

footprints during construction phases associated with a decline in water

quality, specifically increases in turbidity and release of monosulfidic black

ooze.

The current WCMP assesses the efficacy of the proposed relocation of W. carteri

as a key management measure to achieve the Objectives (i.e. assesses the




12

residual risk). It also identifies and addresses any potential risks associated with

the proposed relocation.

Objectives of the W. carteri management plan

The overall object of the WCMP is to mitigate the potential negative impacts of

the Projects on the abundance and population viability of W. carteri in the

Lower Vasse River through the implementation of a temporary relocation

program. The WCMP is complemented by measures specified in the

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP, Strategen 2018), which

are designed to avoid and minimise impacts to water quality at the Project sites.

The WCMP addresses the residual risk posed to W. carteri in the event of

impacted water quality at the Project sites.

Specific objectives of the current WCMP are to:

1) Minimise the mortality of W. carteri at the Project sites and their vicinity during

the construction phases of the Projects.

2) Minimise the mortality of relocated individual W. carteri during the

construction phases of the Projects.

3) Avoid mortality of the host population of W. carteri at the relocation site.

4) Ensure the abundance and population structure of W. carteri at the Project

sites is not significantly different post-construction to that recorded prior to the

commencement of the temporary relocation program.

Risks associated with the WCMP

Potential risks associated with the proposed relocation are:

• Mortality associated with handling stress during collection of mussels and

transport to the relocation site

• Conditions at the proposed relocation site no longer suitable prior to

relocation (e.g. poor water quality, evidence of mortality of existing

population)

• Predation of caged mussels at the relocation site

• Removal or other interference with caged mussels by members of the

public




13

• Water quality decline at the relocation site during the housing period due

to external factors (e.g. fire, flooding, or pollution event).

• Mortality from compromised water quality in cages associated with

stocking density

• Mortality from water emersion of cages due to drying of relocation site

• Risks to the existing wild population at the relocation site of addition of

caged relocated mussels

• Extended period of impacted water quality at Project sites requiring

extension of the temporary relocation period causing chronic effects (e.g.

reproduction, growth, disease, waste accumulation)

Rationale and approach for meeting the objectives

Species characteristics

The biology and ecology of Westralunio carteri has been intensively studied by

the Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems at Murdoch University (see

Klunzinger et al. 2011, 2012a,b, 2013, 2014, 2015). The species is slow-growing

and long-lived, with a maximum age of at least 52 years and an age at maturity

of 4-6 years. Larval mussels are found on a wide range of fish hosts, while juvenile

and adult mussels are relatively sedentary and live on the stream bed, preferring

fine-grained sediments such as silt and sand. They have an aggregated

distribution, with a maximum recorded density of 512 mussels per m2. Mussels

can survive water emersion for considerable periods of time (up the three

months) if they are shaded from direct sunlight. These characteristics mean that

W. carteri is readily captured and tolerant of transport and caging, resulting in it

being a relatively straightforward species for relocation.

Relocation precedents

There are successful precedents of relocation programs for W. carteri that

similarly aimed to avoid mass mortalities associated with engineering works.

Relocation projects have been conducted for the species that were associated

with maintenance work on the Helena River pipehead dam (Klunzinger et al.

2011) and the Serpentine River pipehead dam (Klunzinger 2012b). Neither

project recorded any mortality of the translocated individuals.

The Helena River and Serpentine River relocations did not involve relocation to

the place of origin, because the developments involved major changes to the

habitat. In these relocations, mussels were moved to an adjacent, downstream




14

site and were held in cages for only a short period before being released.

However, in experimental studies of growth and shell deposition, we have

successfully maintained mussels in cages in the field for up to two years.

Therefore, while the current WCMP will involve a longer period of caging that

the Helena and Serpentine River translocations, it will be within the time period

of previous studies and will involve a greatly enhanced monitoring and adaptive

management component than was previously undertaken on successful cage

experiments.

Relocation timing

The timing of relocation from the Project sites will avoid the spawning and

brooding period of the species. Westralunio carteri is a spermcaster, with males

spawning in July/August. Larvae (glochidia) are retained by the female until

October/November, when they are released (Klunzinger 2008, PhD Thesis,

Murdoch University).

The Eastern Link construction is proposed to commence in autumn/early winter

2019 with relocation proposed in autumn. The bridge construction works will

take 3-4 months, with the mussels released back to the Project site in summer

late 2019/2020, subject to assessment of the Project site confirming it is suitable

for release of the mussels (see below).

Relocation site characteristics

The aquatic fauna and habitat of the proposed relocation site has previously

been thoroughly surveyed. This includes for fish, freshwater crayfish, habitat and

water quality (Beatty et al., 2014, Appendix 1) and specifically for W. carteri

(Lymbery et al., 2008). The habitat and water quality has been shown to be

suitable for the species with it having >50% shading of the river, relatively cool

water temperatures (~17°C), and low conductivity (~1100µS.cm-1) (Figure 3,

Appendix 1). Importantly, the site maintains a mean baseflow depth of >0.5 m

(Appendix 2). The site was shown to house a viable population of W. carteri

having a mean density of 14.5 ± 5.6 mussels.m-2 (Lymbery et al., 2008). There will

be an additional pre-relocation survey to confirm that the conditions there are

still suitable for housing the mussels along with an updated assessment of the

status of the host population of mussels at that site (see Table 3).




15

Figure 3: Habitat conditions at the proposed relocation site for W. carteri. Note the considerable shading of

the streamline by riparian vegetation.

Use of cages

Relocated mussels will be housed within purpose-constructed cages. Housing

the relocated mussels in cages will ensure they can be intensively monitored

during the relocation period. All caged mussels will also be able to be readily

collected for the reintroduction to the Project sites once conditions are suitable

post-construction. Finally, housing them in cages rather that tagging them and

releasing into the natural habitat will also avoid disturbing host mussels during re-

collection of the relocated mussels.

Stocking densities

The density of the W. carteri at the Project sites as determined by Beatty et al.

(2017) was 1.8 and 2.5 mussels/m2 for the Eastern Link and Causeway Bridge

sites, respectively. We estimate that based on a conservative distribution of

mussels out to 5 m from the bank (mussels are rarely found more than 5m from




16

the bank [Le Ma 2018, unpublished PhD Thesis], but this will be confirmed at the

Project sites by snorkeling searches during the baseline survey) and the impact

site being 70 m (including 20 m buffer zone upstream and downstream of the silt

curtain), the number of mussels that will be relocated will be ~1260 (±560) and

1750 (±840) mussels from the Eastern Link and Causeway Bridge sites,

respectively.

Stocking densities within cages will be within those recorded for the species at

other sites in the South West region. The species has a highly aggregated

population structure, with densities across 31 sites throughout the range varying

from 2-512 mussels.m-2 (Ma 2018 PhD Thesis, Murdoch University). The cage

density of 50 mussels.m-2 is greater than the mean density across all sites of 29.5

mussels.m-2, but only 1/10th of the maximum recorded density.

At a stocking density of 50 mussels / 1 m2 cage, we propose to use 60 cages at

the site. The dimensions of suitable habitat at the temporary relocation site is

approximately 200 m2 which will allow a cage to be placed within each ~3.3 m2

of habitat, enabling ample spacing to avoid potential impacts on light

attenuation and water flow and mitigate the potential for density dependent

effects (see below).

Inclusion of buffer zones in collection sites

The abutment construction areas for each Project will be contained within

temporary sheet piled coffer dams along an approximately 30 m stretch of the

river. The coffer dams are expected to effectively capture sediment flows from

the adjacent, contained abutment construction areas. Silt curtains will be

established either side of the coffer dams as a second line of defense and to

retain any sediment arising during the installation and removal of the coffer

dams.

A 20 m buffer zone is proposed either side of the silt curtains, for a total 70 m

stretch of collection site for each Project. The 20 m buffer zone is provided as a

conservative measure to prevent impacts to W. carteri in the event of any

unexpected sediment disturbance during installation and removal of the silt

curtains or unexpected spillages or sediment flows during un-planned (e.g.

emergency) access or construction activities outside the designated abutment

construction areas.




17

Host population and predation

There are potential impacts on the existing host population and the relocated

population associated with the temporary relocation of additional individuals at

that site. These potential impacts include competition for benthic habitat space,

reduction in water quality, predation and disease transmission. We assess the risk

of impact to host and relocated mussels as being low, although this may rise to

medium with an unexpected extended housing period that may occur should

the conditions at the Project sites be inadequate for relocation of mussels back

into that habitat for a prolonged period following the construction phase.

We do not expect an increase in predator numbers at the relocation site and

therefore we do not expect any increase in predation rate on the host

population. Mussels are not the major prey of any predator species and we

have no evidence of any difference in predation rate (from broken shells left by

birds or middens left by water rats) in relation to mussel density.

Post-construction release

The proposed WCMP will involve a comprehensive assessment of the Project

sites for their suitability for re-introduction of the relocated mussels prior to this

occurring (see criteria in Tables 2, 3). It will also involve a comprehensive post-

release monitoring program of the re-introduced mussels. Monitoring of the

population at the Project sites will occur at one, two and six month intervals in

order to detect mortalities.

Our previous studies of mussel tolerance to water quality parameters such as

salinity and silting have found mortality to be rapid (< 2 weeks). Detecting non-

lethal effects, such as reduced fertility, that might affect population size over the

longer term would require monitoring over a longer time period. Juvenile mussels

first appear in the sediment in January, so annual surveys in summer/autumn

would provide an indication of recruitment success.

Post-construction habitat

The Projects are not expected to result in a net reduction in the shoreline habitat

suitability for W. carteri post construction at the Project sites. The Projects will

remove riparian vegetation and replace it with a bridge structure and

vegetated fauna underpasses. The existing riparian vegetation at the two

bridge sites is in a completely degraded condition on the north foreshores

(native trees with little to no understorey and mowed/introduced parkland




18

grasses) and in a good condition on the south foreshores (owing to native

vegetation planted in the 1990s).

The new bridges will provide similar habitat to that afforded by the existing

Causeway Bridge, which has more degraded riparian vegetation yet higher

mussel densities than the Eastern Link site. The Causeway Bridge structure likely

provides enhanced habitat values through shading of the river banks and bed,

whereas the riparian vegetation elsewhere along the Vasse River (which will

remain largely untouched by the Projects) provides sufficient organic matter

deposition for mussel nutrition along the river.

The new bridge structures will have planted native species Sword Sedge

(Lepidosperma gladiatum) on the north and south banks beneath the bridge

decks, to provide fauna underpasses. The rock pitching on the banks, down to

the river bed, to provide long term scour protection will have Sword Sedge

planted between the rocks. It is possible this rock pitching along the banks will

not be suitable habitat for the species, so the mussels will be released into the

adjacent areas rather than the bridge footprint.

Based on the above factors, the new bridge sites are expected to provide

suitable long-term habitat for the release of mussels post-construction.

Contingency for permanent relocation

In the unexpected event that the water quality or habitat at the Project sites is

found to be unsuitable for post-construction release, a survey will occur of the

lower Vasse River between the Project sites and proposed relocation site to

identify alternative relocation habitats and the new site/s approved by

DEE/DBCA prior to release

It is expected that a suitable site for permanent relocation (if required) will be

present along the lower Vasse River between the Project sites and temporary

relocation site. This is due to the approximately 9 km of river stretch between the

two locations (versus 70 m of river stretch to be relocated) which includes

substantial areas of similar riverine morphology, geology, catchment and

fringing vegetation as the Project and temporary relocation sites; as well as the

recorded presence of mussels at three other locations along the lower Vasse

River between the Project and temporary relocation sites (Lymbery et al 2008,

DBCA fauna database 2017).

Risk assessment

The risk posed to translocated individuals and the host community is assessed as

low to medium based on the following factors:




19

(1) Baseline data showing the relocation site to be suitable for the species and

the fact that we have previously recorded the species in other systems within its

range at densities 35 times higher than was recorded at the proposed

relocation site, suggesting that the (at least temporary) carrying capacity of the

site is much greater than is currently present.

(2) The proposed stocking densities within the cages are over 10 times less than

have been recorded for the species in other systems.

(3) The water quality and habitat at the relocation site are suitable for the

species based on past surveys at the site and an additional pre-relocation

survey will occur to confirm conditions are still suitable (see Table 3).

(4) The cages will also be spaced well apart to further decrease the potential for

density dependent effects.

(5) The 10 mm mesh width on the cages will ensure free water flow and the

flushing of all organic waste.

(6) No morbidity or mortality associated with infectious disease has ever been

recorded in the Vasse River or in other sites in Westralunio carteri has been

surveyed; between 2009 and 2011, 582 mussels were dissected for analysis of

reproductive biology and health status, with no pathogens or parasites

observed.

(7) The major predators of freshwater mussels generally are water birds and

some mammals, such as water-rats. The cages that will be used will be

constructed of hi-strength plastic mesh and fully sealed to prevent access by

predators. Therefore, while increasing the time in captivity will increase the

probability of predators being present, it will not affect the low risk of predation

by animals.

Environmental management plan provisions The following outlines the approach of the proposed relocation program to

ensure it successfully mitigates the potential negative impact on W. carteri. It

identifies management actions that will be implemented as part of the WCMP

and the residual risk following the undertaking of those actions. The timeframe

for conducting each action is also outlined (Table 2). Also outlined is the pre-

relocation, relocation period and post-release monitoring program to assess the

performance of WCMP in meeting its management targets, including triggers for

instigation of corrective actions and the reporting framework (Table 3). A

conceptual diagram detailing key elements of the management actions and

monitoring program is also provided below (Figure 4).




20




21

Figure 4: Conceptual flow chart of key elements of the management actions and monitoring program of

the WCMP. See Tables 2 and 3 for details.

Water quality adequate during summer

Viable population present

Habitat survey (Beatty et al. 2013)

Temporary relocation siteProject site

Action

Mussel survey (Lymbery et al. 2008)

Key outcomes Action Key outcomes

Mussel survey (Beatty et al. 2017)

Viable population present

CO

MP

LETE

DP

RE-

REL

OC

ATIO

N Mussel survey

Confirm accuracy of baseline data on densities to guide relocation actions

• Host population in good health

• Water quality and habitat still suitable

Mussel and habitat survey

REL

OC

ATTI

ON

• Host population declined• Water quality and

habitat no longer suitable

Intensive removal of mussels from Project site

Mussels housed at relocation site

Mussels housed at Fish Health Unit Murdoch University

In situ monitoring program Ex situ monitoring

program

PO

ST C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

Habitat survey

Water quality and habitat adequate at Project site

Mussels moved back into Project site

Mussel health / water quality declines

Post release Mussel monitoring

Water quality and habitat inadequate at Project site

Habitat survey

Water quality and habitat inadequate at Project site >1 year post construction

Mussels moved into appropriate habitats between Project and Temporary Relocation sites

Mussel and habitat survey lower Vasse River – ID alternative habitats to release


Table 2 Risk based management actions

Management

Objective

Management Actions Residual risk of impact Timeframe

Minimise the

mortality of

W. carteri at

the Project

sites on the

Lower Vasse

River during

construction

• Undertake an intensive removal

program of W. carteri within and

adjacent to the Eastern Link and

Causeway bridge construction

sites

Low.

• The collection site will include a

buffer zone 20 m upstream and

downstream of the sediment

containment area (within silt

curtains) at the Project sites.

• The collection site will be

divided into 1 m2 grids.

Sediments in each grid will be

thoroughly searched, with

sieving to detect juvenile

mussels and all mussels removed

• The density of mussels removed

from each grid will be recorded

• A depletion curve will be plotted

and mussel collection halted

only when no further mussels are

found after 30 minutes of

intensive searching

• Prior to any disturbance

of the river banks or bed

associated with the

bridge development

Minimise the

mortality of

relocated

individuals

during the

bridge

construction

phase of the

Projects

• Prior to relocation commencing,

the relocation site will be re-

surveyed to assess water quality

and existing mussel population

to confirm it remains a suitable

relocation site

• Rapid relocation in insulated,

aerated containers to the

relocation site below the Vasse

Diversion Drain

Low.

• Relocation site has been shown

to house viable, healthy

population of W. carteri and has

suitable habitat characteristics

(i.e., high degree of shading,

adequate depth, cool water

temperatures, low conductivity)

• Relocation site has adequate

space (200 m2) to house the

estimate number of relocated

mussels (i.e., 1260 (±560) and

• Transport time from

Project sites to

Relocation site is under

15 minutes

• Daily inspection of

caged mussels for the

first week of relocation

• Weekly inspection for the

remainder of the

construction phase

• Continuous real-time

(telemetered) monitoring




23

Management

Objective


• Maintain mussels in purpose built

cages in perennial habitat at

the relocation site

• Submerge cages to reduce

visibility to the general public

• Each cage will be coded and

location recorded (using GPS),

each will be secured to star

pickets.

• Notify neighbouring landholder

of the WCMP

• Undertake regular inspection of

populations

• Undertaken real-time constant

monitoring of mussel activity in

cages using valvometers

1750 (±840) mussels from the

Eastern Link and Causeway

Bridge sites, respectively) with

cages spaced at one cage per

~3.3 m2) with a stocking density

of 50 mussels / cage

• Relocation site lies on Crown

Reserve 45588 and has minimal

public visibility and difficult

access.

• Relocation site has adequate

space for estimated number of

relocated mussels to house the

number of cages at the

proposed stocking density

• Previous studies have

successfully relocated mussels

out of impact sites with similar

numbers being moved to the

current estimate [i.e. 1205

mussels from the Helena

Pipehead Dam (Klunzinger et al.

(2011) and 1163 mussels from

the Serpentine Pipehead Dam

(Klunzinger et al. (2012b)].

• Previous studies have found no

mortality in caged mussels.

• Regular monitoring will trigger

further management actions if

required (see Table 3)

of mussel activity

throughout relocation

period (see Appendix 2)

Avoid

mortality of

the host

population of

• House the relocated mussels in

cages to avoid direct

competition for benthic habitat

and minimise the risk of spread

Low

• Density of existing host

population is substantially less

than found at other sites.

• Survey of host mussel

population and water

quality will occur prior to

relocating mussels into




24

Management

Objective


W. carteri at

the

relocation

site.

of disease by direct contact

between relocated and host

individuals

• Regularly monitor health of host

populations and water quality to

ensure that conditions at

relocation site can support

expanded mussel population

without impacting the host

population

• There has been no recorded

morbidity or mortality of

parasites associated with

infectious disease at either the

Project sites or the relocation site

in the Vasse River.

• Regular monitoring will trigger

further management actions if

required (see Table 3)

the site following the

techniques in Beatty et

al. (2017)

• Monthly assessment of

the host population at

the relocation site will

occur following the

techniques in Beatty et

al. (2017)

• Continuous monitoring of

sub-sample of mussels

will occur using

valvometers that will

provide early warning of

an adverse conditions

affecting both the host

and relocated mussels

• Weekly assessments of

caged mussels will occur

throughout the

relocation phase

Restore the

population

abundance

of W. carteri

post- bridge

construction

phases of the

project to

equal the

pre-

construction

abundances

• Assessment of the water quality

and habitat suitability of the

Project sites following

construction will occur prior to

re-locating the mussels

• Relocation of mussels to original

collection sites at Project sites

will match the original spatial

distribution. This spacing will

avoid any potential density

dependent impacts (discussed

in Rationale and Approach for

Low.

• As a 100% survival rate of

relocated W. carteri is

anticipated based on

previous relocation projects,

all mussels present prior to

construction will be

relocated following the

construction phases of the

Project

• Assessment of the water

quality and habitat

• Assessment of the water

quality and habitat

suitability of the Project

sites to house mussels will

occur within one month

following the completion

of construction

• Relocation will occur

after construction phases

of the Project and

following the

confirmation of meeting




25

Management

Objective


Meeting the Objectives) on the

population and to ensure the

ecosystem services (particularly

water filtration) provided by the

species are maintained at the

Project sites

• Monitoring program of the

relocated mussels will occur

after being placed back into

the Project sites to confirm

ongoing viability

(including depth, substrate

composition, temperature,

dissolved oxygen, pH,

turbidity) at the Project sites

and compared with three

reference sites upstream

(distances of 200, 400, 600

m) prior to the decision to

re-stock the mussels being

made to ensure survival

• Mussels will be relocated to

the Project sites and re-

stocked at the same density

in each grid to ensure the

same population distribution

as was present prior to

construction

• In the event of the water

quality and/or habitat at

the Project sites remains

unsuitable for a prolonged

period of time (i.e. >1 year

post construction phases),

additional management

actions will be taken (see

Table 3)

appropriate water

quality and habitat

criteria (see Table 3) at

Project sites

• Monitoring of the

relocated mussels

population will occur

one, two and six months

after being relocated at

the Project sites and will

include density and

population structure

being assessed




26

Table 3 Management targets to measure success of management actions

Management

Objectives

Management targets Monitoring Trigger value Corrective Action

Minimise the

mortality of W.

carteri at the

Project sites on

the Lower Vasse

River during

construction

• Remove all W. carteri from

the impact site including

within a 20 m buffer zone

upstream and downstream

of the bridge construction

footprint

• Relocate all captured W.

carteri to appropriate

habitat upstream in the

Lower Vasse River

• Pre-relocation baseline

survey will be

conducted following

the methods of Beatty

et al. (2017) to ensure

accurate baseline

data

• The density of mussels

removed from each

grid will be recorded

• A real-time depletion

curve will be plotted

• Minimum time of

30 minutes of

intensive

searching with

no further W.

carteri detected

• Continue mussel

collection until

they are

undetectable at

the impact site

Minimise the

mortality of

relocated

individuals during

the bridge

construction

phase of the

Projects

• No deaths of relocated W.

carteri during the

construction phase of the

Project

• Pre-relocation survey

of relocation site will

be conducted to

confirm its suitability to

receive caged mussels

following methods of

Lymbery et al., (2018)

and Beatty et al.,

(2017).


caged mussels for the

first week of relocation

• All mussels checked

for viability (valve

closure on touching)

• Weekly inspection for

the remainder of the

construction phase


(telemetered)

• Pre-relocation

survey reveals

>2 deceased

individuals/m2)

and/or a >30%

reduction in

mussel densities

compared with

that recorded

by Lymbery et

al. (2008)

• Water emersion

(i.e. drying) of

any cages

during

inspection

• Any dead

mussels in cages,

indicated by

gaping valves,

• All relocated W.

carteri

transferred to

bio-secure facility

at the Fish Health

Unit (FHU)

Murdoch

University

• W. carteri

transported to

FHU in insulated,

aerated

containers

• W. carteri

maintained for at

FHU until such

time as the

habitat and

water quality

conditions are




27

Management

Objectives


monitoring of mussel

activity throughout

relocation period (see

Appendix 2)


monitoring of water

quality (temperature,

dissolved oxygen)

during

inspection

• Valve closure, as

indicated by

valvometer

activity, >50% of

W. carteri for a

period of >12

hours.

• Water

temperature

>26°C and/or

dissolved

oxygen <2 ppm

for a continuous

period of >12

hours

suitable for

relocation to

Project sites.

• Housing

protocols at FHU

will be those

developed by

staff at CSAE that

have previously

ensured the

successful

maintenance of

the species for

prolonged

periods of time

(>1 year)

Avoid mortality of

the host

population of W.

carteri at the

relocation site

• No deaths or reduction in

density of the existing host

population recorded during

the relocated period

• Regularly (monthly)

assessment of the

health of host

populations and

water quality to

ensure that

conditions at

relocation site

supports expanded

mussel population

without impacting

the host population


relocated mussel

population for the first

week of relocation

• A decline in host

population

density of 20%

(0.5 SD)

(compared with

pre-relocation

densities)

• Water

temperature

>26°C and/or

dissolved

oxygen <2 ppm

for a continuous

period of >12

hours

• All relocated (i.e.

caged) W.

carteri

transferred to

bio-secure facility

at the Fish Health

Unit (FHU)

Murdoch

University, as

described above




28

Management

Objectives


• Weekly inspection for

the remainder of the

construction phase


monitoring of water

quality (temperature,

dissolved oxygen)

Restore the

population

abundance of W.

carteri post-

bridge

construction

phase of the

project to equal

the pre-

construction

abundances

• No change in the density

and population viability of

W. carteri at the

construction site following

the completion of the

construction phase of the

Project

• Prior to restocking at

the construction site,

water quality and

habitat will be

measured (including

temperature,

dissolved oxygen, pH,

turbidity burrowable

substrate)

• Population

resampled one, two

and six months after

restoration, and

density and

population structure

assessed

• Inadequate

water quality

(i.e., water

temperature

>26°C and/or

dissolved

oxygen <2 ppm

for a continuous

period of >12

hours) and

habitat suitability

(i.e, burrowable

benthic

substrate less

than a depth of

10 cm and/or

average grain

size >500 µm,

mean depth

within 3m of the

water’s edge at

the Project sites

<0.3 m).

• Reduction in

population

density of 10%

• Mussels continue

to be maintained

in relocation sites

until water

quality within the

construction site

is similar to

reference sites in

the Lower Vasse

River

• Should

population

decline once

relocated back

to Project site, all

living mussels

collected and

relocated until

source of

mortality

identified

• In the event of

the water quality

or habitat at the

Project sites

being unsuitable

for a prolonged




29

Management

Objectives


(0.5 SD)

(compared to

pre-translocation

densities)

• Evidence of

abnormal mussel

mortality (>5%

dead mussels, as

indicated by

empty shells)

period of time

(i.e. >1 year post

construction

phase), a survey

will occur of the

lower Vasse River

between the

Project sites and

Temporary

Relocation Site to

identify

alternative

relocation

habitats and the

new site/s

approved by

DEE/DBCA prior

to release

• The mussels will

be relocated into

the approved

site/s, limiting the

overall density

increase to <10%.


Roles and responsibilities The WCMP will be managed by senior members of the Centre for Sustainable Aquatic

Ecosystems (CSAE, Murdoch University) who have successfully managed all previous

relocation projects for W. carteri. They will be responsible for supervising the removal of W.

carteri from the Project sites, the rapid relocation of W. carteri to the relocation site, the

design and installation of the purpose-built holding cages, the installation of the

valvometers to monitor the behavior of the relocated mussels, ongoing monitoring of the

telemetered data and ongoing assessment of trigger levels. The CSAE will also train

appropriate staff at the City of Busselton in order for them to conduct the weekly

inspections of relocated W. carteri. This will include ensuring staff understand the

requirements of the WCMP, understand the monitoring aims and schedule, and can

correctly identify any adverse habitat conditions (e.g. risk of emersion of mussels) and

health status of W. carteri.

City of Busselton will be responsible for:

• Notifying adjacent landholders of relocation site and activities.

• Scheduling relocation prior to construction commencing.

• Water quality monitoring at the Project sites.

• Implementing CEMP to minimise water quality impacts at the Project sites.

Audit and review The progress and efficacy of the WCMP will be reviewed under the following schedule:

• Prior to the construction phase commencing, a report will be produced detailing the

results of the additional surveys of W. carteri populations and the water quality and

habitat conditions at both the Project sites and the temporary relocation site. This

will confirm the suitability of the relocation site to receive the relocated mussels and

also provide additional data to estimate the number of mussels that will be

relocated from the Project sites.

• Real-time assessment during the capture of W. carteri prior to the construction

commencing at the Project sites. This will generate a catch curve that will trigger the

cessation of the fishout.

• Within 1 week following the initial relocation of W. carteri a report will be produced

that provides an assessment of the success of the fishout and relocation status of W.

carteri including numbers, size distribution, water quality, and valvometer data

assessment.

• Progress report on the status of the relocated W. carteri will be produced at the half-

way point of construction, or 6 months following initial relocation of W. carteri

(whichever is sooner) outlining the status of the relocated mussels (health, behavior,

water quality).

• Within 2 weeks following completion of the bridge construction phase of the Project,

a report will be produced on the status of the water quality and habitat conditions of




31

the site (compared to reference sites) and an assessment made as to the suitability

for relocating mussels back to their capture sites.

• Following the restocking of the mussels back into the Lower Vasse River, a report will

be produced as to the status of the mussels at the restocked site (6 weeks after

restocking).

• A final report will be produced eight months following the restocking that provides

an assessment of all aspects of the WCMP, including the status of the restocked

mussels in the Lower Vasse River.

• All reports will be provided to DBCA under the Regulation 15 License and the DEE

under the EPBC Act approval.

• Should a catastrophic event occur at any time which impacts upon the mussel

project, causing >10% mussel mortality in either the translocated or host population,

the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions will be notified within 48

hours with a statement of facts and proposed mitigation actions for approval.

Adaptive management between Projects

The WCMP will be subject to a review between the construction phases of the two Projects

to provide for any required adaptive management.

The Eastern Link construction will be undertaken first, with construction (and translocation)

commencing in autumn/early winter 2019 and the post-construction release expected to

occur in the summer of late 2019/2020. The timeframe for the Causeway Bridge Duplication

remains uncertain but construction is expected to commence no earlier than 2021.

Following the post-construction release and monitoring for Eastern Link, a workshop will be

held with relevant stakeholders including City of Busselton, DBCA and DWER. The workshop

will review the findings and success of the Eastern Link translocation program and post-

construction release, including the selected methods, sites and timing. The workshop will

identify options, discuss and agree on any refinements required for the WCMP for the

Causeway Bridge Duplication.

The WCMP will be updated based on the workshop findings and the amended document

submitted to DBCA and DEE for approval prior to implementation on the Causeway Bridge

Duplication.

References

Beatty, S., Ma, L., Lymbery, A. (2017). Baseline assessment of Carter’s Freshwater Mussel,

Westralunio carteri, at proposed bridge construction sites on the lower Vasse River. Report

to Strategen Environmental. Freshwater Fish Group and Fish Health Unit, Centre for Fish and

Fisheries Research, School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth,

Western Australia.

Chen, L.-Y., Heath, A.G., Neves, R.J. (2001). Comparison of oxygen consumption in freshwater

mussels (Unionidae) from different habitats during declining dissolved oxygen

concentration. Hydrobiologia 450, 209-214.




32

Chowdhury, G.W., Zieritz, A., Aldridge, D.C. (2016.) Ecosystem engineering by mussels supports

biodiversity and water clarity in a heavily polluted lake in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Freshwater

Science 35, 188-199.

Comeau, L.A., Babarro, J.M.F., Longa, A., Padin, X.A. (2018). Valve-gaping behavior of raft-

cultivated mussels in the Ría de Arousa, Spain. Aquaculture Reports, 9, 68–73.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2017.12.005

Klunzinger, M.W., Beatty, S.J. & Lymbery, A.J. (2011). Freshwater mussel response to drying in the

Lower Helena Piphead Dam & mussel translocation strategy for conservation

management. Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research, Murdoch University Report to Swan

River Trust.

Klunzinger, M. K., Beatty, S. J., Morgan, D. L., & Lymbery, A. J. (2012a). Distribution of Westralunio

carteri Iredale, 1934 (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Hyriidae) on the south coast of south‐western

Australia, including new records of the species. Journal of the Royal Society of Western

Australia, 95, 77‐81.

Klunzinger, M. W., Beatty, S. J., Allen, M. G., & Keleher, J. (2012b). Mitigating the impact of

Serpentine Dam works on Carter's Freshwater Mussel. Perth, Western Australia: Freshwater

Fish Group & Fish Health Unit (Murdoch University). Report to the Department of Fisheries,

Government of Western Australia.

Klunzinger, M. W., Beatty, S. J., Morgan, D. L., Lymbery, A. J., & Haag, W. R. (2014). Age and

growth in the Australian freshwater mussel, Westralunio carteri, with an evaluation of the

fluorochrome calcein for validating the assumption of annulus formation. Freshwater

Science, 33(4), 1127‐1135.

Klunzinger, M. W., Beatty, S. J., Morgan, D. L., Pinder, A. M., & Lymbery, A. J. (2015). Range

decline and conservation status of Westralunio carteri Iredale, 1934 (Bivalvia : Hyriidae)

from south‐western Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology, 63, 127‐135.

Klunzinger, M.W., Beatty, S.J., Morgan, D.L., Thomson, G.J. & Lymbery, A.J. (2013). Morphological

and morphometrical description of the glochidia of Westralunio carteri Iredale, 1934

(Bivalvia: Unionoida: Hyriidae). Molluscan Research 33(2):104-109. (20% contribution,

Murdoch colleagues).

Lymbery, A., Lymbery, R., Morgan, D., & Beatty, S. (2008). Freshwater Mussels (Westralunio carteri)

in the catchments of Geographe Bay, south‐western Australia. Prepared for the Water

Corporation, Western Australia. Fish Health Unit. Murdoch, Western Australia.

Sheldon, F., & Walker, K. (1989). Effects of Hypoxia on Oxygen consumption by two species of

Freshwater Mussel (Unionacea: Hyriidae) from the River Murray. Marine and Freshwater

Research, 40(5), 491‐499.

Wang, N., Ingersoll, C. G., Kunz, J. L., Brumbaugh, W. G., Kane, C. M., Evans, R. B., Alexander, S.,

Walker, C., & Bakaletz, S. (2013). Toxicity of sediments potentially contaminated by coal

mining and natural gas extraction to unionid mussels and commonly tested benthic

invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(1), 207‐221.


http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2017.12.005

Appendix 1 Habitat conditions at the proposed relocation site for W. carteri site = “Vasse: Below div. drain”. Reproduced

from Beatty et al., (2014).

Table 1. Mean values of various environmental/habitat characteristics of seasonal sampling sites. Pen-Scott foreshore condition

index was graded as follows: A1 – pristine, A2 – near pristine, A3 – slightly disturbed, B1 – degraded/weed infested, B2 –

degraded/heavily weed infested, B3 – degraded/weed dominated, C1 – erosion prone, C2 – soil exposed, C3 – eroded, D1 –

eroding ditch, D2 – freely eroding ditch, D3 – weed dominated drain.

Pen-Scott

CATCHMENT SITE mean se mean se mean se mean se mean se mean se

Sabina Barracks 1.17 5.00 0.40 2.83 0.18 B3 80 6.16 72.5 10.75 6.67 2.71 84.17 12.36

Tuart 2.06 8.50 0.37 2.83 0.18 B3 10 6.93 17.5 13.1 5 5.48 95 3.74

Bussell 3.24 6.83 0.52 2.67 0.23 B3 45 7.87 27.5 13.4 20 9.7 91.67 5.42

Oates 10.23 10.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 D3 10 6.93 0 0 0 0 50.83 14.31

Piggott 17.61 6.83 1.15 2.33 0.46 A2 80 5.48 42.5 13.32 46.67 11.8 53.33 7.7

Abba Tuart 1.68 4.67 0.73 2.50 0.37 B2 30 17.89 19.17 14.03 17.5 5.43 45.83 9.94

Bussell 2.86 8.50 0.37 3.00 0.00 B3 52.5 15.98 53.33 13.9 38.33 14.47 97.5 1.87

Ludlow-Hithergreen 13.29 6.67 0.54 2.83 0.18 B2 57.5 19.99 53.33 16.83 75.83 71.1 65.83 6.39

Williamson 15.54 3.17 0.52 2.33 0.37 C1 80 6.16 52.5 11.81 10.83 3.58 59.17 12.92

Vasse Hwy 23.14 8.00 0.57 2.50 0.37 A2 90 5.10 82.5 4.42 28.33 3.65 24.17 4.98

Ludlow Tuart 3.22 7.67 0.92 2.33 0.37 B3 37.5 16.96 63.33 8.79 19.17 4.78 63.33 28.05

Bussell 5.99 7.67 0.46 2.50 0.24 B2 39.17 10.72 62.5 13.17 16.67 5.23 78.33 5.42

Capel-Tutunup 12.7 2.67 0.23 2.00 0.49 C3 9.17 3.29 13.33 14.61 0 0 89.17 4.34

Warns 15.65 7.83 0.59 2.50 0.24 B3 41.67 9.87 52.5 7.97 13.33 3.65 79.17 11.26

Yoganup 22.71 6.67 0.88 3.00 0.00 A2 60.1 10.04 63.33 8.68 21.67 6.73 70.83 4.1

Vasse Chapman Hill Rd 5.71 4.83 0.34 3.00 0.00 D3 0 0 0 0 1.67 1.83 100 0

Below div. drain 5.75 7.50 0.84 2.00 0.40 B3 53.33 16.23 51.67 13.17 10 5.1 95.83 2.2

Distance

f/mouth

(km)

Midstorey

(% cover)

Understorey

(% cover)Erosion Index

1-10 (1 = 100%

eroded, 10 = <5%

eroded)

Bank Angle

1-3 (1 = <30°,

2 = 30-60°, 3 = 60-

90°)

Overstorey

(% cover)

Shade

(%)


Table 2: Water quality at the proposed relocation site for W. carteri below the Vasse Diversion

Drain in March 2012 (data from Beatty et al., 2014).

Mean width (m)

Mean depth (cm)

Mean temperature (°C)

Mean conductivity (µS.cm)

Mean pH

4.06 (±0.77) 54.83 (±26.93)

16.7 (0.06) 1165 (2.14) 7.67 (0.07)




35

Appendix 2

Use of valvometers to monitor stress in relocated mussels

Gaping activity (opening and closing of valves) of bivalves are closely related to

physiological processes, such as breathing, feeding and waste elimination. Because such

gaping behaviour has been shown to become altered during periods of stress, due to e.g.

poor water quality, bivalves can be used as biological monitoring tools (see Comeau et al.,

2018 and references within). Monitoring such activity following relocation to a new habitat,

would thus elucidate whether the new environment is suitable for maintenance of ‘normal’

physiological processes.

The principal of a valve gape monitor (valvometer, Figure 1) is based on the measurement

of magnetic field strength between a sensor and a magnet permanently fixed on the

outsides of each opposing valve. The sensor records the strength of the magnetic field (flux

density), which depends on the distance between the sensor and the magnet, i.e. valve

gape. The mass of the sensor and magnet are less than 3g. The information is then sent in

real time to a cloud and is thus available immediately online.

Figure 1: (from left to right) showing a valvometer attached to a Blue Mussel, a monitoring buoy prior to

deployment with 8 valvometers and network connectivity, and example of real time data that was

uploaded to Google Spreadsheets showing the closing of an individual’s valves.

In this management plan, valvometers will be attached to 8 W. carteri following their

relocation in cages to the relocation site below the Vasse Diversion Drain. For comparison of

the behavior of relocated compared with mussels at the relocation site, 8 valvometers will

also be attached to resident mussels kept in cages.

At one minute intervals, the valve gape of each mussel will be recorded and the data

uploaded to the cloud (see Figure 2). The gape behaviour of the relocated mussels will then

be compared to that of the resident mussels to elucidate any differences in gape activity

and thus the extent to which relocation induces stress in these mussels. This will also give a

real-time warning of any adverse conditions that may cause the mussels to close their

valves for a prolonged period of time that would then trigger management intervention

(see Table 3)




36

Figure 2: Data output from the valvometer


Page 22

Attachment F: Proponent commitments on environmental mitigation



Your Reference : EPBC 2018/8155

23 October 2018

City of B^usselton^eo^r-^ke^St

Rod WhyteA/DirectorProject Assessments West Section

Department of the Environment and Energy

GPO Box 787CANBERRA ACT 2601

Dear Rod

COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIONS EASTERN LINK PROJECT- BUSSELTON - WA

In response to the Department's request, the City of Busselton (the City) provide the followingcommitments to environmental mitigation for the Eastern Link Project (EPBC 2018/8155).

The City hereby commits to temporarily translocating Carters Freshwater Mussel (Westralunio carter!) fromthe proposed action area during construction. The translocation will be undertaken in accordance with the

W. carter! Environmental Management Plan (Version 3 dated 15 October 2018, and any subsequent

revisions) submitted to the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions/ and as required

under the Regulation 15 licence granted under the Wildlife Regulations 1970.

The City also commits to undertake ongoing monitoring and maintenance of fauna rope bridges installedat the proposed action area for the purposes of maintaining habitat linkages for Western Ringtail Possum(Pseudocheirus occidentalis). Monitoring and maintenance will be undertaken as part of the City'sassessment management program of roads and reserves. Technical inspections will occur on at least an

annual basis to identify wear and damage to the rope bridges. Any substantial defects that affect theecological functioning of the rope bridges will be repaired within a timeframe of two weeks.

We trust the above confirmation is sufficient to support completion of the Department's assessment of

preliminary documentation for the proposed action.

Should you have any queries relating to these commitments or the proposed action, please contact Daniell

Abrahamse, Manager Engineering and Technical Services.

Yours sincerely

<^=^JV^ 3Mike ArcherCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

ec: Kim Williams, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions

jeath Morgan, Darren Walsh, Strategen Environmental

All Communications to:

The Chief Executive OfficerLocked Bag IBUSSELTON WA 6280T: (08) 9781 0444 E: [email protected]



Page 23

Attachment G: Design drawings – possum bridge



1.943

1.963

1.987

1.946

1.740

1.769

1.019

1.799

1.704

1.517

1.765 1.78

9

1.496

1.730 1.73

4

1.075

Guard rail

Guard

rail

Abutment

Abutment

Abutment

Gas M

H

Abutment

Gas MH

T

T

TT

TT

OF

OF

OF

OF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

GG

GG

T

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

TT

T

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

DD

D

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OF

OF

OF

OF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OFOF

OF

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

GG

G

G

G

GG

GG

G

G

G

G

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

W

WW

WW

WW

W

W

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

WW

W

GG

GG

G

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

TENDER


B

A 5/9/18 ISSUED FOR TENDER KJB LRR LRRB 17/9/18 POSSUM ROPE TO TREE SHOWN INDICATIVELY KJB LRR LRR DRAWING No. REVISIONPROJECT No.



© COPYRIGHT


calibregroup.comC

CITY OF BUSSELTON CITY CENTRE - EASTERN LINK



POSSUM BRIGE

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

16-003167 809

PEEL TERRACE

POSSUM BRIDGE ARRANGEMENTSCALE 1:200



S

W E

N

1 in 3

1.0m

BENC

H

SCALE 1:200

0 2 4 6 8 10

ROAD

1POLE AE = 42103.305N = 174823.466

POLE BE = 42111.867N = 174874.342

POLE DE = 42136.560N = 174878.469

POLE CE = 42129.231N = 174828.101

VASSE RIVER

45°(TYP)

LEGENDEXISTING STORM WATER

EXISTING OPTIC FIBRE

EXISTING SEWER

EXISTING WATER RETICULATION

EXISTING GAS

EXISTING TELSTRA

D

OF

S

W

G

T

EXISTING OVERHEAD HV POWERHV

EXISTING OVERHEAD LV POWERLV



TOP OF BANK

WATER LINE

WATER LINE

ROAD

RES

ERVE

BOU

NDAR

Y

ROAD

RES

ERVE

BOU

NDAR

Y

ROAD RESERVE BOUNDARY

R7443

R2241

26.33m

51.59

m

50.89

m

25.03m

POSSUM BRIDGEROPE 400 CENTRES(TYP)

STAY AND FOOTINGREFER 16-003167 812FOR DETAIL (TYP)

REFER 16-003167 813FOR POSTARRANGEMENT (TYP)

POSSUM ROPE TO NEAREST MATUREPEPPERMINT TREE (TYP).REFER 16-003167 810 FOR TYPICAL NOTES.SHOWN INDICATIVELY ONLY


TENDER


B

A 5/9/18 ISSUED FOR TENDER KJB LRR LRRB 17/9/18 AMENDED TO SHOW POSSUM ROPE TO TREE KJB LRR LRR DRAWING No. REVISIONPROJECT No.



© COPYRIGHT


calibregroup.comC

CITY OF BUSSELTON CITY CENTRE - EASTERN LINK



POSSUM BRIDGE SECTIONS

SHEET 1 OF 2

16-003167 810

SCALE 1:100

0 1 2 3 4 5

DATUM R.L.-1

DATUM R.L.-1

POSSUM BRIDGE SECTION (POLE A-B)

POSSUM BRIDGE SECTION (POLE C-D)

5.35m

5.85m

6.40m

6.28m

7.43m

CLE

AR6.8

0m C

LEAR

WATER LEVEL

WATER LEVEL

NSL

NSLNSL

NSL

35°

35° 35°

35°

R.L. 1.85

R.L. 2.66

R.L. 8.25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

R.L. 7.94

R.L. 1.66

R.L. 2.21

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

R.L. 3.19

R.L. 8.25

R.L. 2.90

R.L. 7.94

R.L. 2.07 R.L. 2.46

0.3m

MAX

DEFL

ECTI

ON0.3

m MA

X DE

FLEC

TION

3.14m 3.58m

3.61m3.51m

REFER 16-003167 812FOR FOOTING DETAILS

REFER 16-003167 813FOR POLE DETAILS

30 GROUT TYP

1-

DETAIL

1-

STAY

4.0m MAX

4.0m MAX

70 330 CRS 70

20

4x Ø8

500400 M6 GALV.

U-BOLTS20 OFF

Ø56 ROPE

30x3EA GALV

PLAN VIEW

A-

SECTION1:10

A -

50.89m

51.58m

POLE

C

POLE

D

POLE

B

POLE

ANOTES - ROPE ATTACHMENT TO TREES

1. ATTACH ROPE TO NEAREST (MATURE PEPPERMINT TREE AS AVAILABLE) ATMAXIMUM ROPE SPAN OF 5.0m.

2. ROPE ATTACHMENT TO TREE TO BE A MINIMUM 3.0m ABOVE GROUND.3. ROPES ATTACHED TO TREES TO BE FREE OF TENSION LOADS FROM

POLES.4. ROPES TO BE ATTACHED TO A TREE BRANCH AT LEAST 100mm IN

DIAMETER WITH HEALTH FOLIAGE.5. ATTACHMENT OF ROPES TO TREES TO BE SUBJECT TO

DIRECTION/INSPECTION BY A QUALIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL.

ROPE ATTACHED TO NEARESTMATURE PEPPERMINT TREE (TYP)

INDICATIVE TREE INDICATIVE TREE

INDICATIVE TREEINDICATIVE TREE


Page 24

Attachment H: Response to Department comments dated 29 November 2018 on previously submitted information dated 24 October 2018.

Proposal Comment Response

2018/8155 1. The preliminary documentation package needs to be revised to include the most up to date management plans.

Attachments B (CEMP), C (ASSDMP) and E (WCMP) represent the most up to date management plans.

The ASSDMP (Attachment C) is a draft to be submitted to DWER as part of a groundwater licence application under Section 5C of the RIWI Act. The ASSDMP will be updated, if required, to incorporate DWER comments on the draft.

The WCMP has been submitted in draft to DBCA and incorporates their comments (K. Williams 2018, Regional Leader Nature Conservation, pers. comm. 7 November). Further comments may potentially be received following submission of the WCMP to DBCA as part of a Regulation 15 licence to translocate Carters Freshwater Mussel.

2. Please amend the discussion of the Western Ringtail Possum (WRP) to indicate that while the listing status for the species was upgraded to critically endangered on 11-May-2018, at the time of the referral decision the it was listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act and therefore the WRP Vulnerable status is relevant for the assessment (due to section 158A of the EPBC Act).

Refer to amended text in Attachment A, Point 4 clarifying the Vulnerable status of WRP used in the assessment of significant residual impacts, including reference to an important population.

3. Please attach the Construction Environmental Management Plan to the preliminary documentation package as it is a relevant and referenced document.

The CEMP is now included as Attachment B to the additional information.

4. Point 2.7 – please be clear whether the two peppermint trees will be planted for every one tree cleared (as mitigation) – currently it is unclear.

Refer to amended text in Attachment A, Point 2.7 clarifying that at least fourteen Peppermint trees will be planted to replace the seven mature Peppermint trees to be cleared, representing at least two planted trees for every one mature tree cleared.


Page 25


5. The document states that annual inspections will be undertaken over the life of the WRP bridges – will this be sufficient to detect any issues with the bridge?

As noted in Attachment A, Point 2.5 the City of Busselton will formally monitor the bridges on an annual basis, which is consistent with the City’s broader asset inspection and maintenance program and is expected to identify and respond to any long term / chronic wear occurring in the bridges.

In addition, there will be visual monitoring of the bridges by City personnel during regular grounds maintenance activities in Arthur and Norah Breeden Park, and the bridges will lie over a busy road and pedestrian walkway at the town’s gateway, which has been subject to a high-profile consultation process and public discussion in the City of Busselton as part of the project approvals.

Based on the formal and informal monitoring, any shorter-term / acute damage or premature wear (e.g. sagging, splitting) occurring in the bridges is expected to be quickly observed and reported. As noted in Point 2.5, the bridges will be able to be repaired in a short timeframe due to the simple construction and materials employed.

The above regime is expected to be sufficient to detect any short term and longer term issues arising in the bridges.

2018/8309 6. Incorporate the Causeway Bridge Duplication Project details into:

I. the title of the document

II. where relevant in the executive summary

III. project description (age cohorts/stocking densities)

IV. location

V. Rationale and approach for meeting objectives (number of mussels to be relocated)

The details have been included in the relevant sections of Attachment E: Carter’s Freshwater Mussel, Environmental Management Plan

Combined comments with reference to the Carters Freshwater Mussel Management Plan

7. Will both projects utilise the same translocation site?

Yes. Both projects will use the same relocation site as presented in Attachment E pages 8 and 9.

As noted in Attachment D page 8, the two projects will occur sequentially with 2018/8155 occurring 2019-2020 and 2018/8309 commencing no earlier than 2021.

8. A detailed discussion on the likelihood of success of the translocation including discussion on:

I. the timing of translocation in relation to the spawning period

II. how a 20 m buffer either side the bridge was determined to be sufficient (e.g. downstream sediment/turbidity considerations)

Refer to Attachment E page 14 ‘Relocation timing’ for details on the timing of translocation in relation to the spawning period.

Refer to Attachment E page 16 ‘Inclusion of buffer zones in collection sites’ for details of the conservation adoption of buffer zones beyond the containment afforded by coffer dams and silt curtains.

III. how cage density of 50 mussels / 1 m2 cage was determined to be adequate.

Refer to Attachment E page 16 ‘Stocking densities’ for details on the adequacy of proposed cage densities.


Page 26


9. More information on the Helena River / Serpentine River pipeheads – did these projects involve the relocation of the mussels back to the place of origin? Was this successful? How long were the mussels in the translocation location? Include a comparison against EPBC referrals i.e. were they in the cages for the same time period as proposed for EPBC 2018/8309 (~1.5 years)?

Refer to Attachment E pages 13-14 ‘Relocation precedents’ for details on the Helena River and Serpentive River relocation programs and maintenance of mussels in cages in the field.

10. Detailed discussion on what happens if the water quality and habitat is inadequate at the project site >1 year post construction i.e. information on the ‘new’ alternate release habitat.

Refer to Attachment E page 18 ‘Contingency for permanent relocation’ for details of actions and outcomes in the unexpected event that water quality and habitat at the project sites is found to unsuitable for release.

11. Please provide some discussion of how the post-release monitoring is sufficient (i.e. how will monitoring will occur at one, two and six months after restocking be sufficient to determine whether the release of individuals back to the site was successful). Please discuss why surveying is not for a longer period.

Refer to Attachment E page 17 ‘Post-construction release’ for details of assessment of the project sites post-construction prior to release of the mussels, and justification for the timeframe for monitoring of mussel mortality.

12. Discussion on impacts for the host population, specifically the increase in predator numbers (pg. 16 (7)).

Refer to Attachment E page 17 ‘Host population and predation’ for details on why predator numbers and predation rates are not expected to increase at the relocation site.

13. Given riparian vegetation forms an important habitat value for the Carter’s Freshwater Mussel, please discuss the post construction shoreline habitat.

Refer to Attachment E pages 17 and 18 ‘Post-construction habitat’ for details on the expected suitability of shoreline habitat post-construction.

14. Is capacity built into the plan for adaptive management? (i.e. lessons learnt from the first translocation (out of the two projects) is incorporated into the methods/sites/time for the second project)

Refer to Attachment E page 31 ‘Adaptive management between Projects’.


Documents

In response to the Department’s - City of Busselton€¦ · laboratory analysis of sediment samples did not record high reactivity values, thus substantial MBO is not expected to