Ana səhifə

1. Application details Permit application details


Yüklə 47.73 Kb.
tarix10.06.2016
ölçüsü47.73 Kb.
Clearing Permit Decision Report




1.Application details

1.1.Permit application details


Permit application No.:

118/1

Permit type:

Area Permit

1.2.Proponent details


Proponent’s name:

Peter Francis & Barbara Susan Crossland

Postal address:

Lot 99 Bussell Hwy Gelorup WA 6230

Contacts:

Phone: 9795 8037




Fax:




E-mail:

1.3.Property details


Property:

Lot 11598 on Plan 203135




Lot 10955 on Plan 203135

Local Government Area:

Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes

Colloquial name:



1.4.Application


Clearing Area (ha)

No. Trees

Method of Clearing

For the purpose of:

1.5




Mechanical Removal

Horticulture

2.Site Information

2.1.Existing environment and information

2.1.1.Description of the native vegetation under application


Vegetation Description

Clearing Description

Vegetation Condition

Comment

Scattered paddock trees.

Beard Unit 3

Mattiske


D1 Dwellingup

CC1 Catterick



Heddle Catterick complex

Degraded: Structure severely disturbed; regeneration to good condition requires intensive management (Keighery 1994)

No site visit was undertaken by DoE or DAWA.

3.Assessment of application against clearing principles

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


Comments

Proposal is not likely to be at variance to this Principle




No information was provided to enable an in depth assessment against this Principle.


Methodology






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


Comments

Proposal is not likely to be at variance to this Principle




No information was provided to enable an in depth assessment against this Principle.


Methodology






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


Comments

Proposal is not at variance to this Principle




Within the local area (10km radius) there is one Declared Rare Flora (DRF, Caladenia harringtoniae) found 8.5km from the proposed clearing, and two specimens of Grevillea drummondii (P4) found 5.6km from the proposed clearing.


Methodology

CALM Declared Rare and Priority databases.



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


Comments

Proposal is not at variance to this Principle




There were no Threatened Ecological Communities identified within the local area according to DoE's databases.


Methodology

CALM's Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) Database.



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


Comments

Proposal is not at variance to this Principle







The Bioregion and Shire are classed as Conservation status Least Concern with 58.7% and 67.9% remaining respectively (Shepherd et al. 2001). All the vegetation types in the area under application are largely uncleared.
Pre-European Current Remaining Conservation Reserves/CALM-

area (ha) extent (ha) %* status** managed land, %

IBRA Bioregion

- Jarrah Forest 4 503 156*** 2 624 301 58.7 Least Concern


Shire - Bridgetown

-Greenbushes 135 387 91 961 67.9 Least Concern


Beard Unit 3 3 046 385 2 197 837 72.1 Least Concern 67.9
Heddle - Catterick Complex In Medium to High Rainfall No information available
Mattiske Consulting

D1 Dwellingup 2 082 806 1 936 288 93 Least Concern

CC1 Catterick 274 435 192 294 70.1 Least Concern

* (Shepherd et al. 2001)

** (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002)

*** Within the Intensive Landuse Zone




Methodology

Mapping based on GIS (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002; Heddle et al. 1980; Shepherd et al. 2001; Mattiske Consulting 1998).





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


Comments

Proposal is not at variance to this Principle




A minor perennial watercourse occurs 16m south of the south-west section proposed for clearing.


Methodology

DoE Hydrography Linear databases.



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


Comments

Proposal is not at variance to this Principle




This clearing application is for scattered paddock trees only. The further removal of these few paddock trees is unlikely to have a significant impact on degradation issues. The area is intended to be planted into a forestry plantation of Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus saligna, for milling and pulpwood.


Methodology

DAWA advice (2004).



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


Comments

Proposal is not likely to be at variance to this Principle




Wilga State Forest borders property on southern and western sides. However, as the proposed clearing is for paddock trees it is unlikely that these will provide any significant ecological linkages or buffers to the surrounding conservation areas.


Methodology

CALM Managed Lands and Waters Database.



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


Comments

Proposal is not at variance to this Principle




The proposed clearing is within the Hardy Estuary Blackwood River Hydrographic Catchment. Given that the proposal involves only a few paddock trees, the proposal will not lead to degradation of water quality.


Methodology

GIS information



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


Comments

Proposal is not at variance to this Principle




Due to its scale, flooding impacts are unlikely to occur as a result of the proposed clearing.


Methodology






(k) Planning instrument or other matter.


Comments

No comment made.

Methodology



4.Assessor’s recommendations


The recommendations of the Department of Environment to the CEO of the Department should be made consistent with the outcomes of the assessment by each of the agencies. Any conditions on the approval should also be outlined. These may be developed in consultation with such other agencies as required.

Purpose

Method

Applied

area (ha)/ trees

Decision

Comment / recommendation

Horticulture

Mechanical Removal

1.5




Grant

Recommend that the permit is granted.
Recommendations:

- Remanent vegetation should be fenced if stock are introduced in the future.



5.References


Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002) Biodiversity Action Planning. Action planning for native biodiversity at multiple scales; catchment bioregional, landscape, local. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria.

Heddle, E. M., Loneragan, O. W., and Havel, J. J. (1980) Vegetation Complexes of the Darling System, Western Australia. In Department of Conservation and Environment, Atlas of Natural Resources, Darling System, Western Australia.

Keighery, BJ (1994) Bushland Plant Survey: A Guide to Plant Community Survey for the Community. Wildflower Society of WA (Inc). Nedlands, Western Australia.

Mattiske Consulting (1998) Mapping of vegetation complexes in the South West forest region of Western Australia, CALM.



Shepherd, D.P., Beeston, G.R. and Hopkins, A.J.M. (2001) Native Vegetation in Western Australia, Extent, Type and Status. Resource Management Technical Report 249. Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.






Page


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©kagiz.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət