Melbourne Airport Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) System ...€¦ ·...

Melbourne Airport Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) System Upgrade Project: EPBC Act Significant Impact Self-Assessment Final Report

Prepared for Donald Cant Watts Corke

9 May 2019

Biosis Pty Ltd

This document is and shall remain the property of Biosis Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of the Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Disclaimer:

Biosis Pty Ltd has completed this assessment in accordance with the relevant federal, state and local legislation and current industry best practice. The company accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report content or for any purpose other than that for which it was intended.

© Biosis 2019 - Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting - www.biosis.com.au i

Biosis offices

NEW SOUTH WALES

Albury

Phone: (02) 6069 9200 Email: [email protected]

Newcastle


Sydney


Wollongong


VICTORIA

Ballarat


Melbourne (Head Office)


Wangaratta


Document information

Report to: Donald Cant Watts Corke

Prepared by: Kristin Campbell

Biosis project no.: 29422

File name: 29422.AGL.Project.EPBC.SISA.FIN06.20190509.docx

Citation: Biosis 2019. Melbourne Airport Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) System Upgrade Project. Report for Donald Cant Watts Corke. Author: Campbell, K., Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 29422.

Document control

Version Internal review Date issued

Draft version 01 MV 25/02/2019

Draft version 02 KMC 27/02/2019

Draft version 03 KMC 27/02/2019

Final version 01 KMC 01/03/2019

Final version 02 MG 29/03/2019





Acknowledgements

Biosis acknowledges the contribution of the following people and organisations in

undertaking this study:

• Donald Cant Watts Corke – Anthony Varrasso

• Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne – Nick Walker and Amelia Donato

• Department of the Environment and Energy for access to the Protected

Matters Search Tool of the Australian Government

Biosis staff involved in this project were:

• Lauren Harley and Sally Mitchell (mapping)

• Mark Venosta and Michael Goddard (quality control)

http://www.biosis.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]







© Biosis 2019 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting II

Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Project background ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Project need ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Project description ........................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3.1 Construction Methodology ................................................................................................................. 8 1.3.2 Scope of assessment ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Location of the study area ............................................................................................................................. 9

2. Methods ..................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.1 Database review ............................................................................................................................................ 18 2.2 Definitions of significance ............................................................................................................................ 18 2.3 Determining likelihood of occurrence of significant species ................................................................. 19 2.4 Site investigation ............................................................................................................................................ 19

2.4.1 Ecology ................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.4.2 Heritage ................................................................................................................................................ 20

2.5 Legislation and policy .................................................................................................................................... 20 2.5.1 Ecology ................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.5.2 Heritage ................................................................................................................................................ 20

2.6 Mapping ........................................................................................................................................................... 21

3. Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 23

3.1 Ecology ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 3.1.1 Landscape context ............................................................................................................................. 23 3.1.2 Vegetation and fauna habitat .......................................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 EPBC Act and FFG Act significant species and ecological communities ................................... 24

3.2 Project Impacts summary ............................................................................................................................ 25 3.2.1 Early works project area impacts summary .................................................................................. 26

3.3 Biodiversity legislation and government policy........................................................................................ 28 3.3.1 Airports Act 1996 ................................................................................................................................ 28 3.3.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ............................................ 29 3.3.3 Offset requirements .......................................................................................................................... 32 3.3.4 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) ............................................................................ 32

3.4 Heritage ........................................................................................................................................................... 33

4. Significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land self-assessment ........................ 35

Impacts on landscapes and soils ................................................................................................................ 35 Impacts on coastal landscapes and process ............................................................................................ 36 Impacts on ocean forms, ocean processes and ocean life .................................................................... 36 Impacts on water resources ........................................................................................................................ 37 Pollutants, chemicals, and toxic substances ............................................................................................. 37

© Biosis 2019 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting III

Impacts on plants .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Impacts on animals ....................................................................................................................................... 39 Impacts on people and communities ........................................................................................................ 40 Impacts on heritage ...................................................................................................................................... 41

5. Key values and recommendations ......................................................................................................... 42

5.1.1 Key values ............................................................................................................................................ 42 5.1.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 43 5.1.3 Approvals required ............................................................................................................................ 44

References ............................................................................................................................................................ 45

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix 1 Flora ....................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix 2 Fauna ..................................................................................................................................... 55

Tables

Table 1 Criteria for determining significance of species & ecological communities ................................. 19 Table 2 Impact areas for each construction object located outside of existing hard surfaces ............... 21 Table 3 Proposed impact area within the AGL project works footprint ...................................................... 25 Table 4 Proposed impacts to native vegetation within the AGL project works footprint ......................... 26 Table 5 Proposed impacts to native vegetation within the AGL project “Early Works’ footprint ............. 26 Table 6 Assessment of project in relation to the EPBC Act ........................................................................... 32 Table 7 Key values, implications of development and recommendations ................................................. 43

Figures

Figure 1 Location of the study area, AGL project Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine ..................................... 10 Figure 2 Location of the “Early Works’ impact area, AGL project Melbourne Airport .................................. 17 Figure 3 Ecological features of the study area, AGL project Melbourne Airport .......................................... 27 Figure 4 Heritage values of the study area, AGL project Melbourne Airport ............................................... 34

© Biosis 2019 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting iv

Summary

Biosis Pty Ltd was engaged by Donald Cant Watts Corke to review the ecological values present and prepare a Significant Impact Self-Assessment for the Melbourne Airport Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) System Upgrade Project.

This Significant Impact Self-Assessment details the extent of impacts to the environment and any Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) present within the works footprint in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with:

• Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant impact guidelines 1.1 of the EPBC Act and

• Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies Significant impact guidelines 1.2 of the EPBC Act.

This report aims to provide guidance on the extent of any impacts to MNES and relevant approval pathways that may be required as a result of the project.

Ecological values

The impact area contains 9.344 hectares of Plains Grassland, 0.5849 hectares of Hills Herb-rich Woodland with the remaining areas comprising predominantly introduced vegetation with the main species being Chilean Needle Grass and Serrated Tussock. Plains Grassland is synonymous with the Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands Community, which is listed as threatened under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). The Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands Community is therefore present in all areas mapped as Plains Grassland.

Many of these patches of Plains Grassland vegetation satisfy the criteria for the critically endangered EPBC Act listed Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) ecological community (Commonwealth of Australia 2011).

The Plains Grassland area within the impact area supports 6.447 hectares of NTGVVP.

In total, the impact area supports 6.447 hectares of NTGVVP.

Heritage values

The study area has previously been assessed to determine the likelihood of Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage material occurring within the area. A review of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register on the 25 February 2019 has identified that the southern portion of the study area has previously been investigated under the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) 12774 (Biosis 2017c). This CHMP was completed for the Melbourne Airport Runway Development Program. The remainder of the study area has been identified as previously disturbed with a low likelihood of heritage values (Biosis 2017b).

Under the management conditions of CHMP 12774, cultural heritage awareness training must be completed by representatives of the sponsor (Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne (APAM)) or their contractor(s) before any work involving soil disturbance within the study area of this CHMP. This training shall be conducted by a representative of the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the area.

© Biosis 2019 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting v

Significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land self-assessment

The project will take place within land managed by Melbourne Airport in the context of a large operational airport within the airside zone. The study area is a highly modified and managed environment, which has undergone significant development and disturbance. In addition, the proposed development will be managed in such a way as to ensure that impacts to low-level contaminated soils will be carefully managed on site. Impacts to heritage are to be mitigated through the implementation of existing CHMP 12774. As such it is considered unlikely that the project will result in a significant impact to the environment on Commonwealth Land.

Recommendations

A summary of potential implications of development within the study area and recommendations to minimise impacts during the design phase of the project is provided below.

Key values, implications of development and recommendations

Ecological/ heritage feature (Figures 2-4)

Implications of development Recommendations

Native vegetation (including NTGVVP)

The project will result in the permanent small-scale removal of the following: • 0.218 hectares of Plains Grassland EVC of

which 0.195 hectares is NTGVVP. • 0.002 hectares of Hills Herb-rich

Woodland EVC The project will result in the temporary disturbance of the following: • 9.125 hectares of Plains Grassland EVC of


Woodland EVC

• Minimise removal of native vegetation. • Installation of a temporary grass and

ground reinforcement product prior to tracked machinery driving across the NTGVVP within the works zone. This product is used to reinforce and protect the grassland from damage during construction and removed upon completion of construction. Should this reinforcement matting not be installed the ‘temporary impacts’ to native vegetation should be considered as permanent.

• Rubber tyred vehicles to only be driven in the works zone when the ground is dry and movement limited to driving down the works zone from the tarmac and reversing backwards to the tarmac to complete works.

• Rubber tyred vehicles are not to drive across the grassed areas between works zones.

• Ensure that the EPBC listed ecological community Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain and all other native vegetation located outside of the works zone is protected from impacts during construction.

• Prepare a CEMP which will include procedures that require all equipment and personnel to be clean and free of foreign material (e.g. weed propagules or material containing pathogens).

© Biosis 2019 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting vi



Heritage Works within an area with an existing CHMP (CHMP 12774).

• Cultural heritage awareness training as per CHMP 12774 (Biosis 2017c) for the area identified in Figure 3.

Permits The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact to the environment on Commonwealth land, a referral is therefore not recommended. The project will result in the permanent removal of 0.195 hectares of NTGVVP and the temporary disturbance (injury) of 6.251 hectares of NTGVVP.

• A referral under the EPBC Act is not recommended.

• A part 13 Permit is required for the removal (take) of 0.195 hectares of NTGVVP ecological community and for the temporary impact (injure) of 6.251 hectares of NTGVVP prior to the commencement of NTGVVP impacts.

• There is an existing Part 13 Permit for operational and infrastructure maintenance activities for the safe and effective management of Melbourne Airport, Victoria (Permit No. E2018/0144).

• Existing Part 13 Permit currently allows for the annual disturbance of 0.003 hectares of NTGGVP within the Melbourne Airport airside boundary for electrical installation, replacement and maintenance.

• The existing Part 13 Permit could be utilised to undertake ‘Early Works’ required for the project

Approvals required

A Part 13 Permit is required from the Commonwealth Government under the EPBC Act for non-significant impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) on Commonwealth land. It is recommended that the project is submitted to the Commonwealth Government under the EPBC Act to receive a Part 13 Permit for impacts to NTGVVP on Commonwealth land for the permanent removal of 0.195 hectares of NTGVVP and for the temporary disturbance (injury) of 6.251 hectares of NTGVVP.

© Biosis 2019 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting 7

1. Introduction

1.1 Project background

Biosis Pty Ltd was engaged by Donald Cant Watts Corke to review the ecological values present and prepare a Significant Impact Self-Assessment for the Melbourne Airport Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) System Upgrade Project (Figure 1).

This Significant Impact Self-Assessment details the extent of impacts to the environment and any Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) present within the works footprint in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with:

– Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant impact guidelines 1.1 of the EPBC Act and

– Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies Significant impact guidelines 1.2 of the EPBC Act.

This report aims to provide guidance on the area of impacts to MNES and relevant approval pathways that may be required for impacts to MNES as a result of the project.

1.2 Project need

Currently Melbourne Airport has a mixture of old and new technologies relating to Airfield Ground Lighting, with sections of newly constructed Taxiways and Taxilanes having been upgraded with LED fittings integrated with sections of original Taxiways and Taxilanes from Melbourne Airport’s inception. Original areas are present in areas such as Taxiways Sierra and Whiskey, which are currently utilising halogen lights along with non-compliant light spacing (Taxiway Whisky is a specific concern with the AGL isolated and blue edge lighting installed due to a known CASA MOS 139 non-conformance).

The AGL System Upgrade Project scope is to deliver a fully-addressable SafeLED-IQ whole of airfield AGL Lighting System for the Melbourne Airport Airfield (including Runways, Taxiways and Aprons) designed in accordance with the CASA Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139.

1.3 Project description

The project aims to upgrade Melbourne Airports Airfield Ground Lighting system with compliant, safe, maintainable and sustainable system in line with international airports and meet Melbourne Airport’s Master Plan objectives.

A detailed design has been completed for the project (ADB Safegate 2019) which has been utilised within this report for assessing impact areas.

The AGL system upgrade project will include the following tasks across Melbourne Airports Taxiways and Taxilanes:

• Installation of new infrastructure including; lights, pits, bases, primary cable/ duct, secondary cable in saw-cuts, secondary cable in conduits.

• Replacement of existing infrastructure; lights, pits, bases, existing cable (to be pulled through existing conduits).


1.3.1 Construction Methodology

Full construction methodology has not yet been completed. However this section aims to capture the general construction methodology described to Biosis in a conversation with Anthony Varrasso (Donald Cant Watts Corke on the 20/2/2019). This general methodology has been applied within this report to determine the works zone required around new and existing infrastructure and therefore calculate impacts.

1.3.1.1 Enabling works

It is currently expected that works will be undertaken by an 8-10 tonne excavator and a rubber wheeled truck moving from the existing paved areas out towards the proposed pits then tracking back over the same path again. This method will reduce the area of disturbance required for each pit and cable.

It is predicted that an area of three meters either side of the trench and pits would be required for the truck and excavator (six meter wide works zone per cable/ pit location).

Installation of a temporary grass and ground reinforcement product will occur prior to tracked machinery driving within areas containing Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain community (NTGVVP). This product will be used to reinforce and protect the grassland from damage during construction and removed upon completion of construction. Rubber tyred vehicle movements will be restricted to movement when the ground conditions are dry and number of movements will be restricted to the minimum amount required for the works. Vehicles are to move forward into the works zone from the tarmac and reverse again to reduce vehicle movements within the grassed area.

Material stockpiling will occur within areas containing no native vegetation and will be transported into the site by hand or small machinery.

Spoil from trenches/ pit holes will be directly loaded into the accompanying truck and reused on site outside of areas containing native vegetation.

1.3.2 Scope of assessment

The study area is located on Commonwealth land at Melbourne Airport which contains known Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). Therefore this project is assessed in accordance with the EPBC Act.

The objectives of this investigation are to:

• Review relevant databases, previous consultant reports and the airports GIS for flora and fauna and cultural heritage information.

• Estimate the extent of native vegetation, including patches of native vegetation within the project area.

• Determine the likely presence of Aboriginal or European heritage within the project area.

• Assess the impacts of the project in accordance with:

– Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant impact guidelines 1.1 of the EPBC Act


• Estimate the extent of native vegetation, including MNES within the “Early Works’ impact footprint.

• Recommend appropriate permit pathways that may be applicable under the EPBC Act for the project.


1.4 Location of the study area

The study area includes Commonwealth land associated with Melbourne Airport in Tullamarine, Victoria, approximately 19 kilometres north-west of the Melbourne Central Business District (Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.). An assessment was also undertaken to determine the extent of impacts to native vegetation within a smaller portion of the project area to enable early works commencement. Figure 2 details the area assessed for ‘Early Works’ impacts.

The study area is within the:

• Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion

• Maribyrnong River Basin

!

MelbourneAirport

Western Av

Operations Rd

Service Rd

Tower Rd

Unnamed

Perimeter Rd

Derby St

Airside Rd

East St

Mcna

bs Rd

Distance Rd

Perimeter Rd

Victor

ia St

Incinerator Rd

Plant Rd

Marke

r Rd

Store

St

Airwa

ys St

Cent reRd

Cargo Rd

Melro s e Dr

Operations Rd

Quar ry Rd

Met Rd

Smolic Ct

Springbank St

Apac Dr

Bassett Rd

Bonn eyCt

East Glid

e Rd

Fire Station Rd

Depot Dr

Landside Rd

Grants Rd

Mansfield Rd

Gowrie Park Dr

Nort h Glide Rd

Unna

med

Francis Briggs Rd

Panto

n Dr

Mercer DrBarbiston Rd

Haul Rd

Unnamed

MooneePonds Creek

Arund

elCr

eek

Maribyrnong RiverCe

ntre

Rd

Arriv

alDr

Departure Dr

Sunbury Rd

Melrose Dr

Melrose Dr

Melbourne Dr

LinkR

d

Terminal DrTullamarine Fwy

0 200 400 600

Metres

LegendMelbourne Airport landStudy areaAirside boundaryProposed AGL upgrade impact footprintRevised AGL upgrade worksEarly works area

±Biosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne,

Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Scale: 1:15,000 @ A3

Figure 1 Location of the studyarea, AGL project MelbourneAirport, Tullamarine

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Acknowledgements: Vicmap ©State of Victoira; Imagery © Nearmap

Matter: 29422,Date: 02 May 2019,Checked by: KMC, Drawn by: LH, Last edited by: lharleyLocation:P:\28400s\28408\Mapping\29422_AGL_F1_StudyArea.mxd

UnnamedPerimeter Rd

Unnamed

Unna

med

North Glide Rd

0 200

Metres

LegendMelbourne Airport landStudy areaAirside boundaryProposed AGL upgrade impact footprint

Revised AGL upgrade worksExisting pits - earthing buffer (approx.)Proposed new pits with earthing bufferExisting sec conduitsSec proposed conduitsSec proposed sawcutProposed primary



Scale: 1:5,000 @ A3

Figure 1.1 Location of thestudy area, AGL projectMelbourne Airport,Tullamarine



Matter: 29422,Date: 02 May 2019,Checked by: KMC, Drawn by: LH, Last edited by: lharley

Melton Hwy

Calder Fwy

1 23 4

5 6

MORELAND CITYMOONEE

VALLEY CITY

Unnamed

Marker Rd

Perimeter RdDistance Rd

East Glide

RdMoonee Ponds Creek

Sunbury Rd

0 200

Metres





Scale: 1:5,000 @ A3





Melton Hwy

Calder Fwy

1 23 4

5 6

MORELAND CITYMOONEE

VALLEY CITY

MelbourneAirport

Unnamed

Bassett Rd

Tower Rd

Incinerator Rd

Mcna

bs Rd

Plant Rd

Operations Rd

Store

St

Airwa

ys St

Perimeter Rd

Power Rd

Met Rd

Fire Station Rd

Mansfield Rd

Panto

n Dr

Arundel Creek

Arundel Creek

0 200

Metres





Scale: 1:5,000 @ A3





Melton Hwy

Calder Fwy

1 23 4

5 6

MORELAND CITYMOONEE

VALLEY CITY

Marke rR d

Unnamed

East

St

Caldwell Dr

Airsid

e Rd

Service Rd

Perimeter Rd

Western Av

Quarry Rd

Bonney Ct

Depot Dr

Gowrie Park Dr

Unnamed

Haul RdMoonee

Ponds Creek

Cent

re Rd

Arriva

l Dr

Departure Dr

Melbourne Dr

Sunbury Rd

Terminal Dr

Tullamarine Fwy

0 200

Metres





Scale: 1:5,000 @ A3





Melton Hwy

Calder Fwy

1 23 4

5 6

MORELAND CITYMOONEE

VALLEY CITY

Opera

tion s

R d

Unnamed

Mcna

bs Rd

Barbiston Rd

Incinerator Rd

Arundel Creek

Arund

el Cree

k

0 200

Metres

LegendMelbourne Airport landStudy areaAirside boundaryEarly works areaProposed AGL upgrade impact footprint




Scale: 1:5,000 @ A3





Melton Hwy

Calder Fwy

1 23 4

5 6

MORELAND CITYMOONEE

VALLEY CITY

Unnamed

Service Rd

Airside Rd

Centre Rd

Cargo Rd

Melro se Dr

Apac Dr

South Centre Rd

Western Av

Landside Rd

Grants Rd

Operations Rd

Francis Briggs Rd

Haul Rd

Steele Creek North

Centre Rd

Melrose Dr

Melrose Dr

Melbourne DrTerminal DrTullamarine Fwy

0 200

Metres

LegendMelbourne Airport landStudy areaAirside boundaryEarly works areaProposed AGL upgrade impact footprint




Scale: 1:5,000 @ A3





Melton Hwy

Calder Fwy

1 23 4

5 6

MORELAND CITYMOONEE

VALLEY CITY

Unnamed

Cargo Rd

South Centre RdOperations Rd

Haul Rd

Steele Creek North

0 200

Metres

LegendMelbourne Airport landStudy areaAirside boundaryProposed AGL upgrade impact footprintRevised AGL upgrade works

Early wo rks areaZone 67AZone 68AZone 69AZone 69BZone 69CZone 70

EPBC vegetatio n co mmunitiesNatural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain

Eco lo gical vegetatio n classPlains GrasslandPlains Grassy Wetland



Scale: 1:4,460 @ A3

Figure 2. Lo catio n o f the “EarlyWo rks" impact area, AGLpro ject Melbo urne Airpo rt,Tullamarine



Matter: 29422,Date: 09 May 2019,Checked by: KMC, Drawn by: LH, Last edited by: lharleyLocation:P:\28400s\28408\Mapping\29422_AGL_F2_EarlyWorks.mxd

TullamarineFwy

Calder FwyMelto n Hwy

MORELANDCITY

MOONEE VALLEY CITYMOONEE

VALLEY CITY


2. Methods

2.1 Database review

The ecological and heritage features of Melbourne Airport are well documented by previous studies. The study area has been previously assessed for its ecological and heritage values. This report utilises existing data and information from previous reports and databases.

In order to provide a context for the study area, information about flora and fauna from within 5 kilometres of the study area (the ‘local area’) was obtained from relevant biodiversity databases. Records from the following databases were collated and reviewed:

• Protected Matters Search Tool of the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) for matters protected by the EPBC Act.

• DELWP’s Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA), including the ‘VBA_FLORA25, FLORA100 & FLORA Restricted’ and ‘VBA_FAUNA25, FAUNA100 & FAUNA Restricted’ datasets

Other sources of information were examined including:

• Biosis 2015. Flora and fauna assessment of the Runway Development Program, Melbourne Airport: Existing conditions and impact assessment report. Authors: Kay K, Smales I & Byrne A, Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 16945.

• Biosis 2016. Melbourne Airport Taxiway Zulu and Northern Compound: Biodiversity Assessment. Report to Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne Pty Ltd. Authors: Mueck, S. & Kay, K. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project 21367.

• Biosis 2017a. Melbourne Airport: Biodiversity and Conservation Management Plan. Report for Australia Pacific Airports Pty Ltd. Authors: Goddard, M., Smales, I. & Harvey, A. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 22353.

• Biosis 2017b. Heritage Gaps Study, Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine, Victoria. Report for Australian Pacific Airports (Melbourne). Author: Oataway, K., White, K., Fitzgerald, T. Biosis Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne. Project no 25883.

• Biosis 2017c. Runway Development Program, Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine, Victoria: Cultural Heritage Management Plan 12774. Report for Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd. Authors: A Ford, T James Lee, K Houghton, R Ashton and G Vines. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

• Biosis 2018. Melbourne Airport ecology gaps study. Report for Australia Pacific Airports – Melbourne. Authors: Campbell K & Yugovic J, Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 25882.

• Biosis 2019. Taxiway Zulu extended project area EPBC Act Significant Impact Self-Assessment. Report for Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne. Author: Campbell, K., Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 29692.

2.2 Definitions of significance

The significance of a species or ecological community is determined by its listing status under Commonwealth and Victorian legislation / policy (Table 1).


Table 1 Criteria for determining significance of species & ecological communities

Significance

National Listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act

State Listed as threatened under the FFG Act

Lists of significant species generated from the database searches are provided in Appendix 1 (flora) and Appendix 2 (fauna). Species have been assessed to determine their likelihood of occurrence based on the process outlined below.

2.3 Determining likelihood of occurrence of significant species

Likelihood of occurrence indicates the potential for a species or ecological community to occur regularly within the study area. It is based on expert opinion, information in relevant biodiversity databases and reports, and an assessment of the habitats on site. Likelihood of occurrence is ranked as negligible, low, medium, high or recorded. The rationale for the rank assigned is provided for each species in Appendix 1 (flora) and Appendix 2 (fauna). Those species for which there is little or no suitable habitat within the study area are assigned a likelihood of low or negligible and are not considered further.

Only those species listed under the EPBC Act and FFG Act (hereafter referred to as 'listed species') are assessed to determine their likelihood of occurrence.

Species which have at least medium likelihood of occurrence are given further consideration in this report. The need for targeted survey for these species is also considered.

2.4 Site investigation

2.4.1 Ecology

The study area was previously assessed to determine the presence and extent of native vegetation and threatened ecological communities. The study area was assessed over several previous field assessments including; March 2019 (Biosis 2019), November 2017 as part of the Melbourne Airport ecology gaps study (Biosis 2018) and during a number of visits from November 2013 to February 2015 for the third runway development program (Biosis 2015).

Native vegetation was classified and mapped as per the Victorian Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017) and the Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DEPI 2013) which defines Patch vegetation. Patch vegetation is classified into ecological vegetation classes (EVCs). An EVC contains one or more floristic (plant) communities, and represents a grouping of broadly similar environments. Definitions of EVCs and benchmarks (condition against which vegetation quality at the site can be compared) are provided by the Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). Although the Victorian Planning Scheme is not applicable on Commonwealth land, the Victorian EVC classification is the accepted native vegetation classification system for ecological studies at the Melbourne Airport.

The extent of any Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) within Melbourne Airport land was mapped using the Key Diagnostic Characteristics and Condition Thresholds in the listing advice for the community (Commonwealth of Australia 2008).


The Description and Condition Thresholds of an ecological community in the EPBC Act listing advice provide the definitive source of information for identifying nationally threatened ecological communities (Commonwealth of Australia 2011).

2.4.2 Heritage

The study area has previously been assessed to determine the likelihood of Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage material occurring within the area. A review of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register on the 25 February 2019 has identified that the southern portion of the study area has previously been investigated under the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) 12774 (Biosis 2017c). This CHMP was completed for the Melbourne Airport Runway Development Program. The remainder of the study area has been identified as previously disturbed with a low likelihood of heritage values (Biosis 2017b).

2.5 Legislation and policy

2.5.1 Ecology

The study area is ‘Commonwealth Land not controlled by Planning Scheme’ and therefore Victorian Government policy and legislation such as the Planning and Environment Act 1987 are not applicable.

In addition section 112(2) of the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 states that ‘the land use, planning and building controls within Part 5 of the Commonwealth Act operate to the exclusion of Victorian land use planning legislation, such as the Victorian Planning and Environment Act 1987’.

Therefore the implications for the project were assessed in relation only to key Commonwealth biodiversity legislation and policy and the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)including:

• Matters listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), associated policy statements, significant impacts guidelines, listing advice and key threatening processes including:



• Threatened taxa, communities and threatening processes listed under Section 10 of the FFG Act and associated action statements and listing advice.

2.5.2 Heritage

As for ecological matters, when considering heritage, section 112(2) of the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 states that ‘the land use, planning and building controls within Part 5 of the Commonwealth Act operate to the exclusion of Victorian land use planning legislation, such as the Victorian Planning and Environment Act 1987’. This also excludes the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

Under the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 it is understood that the intention is to ‘cover the field’ of heritage protection. However Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) has advised that the preference when assessing heritage is to address all requirements under the Commonwealth legislation while also considering the requirements of state legislation to inform recommendations and follow best practice.

Therefore the cultural heritage implications for the project were assessed in relation to both Commonwealth and State legislation:

• Matters listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), associated policy statements and significant impacts guidelines including:



– Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies Significant impact guidelines 1.2 of the EPBC Act

• Matters listed under the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 including impact triggers and sensitivity areas.

2.6 Mapping

Donald Cant Watts Corke supplied the CAD data for the civil design layout (ADB Safegate 2019) which was used for this assessment.

CAD files received and used in this assessment include:

• ADE-CP18081-YMML-DD-L-012-01-19022.dwg

• ADE-CP18081-YMML-DD-L-012-01.dwg

• ADE-CP18081-YYMML-DD-L-005-04.pdf

• ADE-CP18081-YYMML-DD-L-005-04.dwg

• ADE-CP18081-YYMML-DD-L-006-04.dwg

• Earthing pits (004).pdf

The above plans have been used to calculate impacts to native vegetation using the impact areas expected within the works zone provided in Table 2 below.

Mapping has been produced using a Geographic Information System (GIS). Electronic GIS files which contain our flora and fauna spatial data are available to incorporate into design concept plans. However this mapping may not be sufficiently precise for detailed design purposes.

Impact areas have been calculated using the following descriptions from Donald Cant Watts Corke:

Table 2 Impact areas for each construction object located outside of existing hard surfaces

Object Permanent impact Temporary impact Existing secondary conduits

No permanent impact expected (cable to be pulled through existing conduit)

0.15m trench (0.075m buffer) – temporary impact 6m buffered area- temporary impact

Existing pits with new earthing pit Earthing pit permanent impacts (0.35m2) per pit

Existing Concrete pits: Area of each pit is 7.069972m2 (*full pit area not donut cad polygon) All existing pits highlighted as earthing pits on plan were buffered by radius of 0.037m to get additional impact area of 0.35m2. Existing Plastic pits: Area = 5.719682 Buffered by 0.041


Existing Steel Pits: Area = 5.719493 Buffered by 0.041 Existing Gatic Pits (pair of square areas): Area = 4.5m2 Buffered by 0.029m

New proposed primary trench (Figure 1.2, long trench only)

3 meter wide footprint along length of trench (1.5m either side of the center line).

New proposed primary 0.8m wide trench (0.4m buffer) – permanent impact

6m buffered area – temporary impact

Proposed new pits with earthing pit

Impact area for each new pit 3.39m2 (assuming earthing pit will be located next to the existing pit)

6m buffer from trench cuts

New secondary trench (sawcut) 0.15m trench (0.075m buffer) – permanent impact

6m buffered area- temporary impact

New secondary trench (conduits) 0.15m trench (0.075m buffer) – permanent impact



3. Results

3.1 Ecology

The ecological features of the study area are described below and mapped in Figure 3.

3.1.1 Landscape context

The study area is located on Melbourne Airport land and is mostly located within the operational airside zone. The study area is a highly modified and managed environment which has undergone significant development and disturbance (Biosis 2016).

The study area is located within the Victorian Volcanic Plain, which is dominated by Cainozoic volcanic deposits. These deposits formed an extensive flat to undulating basaltic plain with stony rises, old lava flows, numerous volcanic cones and old eruption points.

The soils are variable ranging from red friable earths and acidic texture contrast soils (Ferrosols and Kurosols) on the higher fertile plain to scoraceous material, to grey cracking clays (Vertosols) on the low plains. These soils variously support Stony Knoll Shrubland, Plains Grassy Woodland Plains Grassland and Plains Grassy Wetland ecosystems.

A review of historical aerials from 1931, 1945, 1960, 1980 and 1990 indicate that the majority of active airport areas (runways, taxiways, terminals, hangers, etc.) have been subject to major ground disturbing works. The natural soil profile of the area is sandy clay, however there is evidence of fill within the project area in the form of silty clay. The project area is generally flat. The presence of large near surface basalt boulders may be encountered within the clay matrix.

3.1.2 Vegetation and fauna habitat

The ecological features of the study area have been mapped in Figure 3 and are described in further detail below.

Despite the existing level of disturbance, much of the study area was found to be dominated by indigenous grasses. Areas where at least 25 per cent of the total perennial understorey cover consisted of native plants were mapped as remnant patches of the Plains Grassland ecological vegetation class (EVC 132), in accordance with Victoria’s Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DELWP 2017). The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 listed Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands Community is synonymous with Plains Grassland and therefore present across the same extent as the mapped Plains Grassland.

The impact area contains 9.344 hectares of Plains Grassland, 0.584 hectares of Hills Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 71) with the remaining areas comprising predominantly introduced vegetation with the main species being Chilean Needle Grass and Serrated Tussock.

The mapped Plains Grassland was also assessed using the Commonwealth guide to identifying the listed community ‘Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain’ (NTGVVP).

The patches of Plains Grassland identified during this assessment are dominated by native grasses of the genera Austrostipa and Rytidosperma (previously Austrodanthonia). In some of the patches weedy perennial grasses accounted for less than 50% of the perennial tussock cover of these patches while non-grassy weeds accounted for less than 30% of the total vegetation cover at the time of assessment. These patches of vegetation therefore satisfy the criteria for the critically endangered EPBC Act listed Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) ecological community (Commonwealth of Australia 2011).


In total, the impact area supports 6.44 hectares of NTGVVP. The location of NTGVVP within and adjacent to the proposed study area is shown in Figure 3. Patches of NTGVVP within the study area are dominated by Wallaby Grasses Rytidosperma spp. and Kneed Spear-grass Austrostipa bigeniculata. Other common native grass species include Silky Blue-grass Dichanthium sericeum, Windmill Grass Chloris truncata, Red-leg Grass Bothriochloa macra and Rigid Panic Walwhalleya proluta. Herbaceous species (forbs) are relatively uncommon but include Tufted Bluebell Wahlenbergia communis, Grassland Wood-sorrel Oxalis perennans, Kidney-weed Dichondra repens, Common Woodruff Asperula conferta, Berry Saltbush Atriplex semibaccata, Grassland Crane's-bill Geranium retrorsum, Sheep's Burr Acaena echinata and Varied Raspwort Haloragis heterophylla. Weeds are present and common and include Chilean Needle Grass Nassella neesiana, Rat-tail Grass Sporobolus africanus, Serrated Tussock Nassella trichotoma, Paspalum Paspalum dilatatum, Cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata and Couch Cynodon dactylon. There is limited value for native fauna within the study area due the regular mowing and insecticide spraying regime undertaken within the study area.

A list of EPBC listed species likely to occur within the study area and a review of the likelihood of these species occupying the study area is provided in Appendix 2. No species were determined to have a medium or higher likelihood of utilising the study area.

3.1.3 EPBC Act and FFG Act significant species and ecological communities

3.1.3.1 EPBC Act listed species

Lists of significant species recorded or predicted to occur within 5 km of the study area are provided in Appendix 1 (flora) and Appendix 2 (fauna). An assessment of the likelihood of these species to occur in the study area is included.

No species were determined to have a medium or higher likelihood of utilising the study area.

3.1.3.2 FFG Act listed species

No FFG listed species were recorded within the study area. Lists of significant species recorded or predicted to occur within 5 km of the study area are provided in Appendix 1 (flora) and Appendix 2 (fauna). An assessment of the likelihood of these species to occur in the study area is included.

No species were determined to have a medium or higher likelihood of utilising the study area.

3.1.3.3 Significant ecological communities

Some occurrences of Plains Grassland EVC within the gaps study area meet the diagnostic criteria and condition thresholds for Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP), an ecological community listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act (Figure 2). Patches of Plains Grassland EVC are considered as NTGVVP where native tussock grasses, such as Bristly Wallaby-grass Rytidosperma setaceum, reach or potentially reach 50% cover and the cover of non-grass weeds, generally Carpet Weed Galenia pubescens, is less than 30% of total vegetation cover.

Other EVC’s mapped within the gaps study area do not meet the criteria or condition thresholds for any other threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act.

The FFG Act listed Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands Community is synonymous with Plains Grassland and therefore present across the same extent as the mapped Plains Grassland.

Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP)

Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) is endemic to south-west Victoria. The vegetation is mostly limited to a ground layer of grasses and herbs. Large shrubs and trees are absent to


sparse (Commonwealth of Australia 2011). NTGVVP occurs in a number of areas across Melbourne Airport land, in varying patch size and quality. All NTGVVP at Melbourne Airport is substantially modified and has been subject to previous disturbance by development of the airport, grazing activities, and the introduction and spread of exotic plant species (Biosis 2015).

The extent of NTGVVP within and adjacent to the study area was mapped in detail using Key Diagnostic Characteristics and Condition Thresholds in the listing advice (Commonwealth of Australia 2008, page 3). The Description and Condition Thresholds of an ecological community in the EPBC Act listing advice provide the definitive source of information for identifying nationally threatened ecological communities (Commonwealth of Australia 2011).

3.2 Project Impacts summary

Impacts from the AGL project have been determined based on the design and construction details provided in section 2.6. A summary of the total impact footprint is provided below in Table 3. Table 4 provides a summary of the impact footprint in relation to native vegetation present.

Permanent impacts are those that remove native vegetation for the purpose of construction and includes; primary trenches, secondary trenches (new) and new proposed pits.

Temporary impacts for the purpose of this report includes the expected works zone required outside of the permanent impacts and includes a 6 metre buffer from the new and existing trench cuts.

Table 3 Proposed impact area within the AGL project works footprint

Object Permanent impact Temporary impact Total impact area within study area (hectares)

Permanent Temporary Existing secondary conduits

No permanent impact expected (cable to be pulled through existing conduit)

0.15m trench (0.075m buffer) – temporary impact 6m buffered area- temporary impact

38.908

Existing pits with new earthing pit

Earthing pit permanent impacts (0.35m2) per pit

Existing Concrete pits: Area of each pit is 7.069972m2 (*full pit area not donut cad polygon) All existing pits highlighted as earthing pits on plan were buffered by radius of 0.037m to get additional impact area of 0.35m2. Existing Plastic pits: Area = 5.719682 Buffered by 0.041 Existing Steel Pits: Area = 5.719493 Buffered by 0.041

0.030


Existing Gatic Pits (pair of square areas): Area = 4.5m2

Buffered by 0.029m New proposed primary 0.8m wide trench (0.4m

buffer) – permanent impact Long trench on figure 1.2 only: 3 meter wide footprint along length of trench (1.5m either side of the center line).

6m buffered area – temporary impact No temporary impact

0.325 2.447

Proposed new pits with earthing pit

Impact area for each new pit 3.39m2 (assuming earthing pit will be located next to the existing pit)

6m buffer from trench cuts 0.065

New secondary trench (sawcut)

0.15m trench (0.075m buffer) – permanent impact


0.631 21.591

New secondary trench (conduits)

0.15m trench (0.075m buffer) – permanent impact


0.225 10.766

Table 4 Proposed impacts to native vegetation within the AGL project works footprint

Vegetation type Permanent impact (hectares) Temporary impact (hectares) EPBC listed NTGVVP ecological community

0.195 6.251

Plains Grassland EVC (includes NTGVVP area)

0.218 9.125

Hills Herb-rich Woodland EVC

0.002 0.582

An assessment to determine if the extent of these impacts are likely to constitute a significant impact to the environment on Commonwealth land is provided in Section 4.

3.2.1 Early works project area impacts summary

The proposed impacts to native vegetation for the ‘early works’ project area (Figure 2) were also determined. Table 5 details the impacts to native vegetation expected within the ‘early works’ project area only. The data below is a subset of the data contained within Table 4.

Table 5 Proposed impacts to native vegetation within the AGL project “Early Works’ footprint

Vegetation type Permanent impact (hectares) Temporary impact (hectares) EPBC listed NTGVVP ecological community

0.011 0.643

Plains Grassland EVC (includes NTGVVP area)

0.015 1.187

MelbourneAirport

Moonee

Ponds Creek

Arund

elCre

ek

Maribyrnong RiverCe

ntre

RdArriv

alDr

Departure Dr

Sunbury Rd

Melrose Dr

Melbourne Dr

Link R

d

Terminal DrTullamarine Fwy

0 200 400 600

Metres

LegendMelbourne Airport landStudy_areaAirside boundaryRevised AGL upgrade worksEarly works area

EPBC vegetation communitiesNatural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain

Ecological vegetation classHills Herb-rich WoodlandPlains GrasslandPlains Grassy Wetland



Scale: 1:15,000 @ A3

Figure 3 Ecological features ofthe study area, AGL projectMelbourne Airport,Tullamarine



Matter: 29422,Date: 09 May 2019,Checked by: KMC, Drawn by: LH, Last edited by: lharleyLocation:P:\28400s\28408\Mapping\29422_AGL_F3_Ecofeatures.mxd


3.3 Biodiversity legislation and government policy

This section provides an assessment of the project in relation to key Commonwealth biodiversity legislation and government policy. This section does not describe the legislation and policy in detail. Where available, links to further information are provided.

Commonwealth

3.3.1 Airports Act 1996

The Airports Act 1996 and associated Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 govern planning approvals and procedures on Commonwealth land at Melbourne Airport.

3.3.1.1 Master Plan and Environment Strategy

The Airports Act requires Melbourne Airport and other core regulated Australian airports to develop and implement a Master Plan (Airports Act s.71). The 2018 Melbourne Airport Master Plan was approved by the Australian Government Minister for Infrastructure and Transport on 14 February 2019 (APAM 2018).

Melbourne Airport's Master Plan must specify an Environment Strategy that, among other details, outlines the following (based on Airports Act s.71(2)(h)):

• Areas within the airport that are environmentally significant.

• Sources of environmental impact associated with airport operations.

• Studies, reviews and monitoring to be carried out by Melbourne Airport in connection with those sources of environmental impact.

• Timeframes for completion of those studies and reviews and for reporting on that monitoring.

• Measures to be carried out by Melbourne Airport to prevent, control or reduce environmental impacts associated with airport operations.

• Timeframes for completion of those measures.

3.3.1.2 Major Development Plan

A Major Development Plan (MDP) is required for each major development on Commonwealth land at Melbourne Airport (Airports Act s.88). The Act defines actions that constitute a major development and therefore require an MDP (Airports Act s.89). Importantly, a major development includes (but is not limited to):

• A development of a kind that is likely to have significant environmental or ecological impact (s.89(m)).

• A development which affects an area identified as environmentally significant in the Environment Strategy (s.89(n)).

MDPs must be consistent with the approved Master Plan and Environment Strategy (Airports Act s.91(1A)). Any MDP for Melbourne Airport must also describe:

• Melbourne Airport's assessment of the environmental impacts that might reasonably be expected to be associated with the development (s.91(1)(h)).

• Melbourne Airport's plans for dealing with these environmental impacts, including plans for ameliorating or preventing environmental impacts (s.91(1)(j)).


The proposed project is unlikely to have a significant impact to the environment on Commonwealth Land or to any EPBC listed species or ecological communities. Donald Cant Watts Corke have advised that a major development plan is not currently required for the project.

3.3.1.3 Melbourne Airport head lease

Under the Airports Act, Australia Pacific Airport Melbourne (APAM) is the airport-lessee company that holds the head lease for Melbourne Airport. The head lease requires APAM to manage Melbourne Airport for 50 years (until 2047), with an option to extend the lease by 49 years to 2096.

Under the head lease, APAM is required to develop Melbourne Airport to the quality standards reasonably expected of a major international airport in Australia. In developing Melbourne Airport, APAM must take into account anticipated traffic demand at Melbourne Airport and good business practice.

The head lease also requires APAM to consider environmental implications of Melbourne Airport operations and development. Clause 6.2 of the lease requires APAM to maintain the environment of Melbourne Airport in accordance with legislative requirements and meeting the commitments of the Melbourne Airport Environment Strategy. The lease therefore imposes biodiversity and conservation management obligations on APAM.

3.3.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act and associated Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 provides protection for the environment on Commonwealth land at Melbourne Airport and for the protection of matters of national environmental significance (MNES), which includes listed threatened species and ecological communities on all Melbourne Airport land and surrounds.

3.3.2.1 Environment protection

Under the EPBC Act, it is an offence to take an action on Commonwealth land if that action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment (EPBC Act s.26(1)). It is also an offence to take an action outside Commonwealth land where the action has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land (EPBC Act s.26(2)).

For the purposes of these provisions, the environment includes (but is not limited to) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities (EPBC Act s.528).

3.3.2.2 Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES)

The EPBC Act protects MNES anywhere in Australia, whether on Commonwealth land or otherwise. The EPBC Act applies to developments and associated activities that have the potential to significantly impact on one or more MNES.

MNES include (but are not limited to):

• Wetlands of international importance listed under the Ramsar Convention (s.16)

• Listed threatened species and listed threatened ecological communities (s.18)

• Listed migratory species (s.20).

Migratory species are listed under a specific provision (s.20) of the EPBC Act because they may move between Australia and other international jurisdictions. Section 20 of the EPBC Act gives legislative effect to Australia's obligations under the Bonn Convention and agreements with Japan, China and South Korea for conservation of migratory species. Species listed as migratory under the EPBC Act include a large number of species that are widespread but not under any category of threatened status.


Species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are placed in to one of the following categories (EPBC Act s.178 and s.179):

• Extinct, where there is no reasonable doubt that the last member of the species has died.

• Extinct in the wild, where the species only survives in cultivation, captivity or naturalised populations well outside its past range or where exhaustive surveys have not recorded the species in its known or expected habitat.

• Critically endangered, where the species is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future.

• Endangered, where the species is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future.

• Vulnerable, where the species is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future.

• Conservation dependent, where the species is the focus of a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

The threatened species categories determine the significant impact criteria under which an action is assessed.

3.3.2.3 Significant impact

A significant impact on the environment or on an MNES is an impact that is "important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity" (Commonwealth of Australia 2013a p.2; Commonwealth of Australia 2013b p.3). The significance of an impact is determined according to criteria outlined in the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines (Commonwealth of Australia 2013a; Commonwealth of Australia 2013b).

A significant impact is considered likely if there is "a real or not remote chance or possibility" of the impact occurring (Commonwealth of Australia 2013a p.3; Commonwealth of Australia 2013b p.3). There does not need to be a greater than 50% chance of the significant impact happening. The likelihood of a significant impact is assessed according to the sensitivity, value and quality of the environment that is impacted and according to the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts (Commonwealth of Australia 2013a; Commonwealth of Australia 2013b).

Under the Significant Impact Guidelines, APAM is responsible for undertaking a self-assessment of any proposed action with potential to significantly impact upon the environment at Melbourne Airport (Commonwealth land) or upon one or more MNES. If the self-assessment reveals that the proposed action is likely to have a significant impact or that the significance or likelihood of the impact is unknown, APAM is to refer the action to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. The Minister for the Environment and Energy then determines whether the proposed action is a controlled action, which requires assessment and approval under the EPBC Act, or not a controlled action, which does not require approval if undertaken in accordance with the referral. The Minister for the Environment and Energy may refer the action to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport who may request an MDP if the proposed action is deemed a controlled action.

3.3.2.4 Referrals and Major Development Plans

The Australian Government Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, who is responsible for assessing and approving Major Development Plans (MDPs), is required to seek the advice of the Australian Government Minister for the Environment prior to approving a draft MDP (Commonwealth of Australia 2013b). Actions taken as part of an MDP do not require referral or approval under the EPBC Act because the Minister for the Environment considers significant impacts on the environment on Commonwealth land as part of the MDP approval process.


If a proposed action is likely to result in significant impacts on MNES or the environment on Commonwealth land an MDP must be prepared and submitted for approval by the Minister for the Environment.

3.3.2.5 Permits

The EPBC Act (Part 13) requires a permit for activities which may kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species or a member of a listed marine species in or on Commonwealth land. This permit requirement is separate from the EPBC Act requirement to refer actions that have the potential to significantly impact on the environment of Commonwealth land or on MNES.

Actions that do not need to be referred to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment may still require a permit under Part 13 of the EPBC Act. For example, removal of a small area of a listed threatened ecological community may not trigger the need for a referral when assessed according to the Significant Impact Guidelines (Commonwealth of Australia 2013a), yet the action will still require a permit under Part 13 of the EPBC Act.

3.3.2.6 Notifications

In accordance with Part 13 of the EPBC Act, APAM is responsible for notifying the Secretary of the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) within seven days of becoming aware of an unauthorised action at Melbourne Airport. An unauthorised action is an action that has not been granted a permit under Part 13 and results in the unintentional death, injury, trading, taking, keeping or moving of a member of a listed threatened species (except a conservation dependent species), a member of a listed migratory species or a member of a listed threatened ecological community.

There are many circumstances under which unauthorised actions may occur at Melbourne Airport. For example, environmental incidents (e.g. aircraft accidents, fuel spills etc.), emergency infrastructure maintenance works (e.g. burst water mains, gas leaks) or collisions between aircraft and wildlife could all result in the unintentional death or injury of a significant species or member of a threatened ecological community. Part 13 of the EPBC Act allows for unauthorised actions in certain exceptional circumstances, including (but not limited to) unauthorised actions that are:

• Reasonably necessary to prevent a risk to human health (s.197(f) and s.212(f)).

• Reasonably necessary to deal with an emergency involving a threat to human life or property (s.197(h) and s.212(h).

• The result of an unavoidable accident, other than an accident caused by negligent or reckless behaviour (s.197(i) and s.212(i)).

Under these circumstances, an unauthorised action at Melbourne Airport is not an offence, provided APAM notifies the Secretary of DoEE within seven days of becoming aware of the unauthorised action.

MNES relevant to the project are summarised in Table 6. It includes an assessment in relation to the EPBC Act policy statements of the Australian Government which provide guidance on the practical application of the Act.


Table 6 Assessment of project in relation to the EPBC Act

MNES Project specifics Assessment against significant impact guidelines

Threatened species and ecological communities

Thirty-one species (11 plants and 20 animals) are predicted to occur in the project search area. The likelihood of these species occurring in the study area is assessed in Appendix 1 (flora) and Appendix 2 (fauna). 6.447 hectares of NTGVVP located within the impact footprint.

All species predicted to occur within the study area by database searches have a negligible to low likelihood of occurrence. Permanent removal of 0.195 hectares of NTGVVP and the temporary impact of 6.251 hectares of NTGVVP unlikely to result in a Significant Impact to this ecological community.

Migratory species Fourteen migratory species are predicted to occur in the project search area (Appendix 2).

While some of these species would be expected to use the study area on occasion, it does not provide important habitat for an ecologically significant proportion of any of these species.

Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites)

The study area is not identified as being within the catchment of any Ramsar sites.

Not considered a relevant Matter of National Environmental Significance to the project.

Commonwealth Land

The study area is located on Commonwealth Land.

The study area is a highly modified and managed environment. The surrounding area has previously undergone significant development and disturbance. Impacts to heritage will be managed through a cultural heritage management plan investigation; CHMP 12774 (Biosis 2017c).

3.3.3 Offset requirements

The site is located on Commonwealth land, therefore Victorian vegetation offset requirements do not apply.

3.3.4 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)

The FFG Act is the key piece of Victorian legislation for the conservation of threatened species and communities and for the management of potentially threatening processes. Under the FFG Act, a permit is required from the Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to 'take' protected flora species and plants that belong to ‘listed’ communities from public land. A permit is generally not required for removal of protected flora from private land.

Native vegetation on site supports the listed Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands Community however a permit is not required under the FFG Act because the proposed action is not on public land. Melbourne Airport have advised that the FFG Act does not apply to Melbourne Airport land because Commonwealth land at Melbourne Airport is leased by APAM and APAM have a right to exclusive possession, therefore it should be considered to be private land for the purpose of the FFG Act.


3.4 Heritage

The study area has previously been assessed to determine the likelihood of Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage material occurring within the area. A review of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register on the 25 February 2019 has identified that the southern portion of the study area has previously been investigated under the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) 12774 (Biosis 2017c). This CHMP was completed for the Melbourne Airport Runway Development Program. The remainder of the study area has been identified as previously disturbed with a low likelihood of heritage values (Biosis 2017b) (Figure 4).

Under the management conditions of CHMP 12774, cultural heritage awareness training must be completed by representatives of the sponsor (APAM) or their contractor(s) before any work involving soil disturbance within the study area of this CHMP. This training shall be conducted by a representative of the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the area.

!

_̂

_̂

")

")

")

")

")

")

_̂

")

_̂

")

")

")

")!(

XW

!(

")

_̂

")

_̂

")

_̂

")

")

")

_̂

_̂

")

")

")

XW

")

_̂

")

")

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

")

")

_̂

_̂

_̂

")

")")

")

")

")

_̂

_̂

_̂

XW

")

_̂

")")

XW

_̂

_̂

")

_̂

")

")

_̂_̂

")

_̂

_̂

")

")̂_

_̂

_̂

")

")

")

")

_̂

")

_̂

_̂

")

")

")

")

")

_̂

")

#*

_̂

")

_̂

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

_̂ _̂

")

_̂

_̂

_̂

")

")

XW

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

")

_̂

")

")

_̂

_̂

")

")

")

#*

_̂

")

")

_̂

")

")

")

_̂

")

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

")

")

!(

")

_̂

_̂

")

")

_̂

")

")

_̂

")

_̂

")

")

_̂_̂

")

_̂

")

")

")

")

_̂

_̂

XW

_̂

_̂

_̂

")

")")

")

_̂

")

_̂_̂

")

")

!(

")

")

")

_̂

!(

_̂

")

")

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

")

")

")

MelbourneAirport Ce

ntre

RdArriv

alDr

Departure Dr

Melrose Dr

Melbourne Dr

Link Rd

Terminal Dr

ArundelCreek

Moonee

Ponds Creek

Arund

elCre

ek

Mariby

rnon

gRiv

er

Tu lla marine Fwy

12774

13202

1044212333

12498

1323713257

13446

14981

15320

15234

0 200 400 600

Metres

LegendMelbourne Airport landAirside boundaryStudy areaHeritage Study AreasRevised AGL upgrade worksEarly works area

Aboriginal Places_̂ Artefact Scatter!( Earth Feature") Low Density Artefact Distribution#* QuarryXW Scarred Tree

Aboriginal Places - Salvaged/destroyed_̂ Artefact Scatter") Low Density Artefact Distribution#* Quarry

Heritage - Management LayersKnown heritage valuesNo known heritage values – not identified but may existNo heritage valuesNo heritage values – but may have CHMP requirements

±Biosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Scale: 1:15,000 @ A3

Figure 4 Heritage values of thestudy area, AGL projectMelbourne Airport,Tullamarine


Acknowledgements: V icmap © State of V ictoira; Imagery © Nearmap

Matter: 29458,Date: 02 May 2019,Checked by: KMC, Drawn by: LH, Last edited by: lharleyLocation:P:\28400s\28408\Mapping\29422_AGL_F4_Heritage.mxd

Tu llamarine Fwy

Airpo rt Dr

Calder FwyMelton Hwy MORELANDCITY

MOONEEVALLEY CITY


4. Significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land self-assessment

For actions on or adjacent to Commonwealth land, impacts to the whole environment must be considered, regardless of whether any MNES are present. This section assessed the likelihood of the AGL project having a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land and has been assessed in accordance with:

• Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by commonwealth agencies Significant impact guidelines 1.2 EPBC Act 1999 (Commonwealth of Australia 2013b).

Impacts on landscapes and soils

In considering impacts on landscapes and soils, the following criteria are relevant:

Criteria Assessment

Is there a real chance or possibility that the action will:

Substantially alter natural landscape features No. The proposed AGL project is located fully within the operational airside boundary of Melbourne Airport which is a highly modified environment which has undergone extensive landscape alteration in the past. The proposed project is to be located adjacent to existing runway and taxiway infrastructure and therefore will not substantially alter natural landscape features.

Cause subsidence, instability or substantial erosion, or No. The proposed project is located on flat ground surrounded by existing infrastructure, it is unlikely to cause subsidence, instability or substantial erosion.

Involve medium or large-scale excavation of soil or minerals? No. Although some excavation will be required for trenching, however medium or large-scale excavation would be required.


Impacts on coastal landscapes and process

In considering impacts on coastal landscapes and process, the following criteria are raised:

Criteria Assessment


Alter coastal processes, including wave action, sediment movement or accretion, or water circulation patterns

No. The impact area is not located within the vicinity of coastal environments and no works within aquatic environments are proposed.

Permanently alter tidal patterns, water flows or water quality in estuaries

Reduce biological diversity or change species composition in estuaries, or

Extract large volumes of sand or substantially destabilise sand dunes?

Impacts on ocean forms, ocean processes and ocean life

In considering impacts on ocean forms, ocean processes and ocean life, the following criteria are raised:

Criteria Assessment


Reduce biological diversity or change species composition on reefs, seamounts or in other sensitive marine environments

No. The impact area is not located within the vicinity of coastal environments and no works within aquatic environments are proposed. An EMP will be developed and will include mitigation measures to include sediment control where necessary and include a plan for management of spills from machinery to ensure potential spills are localised and minimal.

Alter water circulation patterns by modification of existing landforms or the addition of artificial reefs or other large structures

Substantially damage or modify large areas of the seafloor or ocean habitat, such as sea grass

Release oil, fuel or other toxic substances into the marine environment in sufficient quantity to kill larger marine animals or alter ecosystem processes, or

Release large quantities of sewage or other waste into the marine environment?


Impacts on water resources

In considering impacts on water resources, the following criteria are raised:

Criteria Assessment


Measurably reduce the quantity, quality or availability of surface or ground water

No. It is highly unlikely that any change to surface or ground water would occur as a result of the proposed manufacturing, warehousing and associated activities.

Channelise, divert or impound rivers or creeks or substantially alter drainage patterns, or measurably alter water table levels?

No. The proposed project is highly unlikely to have any impact to rivers, creeks, drainage patterns or water table levels.

Pollutants, chemicals, and toxic substances

In considering pollutants, chemicals and toxic substances, the following criteria are raised:

Criteria Assessment


Generate smoke, fumes, chemicals, nutrients, or other pollutants which will substantially reduce local air quality or water quality

No. Fumes from vehicles and machinery will not exceed normal background levels and will therefore not substantially reduce local air, soil or water quality.

Result in the release, leakage, spillage, or explosion of flammable, explosive, toxic, radioactive, carcinogenic, or mutagenic substances, through use, storage, transport, or disposal

No. No pollutants or chemicals will be used during construction. All re-fueling will either occur off-site or at least 200 metres from the nearest watercourse and on level ground.

Increase atmospheric concentrations of gases which will contribute to the greenhouse effect or ozone damage, or

Substantially disturb contaminated or acid-sulphate soils? No. While soils in the project area are likely to contain low levels of contaminants including PFAS, the scale, intensity and duration of disturbance of individual trenches equates to a low and short term impact. These short term impacts will be managed through the projects CEMP.


Impacts on plants

In considering impacts on plants, the following criteria are raised:

Criteria Assessment


Involve medium or large-scale native vegetation clearance No. Commonwealth land at Melbourne Airport is approximately 2665 hectares in size of which 650 hectares contains native vegetation of varying qualities, patch sizes and Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs). Approximately 410 hectares of this native vegetation is Plains Grassland EVC of which approximately 270 hectares is comprised of the NTGVVP ecological community. There is approximately 175 hectares of Hills Herb-rich Woodland across the extent of Melbourne Airport. The proposed project will result in clearing and disturbance of Plains Grassland EVC which corresponds to the Victorian FFG Act listed Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands Community. Many of the Plains Grassland patches also meet the criteria for the EPBC listed NTGVVP ecological community. The permanent removal of the following:

• 0.218 hectares of Plains Grassland EVC of which 0.195 hectares is NTGVVP;

• 0.002 hectares of Hills Herb-rich Woodland EVC

and the temporary disturbance of the following: • 9.125 hectares of Plains Grassland EVC of which

6.251 hectares is NTGVVP; • 0.582 hectares of Hills Herb-rich Woodland EVC

as a result of the project can be considered as small-scale and highly localised clearing in the context of the scale of native vegetation present within Melbourne Airport land. In addition to the clearing and disturbance being considered small-scale it is also important to consider the location and quality of the vegetation to be impacted. The native vegetation is located adjacent to existing runways, taxiways and taxilanes. It is subject to continuous mowing and impacts from the existing infrastructure and associated land uses. The vegetation proposed for removal and disturbance has previously been removed or impacted on from the original installation of the existing Airfield Ground Lighting system and the construction of other airfield infrastructure and has since


Criteria Assessment

recolonised the project area. It is highly unlikely that the clearing of native vegetation as described above would result in medium to large scale clearing of native vegetation that would result in a significant impact to the environment as a whole on Commonwealth land.

Involve any clearance of any vegetation containing a listed threatened species which is likely to result in a long-term decline in a population or which threatens the viability of the species

No. The vegetation clearance required will not result in the long term decline in a population of a threatened species or threaten the viability of the species. There are no known listed threatened species within the study area.

Introduce potentially invasive species No. The potential introduction of invasive species will be addressed by adopting a vehicle and machinery hygiene procedure, to ensure all vehicles and machinery that arrive at the project area are free of soil and other material that may contain weed propagules.

Involve the use of chemicals which substantially stunt the growth of native vegetation, or

No. There will be no use of chemicals which will impact plants.

Involve large-scale controlled burning or any controlled burning in sensitive areas, including areas which contain listed threatened species?

No. The proposed impact does not include burning.

Impacts on animals

In considering impacts on animals, the following criteria are raised:

Criteria Assessment


Cause a long-term decrease in, or threaten the viability of, a native animal population or populations, through death, injury or other harm to individuals

No. The disturbance from the proposed impact will only have a minimal impact on native species through disturbance during construction. The proposed AGL project will not fragment or substantially reduce habitat for native species. No listed threatened species are known to occur within the study area. The likelihood of listed species being within the study area is low (Appendix 2).

Displace or substantially limit the movement or dispersal of native animal populations

Substantially reduce or fragment available habitat for native species;

Reduce or fragment available habitat for listed threatened species which is likely to displace a population, result in a long-term decline in a population, or threaten the viability of the species

Introduce exotic species which will substantially reduce habitat or resources for native species, or

No. The proposed works will not result in the introduction of exotic fauna species.


Criteria Assessment

Undertake large-scale controlled burning or any controlled burning in areas containing listed threatened species?

No. The proposed impact does not include burning.

Impacts on people and communities

In considering impacts on people and communities, the following criteria are raised:

Criteria Assessment


Substantially increase demand for, or reduce the availability of, community services or infrastructure which have direct or indirect impacts on the environment, including water supply, power supply, roads, waste disposal, and housing

No. There are no people or communities that will be adversely affected by the proposed project.

Affect the health, safety, welfare or quality of life of the members of a community, through factors such as noise, odours, fumes, smoke, or other pollutants

Cause physical dislocation of individuals or communities, or

Substantially change or diminish cultural identity, social organisation or community resources?


Impacts on heritage

In considering impacts to heritage, the following criteria are raised:

Criteria Assessment


Permanently destroy, remove or alter the fabric of a heritage place?

No. There are no known cultural heritage values located within the study area. Mitigation measures under CHMP 12774 (Biosis 2017c) will be followed.

Involve extension, renovation, or substantial alteration of a heritage place in a manner which is inconsistent with the heritage values of the place?

No. The works do not involve extensions or renovations. No heritage structures will be impacted by the proposed works.

Involve the erection of buildings or other structures adjacent to, or within important site lines of a heritage place which are inconsistent with the heritage values of the place?

No. The proposed works are not expected to further alter the already modified landscape surrounding this site.

Substantially diminish the heritage value of a heritage place for a community or group for which it is significant?

No. The works will not substantially diminish the heritage values of places in the study area.

Substantially alter the setting of a heritage place in a manner which is inconsistent with the heritage values of the place?

No. The proposed works will not substantially alter the setting of the heritage place at the study area in a way which is inconsistent with the heritage values of the place.

Substantially restrict or inhibit the existing use of a heritage place as a cultural or ceremonial site?

No. The works will not restrict or inhibit access to any Aboriginal or historical cultural heritage values used as a cultural or ceremonial site.

The project will take place within land managed by Melbourne Airport in the context of a large operational airport within the airside zone. The study area is currently a highly modified and managed environment, which has previously undergone significant development and disturbance. In addition, the proposed development will be managed in such a way as to ensure that impacts to low-level contaminated soils will be carefully managed on site. Impacts to heritage are to be mitigated through the implementation of existing CHMP 12774. As such it is considered unlikely that the project will result in a significant impact to the environment on Commonwealth Land.


5. Key values and recommendations

5.1.1 Key values

This section identifies the key ecological and heritage features of the study area, provides an outline of potential implications of the proposed development on those values and includes recommendations to assist with reducing the permanent impact of the proposed AGL project on biodiversity and heritage.

5.1.1.1 Heritage

There are no areas of historic or Aboriginal cultural heritage located within the study area. In addition no archaeological potential has been identified within the study area which would require further investigation prior to the commencement of the AGL project.

Under the management conditions of CHMP 12774, cultural heritage awareness training must be completed by representatives of the sponsor (APAM) or their contractor(s) before any work involving soil disturbance within the study area. This training shall be conducted by a representative of the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the area.

5.1.1.2 Ecology

The study area has been heavily disturbed by past land uses. Despite this, a large portion of the impact area is currently dominated by indigenous grass species and native patch vegetation is comprised of Plains Grassland and Hills herb-rich Woodland. The Plains Grassland patches correspond with the FFG Act listed Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands Community and many of these patches of Plains Grassland vegetation satisfy the criteria for the critically endangered EPBC Act listed Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) ecological community (Commonwealth of Australia 2011).

The primary measure to reduce impacts on biodiversity values within the study area is to minimise removal of native vegetation and to protect native vegetation within the impact footprint by means of mitigation measures.


5.1.2 Recommendations

A summary of potential implications of development within the study area and recommendations to minimise impacts during the design phase of the project is provided in Table 7.

Table 7 Key values, implications of development and recommendations



Native vegetation (including NTGVVP)

The project will result in the permanent small-scale removal of the following: • 0.218 hectares of Plains Grassland EVC of


Woodland EVC The project will result in the temporary disturbance of the following: • 9.125 hectares of Plains Grassland EVC of


Woodland EVC

• Minimise removal of native vegetation. • Installation of a temporary grass and

ground reinforcement product prior to tracked machinery driving across the NTGVVP within the works zone. This product is used to reinforce and protect the grassland from damage during construction and removed upon completion of construction. Should this reinforcement matting not be installed the ‘temporary impacts’ to native vegetation should be considered as permanent.

• Rubber tyred vehicles to only be driven in the works zone when the ground is dry and movement limited to driving down the works zone from the tarmac and reversing backwards to the tarmac to complete works.

• Rubber tyred vehicles are not to drive across the grassed areas between works zones.

• Ensure that the EPBC listed ecological community Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain and all other native vegetation located outside of the works zone is protected from impacts during construction.

• Prepare a CEMP which will include procedures that require all equipment and personnel to be clean and free of foreign material (e.g. weed propagules or material containing pathogens).

Heritage Works within an area with an existing CHMP (CHMP 12774).

• Cultural heritage awareness training as per CHMP 12774 (Biosis 2017c) for the area identified in Figure 3.

Permits The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact to the environment on Commonwealth land, a referral is therefore not recommended. The project will result in the permanent removal of 0.195 hectares of NTGVVP and the

• A referral under the EPBC Act is not recommended.

• A part 13 Permit is required for the removal (take) of 0.195 hectares of NTGVVP ecological community and for the temporary impact (injure) of 6.251




temporary disturbance (injury) of 6.251 hectares of NTGVVP.

hectares of NTGVVP prior to the commencement of NTGVVP impacts.

• There is an existing Part 13 Permit for operational and infrastructure maintenance activities for the safe and effective management of Melbourne Airport, Victoria (Permit No. E2018/0144).

• Existing Part 13 Permit currently allows for the annual disturbance of 0.003 hectares of NTGGVP within the Melbourne Airport airside boundary for electrical installation, replacement and maintenance.

• The existing Part 13 Permit could be utilised to undertake ‘Early Works’ required for the project

5.1.3 Approvals required

A Part 13 Permit is required from the Commonwealth Government under the EPBC Act for non-significant impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) on Commonwealth land. It is recommended that the project is submitted to the Commonwealth Government under the EPBC Act to receive a Part 13 Permit for impacts to NTGVVP on Commonwealth land for the permanent removal of 0.195 hectares of NTGVVP and for the temporary disturbance (injury) of 6.251 hectares of NTGVVP.


References

ADB Safegate 2019. CP18081 AGL Upgrade 100% design 31/01/2019. Drawing title: Proposed Infrastructure Layout (Civil Works). ADB Safegate, Mulgrave.

APAM 2018. Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2018 Preliminary Draft. Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine. Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd.

Biosis 2015. Flora and fauna assessment of the Runway Development Program, Melbourne Airport: Existing conditions and impact assessment report. Authors: Kay K, Smales I & Byrne A, Biosis Pty Ltd, Project 16945 Melbourne.

Biosis 2016. Melbourne Airport Taxiway Zulu and Northern Compound: Biodiversity Assessment. Report to Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne Pty Ltd. Authors: Mueck, S. & Kay, K. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project 21367.

Biosis 2017a. Melbourne Airport: Biodiversity and Conservation Management Plan. Report for Australia Pacific Airports Pty Ltd. Authors: Goddard M, Smales I & Harvey A, Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project 22353.

Biosis 2017b. Heritage Gaps Study, Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine, Victoria. Report for Australian Pacific Airports (Melbourne). Author: Oataway, K. White, K., Fitzgerald, T., Biosis Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne. Project 25883.

Biosis 2017c. Runway Development Program, Melbourne Airport, Tullamarine, Victoria: Cultural Heritage Management Plan 12774. Report for Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd. Authors: A Ford, T James Lee, K Houghton, R Ashton and G Vines. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Biosis 2018. Melbourne Airport ecology gaps study. Report for Australia Pacific Airports – Melbourne. Authors Campbell K & Yugovic J, Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project 25882.

Biosis 2019. Taxiway Zulu extended project area EPBC Act Significant Impact Self-Assessment. Report for Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne. Author: Campbell, K., Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 29692.

Commonwealth of Australia 2008. Commonwealth Listing Advice on Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/42-listing-advice.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia 2011. Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities of the Victorian Volcanic Plain: Natural Temperate Grassland & Grassy Eucalypt Woodland, A guide to the identification, assessment and management of nationally threatened ecological communities. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities, Canberra. www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/e97c2d51-08f2-45e0-9d2f-f0d277c836fa/files/grasslands-victoria.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia 2013a. Matters of National Environmental Significance. Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Canberra. www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/42f84df4-720b-4dcf-b262-48679a3aba58/files/nes-guidelines_1.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia 2013b. Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies. Significant impact guidelines 1.2. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a0af2153-29dc-453c-8f04-3de35bca5264/files/commonwealth-guidelines_1.pdf

DELWP 2017. Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation. Victorian Government Department of Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne (December 2017).

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/42-listing-advice.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/e97c2d51-08f2-45e0-9d2f-f0d277c836fa/files/grasslands-victoria.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/e97c2d51-08f2-45e0-9d2f-f0d277c836fa/files/grasslands-victoria.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/42f84df4-720b-4dcf-b262-48679a3aba58/files/nes-guidelines_1.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/42f84df4-720b-4dcf-b262-48679a3aba58/files/nes-guidelines_1.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a0af2153-29dc-453c-8f04-3de35bca5264/files/commonwealth-guidelines_1.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a0af2153-29dc-453c-8f04-3de35bca5264/files/commonwealth-guidelines_1.pdf


DEPI 2013. Permitted clearing of native vegetation - Biodiversity assessment guidelines. Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne.


Appendices


Appendix 1 Flora

Notes to tables:

EPBC Act: CR - Critically Endangered EN - Endangered VU - Vulnerable PMST – Protected Matters Search Tool

FFG Act: L - listed as threatened under FFG Act P - protected under the FFG Act (public land only)


A1.1 Listed flora species The following table includes the listed flora species that have potential to occur within the study area. The list of species is sourced from the Protected Matters Search Tool (DoEE; accessed on 07.02.2019) and the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (29/03/2019).

Table A1.1 Listed flora species recorded / predicted to occur within 5 km of the study area

Scientific name Common name

Conservation status Most recent database record

Other records

Habitat description Likely occurrence in study area

Rationale for likelihood ranking

EPBC FFG

National significance

Amphibromus fluitans River Swamp Wallaby-grass

VU I PMST Swampy areas, mainly along the Murray River between Wodonga and Echuca with scattered records from southern Victoria.

Low No suitable habitat within the study area.

Dianella amoena Matted Flax-lily EN L 2012 PMST Lowland grassland and grassy woodland, on well-drained to seasonally waterlogged fertile sandy loam soils to heavy cracking clays.

Negligible The heavily disturbed nature of the site suggests its presence is highly unlikely. Other more common members of this genus which otherwise also occupy this type of habitat are also absent from this site.




Other records



EPBC FFG

Diuris fragrantissima Sunshine Diuris

EN L 1923 Grassland dominated by Themeda trianda, on plains with heavy basalt soils and embedded boulders; only known naturally occurring population is in Sunshine.


Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine VU L PMST Grasslands and grassy woodlands, particularly those dominated by Kangaroo Grass.

Negligible The heavily disturbed nature of the site suggests its presence is highly unlikely. Other similar, more common species such as Glycine tabacina are also absent.

Lachnagrostis adamsonii

Adamson's Blown-grass

EN L PMST Low-lying, seasonally wet or swampy areas of plains communities, often in slightly saline conditions.

Negligible The heavily disturbed nature of the site suggests its presence is highly unlikely. Other similar, more common species such as Glycine




Other records



EPBC FFG

tabacina are also absent.

Lepidium hyssopifolium s.s.

Basalt Peppercress

EN L 1982 Basalt plains grassland and woodland communities.


Leucochrysum albicans subsp. tricolor

White Sunray EN L PMST Grasslands of the Victorian Volcanic Plains, primarily on acidic clay soils derived from basalt, with occasional occurrences on adjacent sedimentary, sandy-clay soils.

Low Degraded habitat present.

Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens

Spiny Rice-flower

CR L 2013 PMST Primarily grasslands featuring a moderate diversity of other native species and inter-tussock spaces, although also recorded in grassland dominated by introduced perennial grasses.

Negligible Study area is east of Jacksons Creek therefore outside the natural range of the species. Study area is highly




Other records



EPBC FFG

modified and species unlikely to be present.

Prasophyllum frenchii Maroon Leek-orchid

EN L PMST Grassland and grassy woodland environments on sandy or black clay loam soils, that are generally damp but well drained.

Negligible The heavily disturbed nature of the site suggests its presence is highly unlikely. No other orchid species were observed.

Pterostylis cucullata Leafy Greenhood

VU L PMST Sand dune scrubs in coastal areas, and inland on slopes and river flats in moist foothill and montane forests.

Negligible No suitable habitat present.

Rutidosis leptorhynchoides

Button Wrinklewort

EN L 1982 PMST Higher quality Plains Grassland and Grassy Woodland in Western Victoria, particularly those with fertile soil and light timber cover.

Negligible Degraded habitat present, no local records.




Other records



EPBC FFG

Senecio macrocarpus Large-headed Fireweed

VU L PMST Grassland, shrubland and woodland habitats on heavy soils subject to waterlogging and/or drought conditions in summer.

Negligible Degraded habitat present, no local records.

Xerochrysum palustre Swamp Everlasting

VU L PMST Sedge-swamps and shallow freshwater marshes and swamps in lowlands, on black cracking clay soils.

Low Highly localised no suitable habitat present.

State significance

Allocasuarina luehmannii

Buloke L 1979 Non-calcareous soils in drier areas on slopes and plains; often in woodlands associated with Grey Box.


Atriplex billardierei Glistening Saltbush

L 1980 Scattered along sandy seashores from the western to eastern extremities of Victoria.


Botrychium australe Austral Moonwort

L 1983 Lowland forest and scrubland to subalpine grasslands, lightly wooded plains, at the base of granitic hills, alongside subalpine streams, and in some disturbed environments.

Low No suitable habitat present.

Comesperma polygaloides

Small Milkwort L 1986 Grasslands on the western basalt plains; less commonly in grassy woodlands between Bendigo and the Wimmera.


Cullen parvum Small Scurf-pea

L 1986 Lowland grasslands, including pastures and occasionally in otherwise disturbed grassy areas.





Other records



EPBC FFG

Cullen tenax Tough Scurf-pea

L 1994 Lowland grasslands, including pastures and occasionally in otherwise disturbed grassy areas.


Diuris palustris Swamp Diuris L 1979 Grasslands and open woodlands, often in swampy depressions; confined to the west of the State.


Diuris punctata Purple Diuris L 1982 Fertile, loamy soils and periodically wet areas in lowland grasslands, grassy woodlands, heathy woodlands and open heathlands.



Appendix 2 Fauna

Notes to tables:

EPBC Act:

EX - Extinct CR - Critically Endangered EN - Endangered VU - Vulnerable CD - Conservation dependent PMST – Protected Matters Search Tool

FFG Act:

L - listed as threatened under FFG Act

N - nominated for listing as threatened

I - determined ineligible for listing


A2.1 Listed fauna species The following table includes a list of the listed fauna species that have potential to occur within the study area. The list of species is sourced from the Protected Matters Search Tool (DoEE; accessed on 07.02.2019) and the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (accessed on the 29/03/2019).

Table A2.1 Listed fauna species recorded, or predicted to occur, within 5 km of the study area

Scientific name Common name Conservation status

Most recent database record

Other records



EPBC FFG

National significance

Pedionomus torquatus Plains-wanderer CR L 1948 PMST Native grassland with a sparse, open structure.

Negligible No suitable habitat within the study area.

Rostratula australis Australian Painted-snipe

EN L PMST Shallows of well-vegetated freshwater wetlands.


Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern

EN L 1960 PMST Shallow freshwater and brackish wetlands with abundant emergent aquatic vegetation.


Calyptorhynchus banksii graptogyne

Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo (south-eastern)

EN L 1908 Desert Stringybark, Brown Stringybark and Buloke woodlands.


Polytelis swainsonii Superb Parrot VU L 1908 Red-gum and box-dominated forests and woodlands.


Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot CR L 2010 PMST A range of forests and woodlands, especially those supporting nectar-producing tree species. Also well-treed urban areas.





Other records



EPBC FFG

Numenius madagascariensis

Eastern Curlew CR PMST Large intertidal sandflats, banks, mudflats, estuaries, inlets, sewage farms, saltworks, harbours, coastal lagoons and bays.


Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper

CR PMST Large intertidal sandflats, banks, mudflats, estuaries, inlets, sewage farms, saltworks, harbours, coastal lagoons and bays.


Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater

VU L PMST Dry open woodlands and forests. Typically forages for fruit and nectar in mistletoes and in tree canopies.


Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater

CR L 1908 PMST A range of dry woodlands and forests dominated by nectar-producing tree species.

Negligible Outside current distribution.

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus

Spot-tailed Quoll

EN L PMST Rainforest and wet and dry sclerophyll forests and woodlands.


Perameles gunnii Eastern Barred Bandicoot

VU L 2003 PMST Natural temperate grasslands and grassy woodlands.

Negligible Extinct in region. Reintroduced population in Woodlands Historic Park.

Petauroides volans Southern Greater Glider

VU L PMST Wet and damp sclerophyll forest with large hollow-bearing trees.

Negligible No suitable habitat in study area.




Other records



EPBC FFG

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox

VU L PMST Rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll forest, woodland and urban areas.


Aprasia parapulchella Pink-tailed Worm-Lizard

VU L PMST Woodland and grassland with partially buried rocks.

Negligible No suitable habitat in highly managed environment. Not detected within previous reptile surveys at Melbourne Airport (Biosis 2015).

Delma impar Striped Legless Lizard

VU L 2011 PMST Natural temperate grassland, grassy woodland and exotic grassland.

Low No suitable habitat in highly managed environment. Not detected within previous reptile surveys at Melbourne Airport (Biosis 2015).




Other records



EPBC FFG

Tympanocryptis pinguicolla

Grassland Earless Dragon

EN L PMST Natural temperate grassland. Low No suitable habitat in highly managed environment. Not detected within previous reptile surveys at Melbourne Airport (Biosis 2015).

Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Frog

VU L 2017 Still or slow-flowing waterbodies and surrounding terrestrial vegetation.


Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling

VU L 2015 PMST Adults inhabit cool, clear, freshwater streams.


Galaxiella pusilla Dwarf Galaxis VU L PMST Slow-flowing or still freshwater wetlands such as swamps, drains and backwaters of streams.


Maccullochella peelii Murray Cod VU L 1981 PMST A diverse range of stream habitats in the Murray-Darling basin; principally the main channels of rivers and their major tributaries.


Macquaria australasica Macquarie Perch

EN L 1970 Streams with clear water and deep, rocky holes with abundant cover.





Other records



EPBC FFG

Bidyanus bidyanus Silver Perch CR L 1981 Lowland streams within the Murray-Darling Basin.


Synemon plana Golden Sun Moth

CR L 2017 PMST Natural temperate grassland, grassy woodland and pasture supporting spear grasses and wallaby grasses and exotic grassland dominated by Chilean needle grass.

Low Highly disturbed grassland areas adjacent to runways, taxiways and taxi lanes unlikely to be suitable for this species. APAM have previously indicated that the areas immediately adjacent to the runways are sprayed with insecticide to reduce the risk of bird collisions with aircraft.

Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida

Eltham Copper Butterfly

EN L 1920 Drier sclerophyll forests and woodlands supporting Sweet Bursaria Bursaria spinosa, especially along ridgelines.


State significance




Other records



EPBC FFG

Falco subniger Black Falcon L 2009 Woodlands, open country and around terrestrial wetlands areas, including rivers and creeks. Mostly hunts over open plains and undulating land with large tracts of low vegetation. Primarily occurs in arid and semi-arid zones in the north, north-west and west of Victoria, though can be forced into more coastal areas by droughts and subsequent food shortages.

Low

Area adjacent to runways is highly managed to prevent prey (rabbits, rodents etc.) and scare cannon guns are used to prevent bird activity in the area.

Accipiter novaehollandiae

Grey Goshawk L 1908 Rainforest, gallery forest, tall wet forest and woodland. Also partially cleared agricultural land.

Low

Not suitable habitat for the species and the area adjacent to runways is highly managed to prevent prey (rabbits, rodents etc.) and scare cannon guns are used to prevent bird activity in the area.

Ardea alba Great Egret L 2008 Prefer shallow water, particularly when flowing, but may be seen Low

No suitable habitat within the study area.




Other records



EPBC FFG

on any watered area, including damp grasslands.

Chthonicola sagittatus Speckled Warbler

L 1990 Eucalypt woodland with rocky gullies, ridges, tussock grasses and a sparse shrub understorey.


Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle

L 2004 Coastal areas such as beaches and estuaries, inland wetlands and major inland streams.

Not suitable habitat for the species and the area adjacent to runways is highly managed to prevent prey (rabbits, rodents etc.) and scare cannon guns are used to prevent bird activity in the area.

Lewinia pectoralis Lewin's Rail L 1991 Swamps, dense riparian vegetation and saltmarsh. Negligible


Phascogale tapoatafa Brush-tailed Phascogale

L 2017 Drier sclerophyll forests and woodlands. Negligible





Other records



EPBC FFG

Porzana pusilla Baillon's Crake L 2014 Well-vegetated permanent and temporary fresh and brackish wetlands.


Geopelia cuneata Diamond Dove L 1999 Drier woodlands and scrub, spinifex and mulga. Low


Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin L 2002 Woodlands of eucalypt, mallee, semi-cleared farmland. Low


Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail

L 1990 Open forests and woodlands with a grassy ground layer. Low


Ardeotis australis Australian Bustard

L 1908 Grassland, open dry woodlands of mallee and mulga, arid heathland saltbush and bluebush.


Burhinus grallarius Bush Stone-curlew

L 1908 Open woodland, treed farmland.


Egretta garzetta Little Egret L 2008 Swamps, billabongs, floodplain pools, mudflats, mangroves and channels; breeds in trees standing in water.


Ixobrychus dubius Australian Little Bittern

L 1986 Freshwater swamps, lakes and rivers with dense reed beds, saltmarsh and coastal lagoons.


Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck L 2013 Open or densely vegetated wetlands. Negligible





Other records



EPBC FFG

Pomatostomus temporalis

Grey-crowned Babbler

L 1908 Open forests and woodlands.


Pseudophryne bibronii Brown Toadlet L 1990 A wide variety of woodland, forest and grassland habitats. Negligible


Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck L 2014 Large freshwater wetlands, generally with dense vegetation. Negligible



A2.2 Migratory species (EPBC Act listed)

Table A2.2 Migratory fauna species recorded or predicted to occur within 5 km of the study area

Scientific name Common name Most recent record

Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper PMST

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift PMST

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper PMST

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper PMST

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper PMST

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe PMST

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail PMST

Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch PMST

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail PMST

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher PMST

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew PMST

Pandion cristatus Eastern Osprey PMST

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail PMST

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank PMST

Melbourne Airport Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) System ...€¦ ·...

Documents

Transcript of Melbourne Airport Airfield Ground Lighting (AGL) System ...€¦ ·...