Melbourne Airport HIAL 27 Replacement: Ecological ......Management Plan (EMP) for the replacement...

© Biosis September 2012 – Leading ecology and heritage consultants 1

Melbourne Airport HIAL 27 Replacement:

Ecological Management Plan Prepared for Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne

FINAL REPORT

26 May 2016

© Biosis 2016 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting www.biosis.com.au i

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.

NEW SOUTH WALES

Newcastle

39 Platt Street

Waratah NSW 2298

Phone: (02) 4968 4901

Email: [email protected]

Sydney

Unit 14, 17-27 Power Avenue

Alexandria NSW 2015

Phone: (02) 9101 8700


Wollongong

8 Tate Street

Wollongong NSW 2500

Phone: (02) 4201 1090


QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

Suite 4 First Floor, 72 Wickham Street

Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

Phone: (07) 3831 7400


TASMANIA

Hobart

2/2 Gore Street

South Hobart TAS 7004

Phone: (03) 8686 4800


VICTORIA

Ballarat

506 Macarthur Street

Ballarat VIC 3350

Phone: (03) 5304 4250


Melbourne (Head Office)

38 Bertie Street

Port Melbourne VIC 3207

Phone: (03) 8686 4800

Fax: (03) 9646 9242


Wangaratta

16 Templeton Street (PO Box 943)

Wangaratta VIC 3677

Phone: (03) 5721 9453


Document information

Report to: Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne

Prepared by: Kirsty Kay

Biosis project no.: 21974

File name: 21974.HIAL27.EMP.FIN01.20160526.docx

Citation: Biosis 2015. Melbourne Airport HIAL 27:

Ecological Management Plan. Report to APAM.

Author: Kay K. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Project no. 21974.

Document control

Version Internal reviewer Date issued

Draft version 01 SGM 06/05/2016

Final version 01 KJK 26/05/2016

Acknowledgements

Biosis acknowledges the contribution of the following people and

organisations in undertaking this study:

Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne: Paula Bradshaw.

The following Biosis staff were involved in this project:

Lauren Harley for mapping.

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

mailto:[email protected]







© Biosis 2016 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting www.biosis.com.au ii

Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 EMP Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.3 Project Management ................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Ecological Management Plan .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Site induction ................................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain – 'No-go Areas' ............................................... 7

2.3 Growling Grass Frog .................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Post construction rehabilitation ................................................................................................................................ 9

References ............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Appendix 1: Growling Grass Frog fact sheet .................................................................................................... 11

Appendix 2: Induction Record ............................................................................................................................ 12

Appendix 3: Indigenous grasses suitable for revegetation .......................................................................... 13

Figures .................................................................................................................................................................... 14


© Biosis 2016 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting www.biosis.com.au 3

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Biosis Pty Ltd was commissioned by Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne (APAM) to prepare an Ecological

Management Plan (EMP) for the replacement High Intensity Approach Lighting (HIAL) for the runway 27

approach area at Melbourne Airport.

Previously Biosis undertook a broader biodiversity assessment of the proposed footprint for works

associated with the replacement of all HIAL within Melbourne Airport (Biosis 2014). An objective of the Biosis

(2014) assessment was to provide biodiversity information for a broader HIAL project to be assessed as part

of a major development planning process. This was considered appropriate as the broader project had the

potential to impact on a number of matters of national environmental significance (MNES).

Subsequently the HIAL replacement project has been divided into smaller components and the Runway 27

HIAL replacement project is not considered to be a major development project. The rationale for this

(including pers. comm. from Paula Bradshaw, APAM) is as follows:

The project does not trigger any part of section 89 (meaning of a major airport development): the

project involves replacement of the existing high intensity lighting (HIAL) system at the end of Runway

27 and does not meet the definitions provided in s.89;

S.89 (m) the development does not have a significant environmental or ecological impact (as further

explained in this document); and

S.89 (n) the development does not significantly affect an area identified as environmentally significant

in the Environment Strategy. Section 11.2.8 of the Melbourne Airport Master Plan 2013, notes three

areas of environmental significance on airport grounds including the Annandale Grasslands, the Grey

Box Woodland and the areas surrounding Deep Creek and Moonee Ponds Creek. The HIAL 27 route

passes over Moonee Ponds Creek, but construction of proposed footings will occur either side of the

creek and will therefore not directly impact the creek area.

As such this project will not be assessed as part of a Major Development Plan.

As identified by Biosis (2014) the Runway 27 HIAL replacement project does encounter areas of native

grassland. The grassland is representative of the nationally significant ecological community Natural

Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP), which is listed as Critically Endangered under

the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The proposed works will also span Moonee Ponds Creek, which includes habitat for the Growling Grass Frog a

species listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

The location of proposed works and native grassland vegetation is indicated in the GHD drawing attached

(SK002), with higher resolution aerial imagery provided in Figure 1.

As identified in the figures much of the vegetation around the existing lighting is dominated by introduced

grasses and herbs. This is not unexpected given the level of soil disturbance associated with the initial

installation of these lights and associated tracks. However, there are areas that have been recolonised by

indigenous grasses typical of the surrounding NTGVVP. While these areas do satisfy the definition of NTGVVP

and are contiguous with other areas of this community, the area to be impacted by the Runway 27 HIAL

replacement project has been disturbed in the past and does not represent high quality, species rich

examples of this vegetation type. DEWHA (2008: page 4) indicates that the guide for determining the



presence of NTGVVP suggests that poor quality patches (of NTGVVP) are not listed but if managed may be

regarded as part of the listed community. While no definition of poor quality is provided and similar

vegetation has been considered as NTGVVP, the history of disturbance around the existing HIAL facility and its

low diversity suggests it is a candidate for classification as poor quality native grassland.

The works required will include the replacement and installation of a number of elevated lights and

associated footings as well as construction of an elevated steel structure over Sunbury Road and Moonee

Ponds Creek. Installation of the footings will require excavation and ground preparation using lightweight

earth moving equipment at the location of the elevated lights. This will accommodate either pre-cast or cast

in-situ concrete footings. The lights will be powered and controlled by a series of primary and secondary

electrical cables that will be installed within a pit and conduit system alongside the elevated lights as well as

running across the elevated structure spanning Sunbury Road and Moonee Ponds Creek. The trenching for

the cables will be completed using 'cut and cover' excavation. A 2.7 metre wide construction zone has been

identified along the length of the HIAL where native grassland vegetation is present to minimise removal of

this vegetation and the overall construction footprint.

The total area of NTGVVP to be impacted during construction is 432 square metres or 0.0432 hectares.

Following trenching of the cables, the ground will be physically rehabilitated to its natural level allowing

recolonisation by native grass species. This will also be facilitated by the sowing of indigenous grass seed

from the same species present before construction. Except for the light footings, no other permanent

features, such as a road or track will be constructed as part of the development. The total area of permanent

grassland removal for footings and structures will be 19 square metres in area (GHD figure attached).

Under the definition of NTGVVP, an area of grassland which meets the definition of NTGVVP needs to be a

minimum of 500 square metres in extent (DSEWPaC 2011: page 22). While the broader area of grassland is

significantly greater than this, the impact on this community within the Runway 27 HIAL replacement project

has been minimised so that the impact will be below this threshold. This provides a measure of the

mitigation measures undertaken to minimise any impact to NTGVVP.

Under the significant impact guidelines for MNES a number of significant impact criteria are listed (DEH 2006:

page 13). In the context of the proposed works, the extent of NTGVVP within the airport and the proposed

implementation of this EMP it is considered unlikely that the project would trigger any of the significant

impact criteria listed, particularly given the existing history of disturbance at this location and the associated

mitigation measures identified in this EMP. The criteria are assessed as follows:

reduce the extent of an ecological community: While a small area identifiable as NTGVVP would be

impacted, impacts to this vegetation will not change the broader extent of occurrence for the

community.

fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by clearing vegetation for

roads or transmission lines: the proposed works occur on the disturbed margins of a broader area of

NTGVVP and would therefore not separate or fragment the broader representation of NTGVVP within

the airport.

adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community: This area has not been

identified as a significant area of NTGVVP and its degraded nature suggests it is not habitat critical to

the persistence of NTGVVP.

modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for an ecological

community’s survival, including reduction of groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water

drainage patterns: While the works will have a localised impact on soils supporting NTGVVP the

proposed works are not expected to have a broader impact on vegetation given the constrained

nature of the works and flat topography of the site.



cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community,

including causing a decline or loss of functionally important species, for example through regular burning

or flora or fauna harvesting: The species poor nature of the existing areas identified as NTGVVP and

the proposed rehabilitation works with the same species provides a degree of confidence in achieving

appropriate revegetation to a very similar species composition.

cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community,

including, but not limited to:

-- assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established,

or

-- causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological

community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological community: While the proposed

works will provide opportunities for accelerated weed invasion, the proposed revegetation

management works are expected to result in little change to the quality or integrity of this example of

NTGVVP.

interfere with the recovery of an ecological community: These areas of grassland are not subject to

active recovery works and are not part of any NTGVVP recovery program. The proposed works will

therefore not interfere with the recovery of this ecological community.

The threshold for referral of a project to the Department of the Environment (DoE) is reduced on

Commonwealth land to a significant impact on the environment in general (DSEWPaC 2013). In this instance

the limited and localised nature of the proposed works and the associated implementation of this EMP, are

not considered to result in a significant impact on the local environment. The self assessment process is

outlined in Figure 1 of DSEWPaC (2013). The environmental context of the development is such that it is

proposed to occur in an area subject to past physical disturbance, and while it has in part been recolonised by

indigenous species to the point where it satisfies the definition of NTGVVP, it represents a relatively poor

example of that community. The area of proposed impact has also been minimised to the extent where

impacts to NTGVVP have been reduced to an area of less than 500 square metres. The potential impacts

would be that the area becomes dominated by introduced species, however, proposed mitigation

management in the way of weed control works and revegetation effort, would only result in minor impacts.

Given the extent of natural recolonisation of disturbed ground within the airport ground, it is reasonable to

be confident of a good revegetation outcome given active management of ground disturbed by this project.

As part of the self assessment process (DSEWPaC 2103: Figure 1 page 6), APAM have utilised the advice

provided by Biosis to decide that the Runway 27 HIAL replacement project does not represent a significant

impact on the relevant MNES (NTGVVP) or the environment in general. The project would therefore be

implemented without referral to the DoE but will otherwise be subject to the protocols and requirements

outline by the EMP.

Biosis has prepared this EMP as a protocol for APAM to manage the potential impacts of proposed works on

features of ecological significance and sets out specific management strategies and practices that will ensure

that any potential impacts are avoided and/or mitigated.

All construction personnel are to be made aware of the ecological values within the study area and the

requirements for protection.

Biosis will induct the site foreman who will then be responsible for induction of all other contractors working

on the project.

The EMP will be made available for placement in site handbooks and use in contractor inductions.



1.2 EMP Objectives

The objectives of the EMP are to:

Protect the identified ecological values.

Avoid clearance of, or damage to, the NTGVVP community outside of the works footprint.

Avoid harm to Growling Grass Frogs during works within 200 m of Moonee Ponds Creek.

Ensure compliance with environmental regulation and legislation.

1.3 Project Management

The EMP will be managed by APAM with the assistance of Biosis ecologists.

Responsible Project Manager:

Paula Bradshaw

Environment Manager

Melbourne Airport

Telephone (03) 9297 1558

Mobile 0409 053 016

Email [email protected]

The Project Manager or delegated authority must:

Be present at the site induction.

Ensure all personnel (including contractor/sub-contractors) are aware of the contents of the EMP.

Be available for on-site meetings when required.

Ensure compliance with the EMP.

Include the EMP as part of any enforceable contracts.

Biosis Contact:

Kirsty Kay

Senior Ecologist – Project Manager

Biosis Pty Ltd

38 Bertie Street, Port Melbourne VIC 3690

Telephone (03) 8686 4821

Mobile 0409 944 165

Email [email protected]





2. Ecological Management Plan

2.1 Site induction

Site induction for all personnel working on site and sub-contractors, must be undertaken by the site

supervisor or Biosis botanist before personnel commence work.

Where works occur within the vicinity of native grassland (Figure 1), contractors are to be inducted so

that they are familiar with the locations of native grassland in order to avoid these areas during

works.

Where works occur within 200 m of Arundel Creek contractors are to be inducted so that they are

familiar with Growling Grass Frog and what to do if they encounter one during works (refer to the

Growling Grass Frog fact sheet attached in Appendix 1).

Details of attendance at the induction will be recorded for each person (Appendix 2). The induction

process will describe the location of copies of the EMP and will provide the contact details for the

Project Manager and Ecologist.

'Ask before Acting' will be emphasised and encouraged to help prevent incidents.

2.2 Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain – 'No-go

Areas'

Why is protection required?

Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) is a threatened ecological community

protected under Commonwealth legislation (EPBC Act).

Native grassland in airfield dominated by Wallaby Grass (NTGVVP)



Where is it needed?

The locations of NTGVVP in relation to the HIAL 27 works area are indicated in Figure 1 in yellow shading.

The project construction methodology has been designed to specifically minimise impacts on the protected

grassland community. A 2.7 metre construction corridor will be established where the construction works are

in the vicinity of the protected grassland community in order to minimise construction disturbance.

All site access, elevated light installation works and trenching is to be confined to this 2.7 metre wide zone.

What is involved?

1. All native grassland to be avoided is to be clearly marked on site. Prior to works commencing a Biosis

Botanist will assist the site supervisor mark out the boundaries of NTGVVP in the vicinity of relevant

works with high visibility materials, star pickets and/or flagging tape to provide a visible barrier to the

'no-go zones'.

2. All construction workers are to be inducted as to the location and purpose of the no-go zones.

3. No vehicles, machinery or materials are to enter the marked areas to avoid damage to the native

grassland.

4. No vehicles or machinery are to drive across patches of native grassland to reach site works areas.

Vehicles and machinery must go around these areas to avoid trampling of vegetation and

disturbance to the soil.

5. Biosis can be contacted during works if there are any questions about the native grassland or the

EMP.

2.3 Growling Grass Frog

Why is protection required?

The Growling Grass Frog is threatened in Australia and protected under Commonwealth legislation.

Growling Grass Frogs have been recorded in Moonee Ponds Creek, which is located to the east of Sunbury

Road. The frogs use terrestrial habitat (e.g. grassy paddocks) for foraging and may reside in grass tussocks

and other ground layer debris up to 200 m from streams.

Excavation of footings within this area either side of Moonee Ponds Creek therefore has the potential to

disturb terrestrial habitat for the nationally vulnerable Growling Grass Frog.

Where is it needed?

Where site disturbance works occur within 200 m either side of Moonee Ponds Creek.

What is involved?

To prevent accidental mortality of frogs during the construction works, it is recommended that a zoologist

search the area within the works and plant manoeuvring zones to capture and relocate any frogs that might

be present.

Biosis will undertake this work as they hold all necessary permits for the humane capture and relocation of

Growling Grass Frogs from impacted areas to nearby undisturbed habitat.



The protocol for Growling Grass Frog is as follows:

A Biosis zoologist is to be present to supervise any site disturbance works within 200 m of Moonee

Ponds Creek.

The Project Manager is to notify Biosis of start date a minimum of 1 week prior to works.

Biosis zoologist is to be present each morning prior to site disturbance works to look for frogs within

the works areas (once frog checks have been completed, the zoologist does not need to be present

for the rest of the day).

Biosis will capture and release any Growling Grass Frogs found in accordance with our management

authorisation under the Wildlife Act 1975.

Following excavation of column footing holes by the Contractor, holes are to be backfilled on the

same day they are excavated.

If a Growling Grass Frog is identified within the works area when a Biosis ecologist is not on site, stop

work in the vicinity of the frog and call the Project Manager or Biosis for instructions on how to

proceed.

Refer to the Growling Grass Frog fact sheet attached in Appendix 1.

2.4 Post construction rehabilitation

Physical site attributes

After the replacement installation of the HIAL for runway 27 is complete all construction materials and waste

will be removed. If the ground level of areas impacted by works contrast with the pre-construction condition

(i.e. the soil surface appears as a mound or a depression) then the natural surface levels will be restored.

Facilitating revegetation

Ground disturbed during construction will then be sown with indigenous grass seed (Appendix 3) collected

from the local area (i.e. from the Victorian Volcanic Plain and within 100 km of the airport). This is consistent

with the species identified in the listing advice for this community. Sowing will occur when soil moisture

conditions are likely to be favourable for germination (i.e. from late winter to early spring) and grass

establishment. If the disturbed ground is colonised by introduced species, these will be subject to weed

control works until the cover of indigenous grass species is considered by an experienced grassland ecologist

to be comparable to the surrounding areas of NTGVVP.

All areas of NTGVVP impact would therefore be rehabilitated to support a species composition and cover very

similar to the pre-disturbance condition.



References

Advice to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from the Threatened Species Scientific

Committee (the Committee) on Amendment to the list of Threatened Ecological Communities under the

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Biosis 2014. Melbourne Airport High Intensity Approach Lighting Replacement Project: Biodiversity Assessment.

Report to Australia Pacific Airports Melbourne Pty Ltd. Authors: Mueck, S. & Gilmore, D. Biosis Pty Ltd,

Melbourne. Project no. 18189.

DEH 2006. EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant Impact Guidelines – Matters of National Environmental

Significance. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

DEWHA 2008. Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain. EPBC Policy Statement 3.8.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DSEWPaC 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. Department of Sustainability, Environment,

Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

DSEWPaC 2013. Actions on, or impacting upon Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies:

Significant impact guidelines 1.2. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities, Canberra.



Appendix 1: Growling Grass Frog fact sheet


© Biosis 2015 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting 6

Growling Grass Frog fact sheet

General Appearance

The Growling Grass Frog is recognisable by its warty back, large size (up to 10cm), dull green to olive green

back (with most individuals appearing a bright olive- green) and obvious eardrum (dark circular disc just

behind the head). Sometimes, the frogs appear as darker brown.

Habitat

Growling Grass Frogs inhabit a range of habitats including creeks, drains, wetlands and dams. The Growling

Grass Frog can sometimes be seen basking amongst water plants during sunny weather but is most often

encountered sheltering under logs or rocks. It can move long distances and may be found away from water.

Similar species

The Spotted Marsh Frog looks very similar to the Growling Grass Frog but is much smaller.


Appendix 2: Induction Record

Print Name Signature Company Date



Appendix 3: Indigenous grasses suitable for revegetation

Status Scientific name Common name

Indigenous species:

Austrostipa bigeniculata Kneed Spear-grass

Austrostipa scabra subsp. falcata Rough Spear-grass

Bothriochloa macra Red-leg Grass

Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass

Rytidosperma fulvum Copper-awned Wallaby-grass

Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass



Figures


East G

lideRd

HUMECITY

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

LegendStudy areaTrenching zone (2.7m wide) will be fenced to ensure works and machinery confined to trenching corridorNative Grassland impacted due to trenchingEPBC Act Community - Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain

±Ma tter: 21974, Da te : 10 M a y 2016 , Ch ecked by: K JK , D ra w n by: LH , L ast ed ited b y: lh ar leyLocation :P:\16900s\16945 - TH IR D RU N WAY M ASTE R FO LD ER \M ap p in g\21974_F1 _EM P_H IA L27

Biosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra,

Melbourne, Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

!

HUMEHUMECITYCITY

Sunbury Rd

Departure Dr1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Scale: 1:1,000 @ A3

Figure 1.1: EcologicalManagement Plan, HIAL 27Replacement Project

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Acknowledgements: Vicmap (c) State of Victoria

* Refer to EMP (Biosis, 2016) formanagement measures to protect native grassland community

HUMECITY

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

LegendStudy areaDevelopment layout - footingsTrenching zone (2.7m wide) will be fenced to ensure works and machinery confined to trenching corridorNative Grassland impacted due to trenchingEPBC Act Community - Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain




!

HUMEHUMECITYCITY

Sunbury Rd

Departure Dr1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Scale: 1:1,000 @ A3





Perimeter Rd

Sunbury Rd

HUMECITY

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

LegendStudy areaDevelopment layout - footingsTrenching zone (2.7m wide) will be fenced to ensure works and machinery confined to trenching corridorNative Grassland impacted due to trenchingEPBC Act Community - Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain




!

HUMEHUMECITYCITY

Sunbury Rd

Departure Dr1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Scale: 1:1,000 @ A3





Perimeter Rd

Marker Rd

Sunbury Rd

Moonee

Ponds

Creek

HUMECITY

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

LegendStudy areaDevelopment layout - footingsStructural columnsTrenching zone (2.7m wide) will be fenced to ensure works and machinery confined to trenching corridorNative Grassland impacted by footings/crushed rockNative Grassland impacted due to trenchingEPBC Act Community - Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain

±Matter: 21974, Date: 10 May 2016, Checked by: KJK, Drawn by: LH, Last edited by: lharleyLocation:P:\16900s\16945 - THIRD RUNWAY MASTER FOLDER\Mapping\21974_F1_EMP_HIAL27



!

HUMEHUMECITYCITY

Sunbury Rd

Departure Dr1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Scale: 1:1,000 @ A3





Marker Rd

MooneePondsCreek

HUMECITY

0 10 20 30 40 50

Metres

LegendStudy areaDevelopment layout - footingsStructural columnsTrenching zone (2.7m wide) will be fenced to ensure works and machinery confined to trenching corridorCreekline Grassy Woodland

±Matter: 21974, Date: 10 May 2016, Checked by: KJK, Drawn by: LH, Last edited by: lharleyLocation:P:\16900s\16945 - THIRD RUNWAY MASTER FOLDER\Mapping\21974_F1_EMP_HIAL27



!

HUMEHUMECITYCITY

Sunbury Rd

Departure Dr1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Scale: 1:1,000 @ A3





Melbourne Airport HIAL 27 Replacement: Ecological ......Management Plan (EMP) for the replacement...

Documents

Transcript of Melbourne Airport HIAL 27 Replacement: Ecological ......Management Plan (EMP) for the replacement...