Contents
Page
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 3 1.1 Project overview and background 3 1.2 Aircraft Code 4 1.3 Project Proponent 7 1.4 Report Structure 7
2 Project description 9 2.1 Project rationale and objectives 9 2.2 Location of proposed development 13 2.3 Proposed design 13 2.4 Construction methodology 24 2.5 Project staging and timing 25
3 Legislative context 27 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Consistency with Commonwealth legislation 27 3.3 Consistency with Airport Lease 32 3.4 National Airports Safeguarding Framework 33 3.5 Consistency with Airport Master Plan 34 3.6 Consistency with Airport Environment Strategy 37 3.7 Consistency with State and Local Government Planning 38
4 Assessment methodology 47 4.1 Assessment scope 47 4.2 Assessment technique 47
5 Assessment of impacts and proposed mitigation measures 50 5.1 Introduction 50 5.2 Resource use 52 5.3 Land use 53 5.4 Geology and soils 56 5.5 Surface and groundwater 63 5.6 Biodiversity 66 5.7 Cultural Heritage 73 5.8 Air Quality 74 5.9 Aircraft Noise 79 5.10 Ground-based noise 93
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan
5.11 Hazardous materials 95 5.12 Traffic and transport 96 5.13 Social 105 5.14 Economy and employment 108 5.15 Visual Impact Assessment 115 5.16 Aviation safety 125 5.17 Services 133
6 Impact Summary 136
7 Consultation 143 7.1 Informal consultation 144 7.2 Formal pre-release consultation 145 7.3 Formal public comment period consultation 145
8 Conclusion 147
9 References 148
Tables
Table 1: Aerodrome Reference Code 4 Table 2: The Project’s compliance with Section 91 of the Airports Act 28 Table 3: Significance Criteria 47 Table 4: Background air quality levels for key pollutants at Hobart 74 Table 5: Worst-case scenario air quality level assessment 76 Table 6: Results of assessment for operational air quality impacts contributed by road traffic emissions 76 Table 7: Noise modelling comparisons 79 Table 8: Forecast fixed wing aircraft movements 82 Table 9: Current network two-way peak hour volumes 97 Table 10: Traffic growth rates 97 Table 11: Holyman Avenue / Gatty Street Intersection Operations 101 Table 12: Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue Change of Priority Intersection Options 102 Table 13: Grueber Avenue / Holyman Roundabout Intersection Options 103 Table 14: Summary of potential construction impacts with mitigation measures 136 Table 15: Summary of potential operational impacts with mitigation measures 139 Table 16: Legislated and non-legislation engagement activities 142
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan
Figures
Figure 1: Hobart Airport and Surrounds 6 Figure 2: Range curves for existing and future scenarios for a B787 with a viable payload 11 Figure 3: Project Elements 16 Figure 4: Terrain model of dunes to the south of the runway, with red area representing the footprint of sand to be lowered 19 Figure 5: Potential conflict between flight path and Surf Road vehicles 22 Figure 6: Statutory Regulatory Framework Overview 39 Figure 7: Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 Airport buffer overlay (Sheets 13 and 14) 43 Figure 8: Excerpt from Clarence Draft Interim Planning Scheme 2014 map, showing the airport land unzoned. 45 Figure 9: Existing land uses 53 Figure 10: Mapping of potential ASS (extracted from Land Information System Tasmania, 2015) 58 Figure 11: Environmental Significant areas 66 Figure 12: Vegetation significance within Environmentally Significant areas 67 Figure 13: Arrivals flight tracks with and without runway extension 80 Figure 14: Departures flight tracks with and without extended runway 81 Figure 15: ANEC, 2014 without Runway Extension and 2016 with Runway Extension 84 Figure 16: ANEC, 2035 without Runway Extension and 2035 with Runway Extension 85 Figure 17: N70, 2014 Existing Runway and 2016 with Runway Extension 86 Figure 18: N70, 2035 with Runway Extension and 2035 without Runway Extension 87 Figure 19: N60 Daytime, 2014 Existing Runway and 2016 with Runway Extension 88 Figure 20: N60 Daytime, 2035 with Runway Extension and 2035 without Runway Extension 89 Figure 21: N60 Night time, 2014 existing runway and 2016 with Runway Extension 90 Figure 22: N60 Night time, 2035 with Runway Extension and without Runway Extension 91 Figure 23: Existing road network 96 Figure 24: Future road network 99 Figure 25: Tasmanian GSP deviations, $m (medium scenario) 111 Figure 26: Tasmanian employment deviations (medium scenario) due to runway extension over a 20 year period 111 Figure 27: Airport Runway Extension Project Evaluation 113 Figure 28: Airside montage before and after runway extension works 117 Figure 29: Montage of dune ridge system before and after modification 120
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan
Figure 30: Montage of Seven Mile Beach and Barilla Bay, with and without the project 123 Figure 31: Splay angles 127 Figure 32: Current and proposed OLS comparison 130 Figure 33: Current and proposed PANSOPS comparison 131
Appendices
Appendix A EPBC Act Referral
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan
Executive Summary
The 2015 Master Plan outlines and reflects Hobart Airport's vision for growth and the delivery of strategic infrastructure to meet demand and better connect Tasmania with the rest of Australia and the world. This Major Development Plan (MDP) is consistent with the 2015 Master Plan. As the Hobart and Tasmanian community continue to grow so will the demand for air transport for both passengers and freight. Since its privatisation in 1998 Hobart Airport has grown from 856,000 to 2.1 million passengers per year. By 2020 we are expecting to welcome an additional half a million passengers per year and more than four and a half million per year by 2035. To be able to support the growth of the Tasmanian economy and meet the expectations of our passengers and partners, Hobart Airport will undertake two transformative projects over the next five year period. These projects will significantly redefine the airport and provide new economic opportunities for the State. The construction of a 500m runway extension will enable direct flights from Tasmania to South-East Asia for passenger and freight opportunities and allow for expansion of current Antarctic operations. Secondly, the redevelopment of the airport's passenger terminal will offer an improved experience for airport visitors and cater for projected growth. These projects have national significance as they will enable operation of direct flights to Asia for tourism, the export of time sensitive products (including key produce exports) and will enable increased logistic opportunities for Antarctic operations for both Australia and other Nations operating research programs in East Antarctica. This MDP is for the first of these projects, the construction of a 500m runway extension increasing the runway length to 2,751m, associated relocation of navigational aids (Navaids), extension of high intensity approach lighting (HIAL), construction of jet blast walls, closure of Surf Road and construction of Grueber Avenue and a new apron (if undertaken by HIAPL concurrently with the works as described above) with capacity for a single Code E or up to two Code C aircraft. The extension of the Hobart Airport runway by 500m has been enabled by funding assistance of $38 million from the Australian Government with the balance of the project budget being contributed by the owners of Hobart Airport. The extended runway opens up new possibilities to enhance Tasmania’s and Australia’s intercontinental air transport system and is important enabling infrastructure for Tasmania. The increase in runway length will enable heavier and larger aircraft to take-off from Hobart and travel further distances than the current runway length allows. This will create a number of opportunities for Hobart Airport to increase its important role in the Tasmanian economy. In particular it will foster growth in three key sectors of the Tasmanian economy:
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 1
International tourism; Freight; and The Antarctic sector. The runway will also enable other functions such as improved air sea rescue ranges, or southern ocean monitoring operations from Hobart. An assessment of the potential impacts on the physical, biological, cultural and social environments of the project area has been undertaken and the likely impacts resulting of construction and operational activities, the proposed mitigation measures and residual impacts have been documented in this MDP.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 2
1 Introduction
1.1 Project overview and background Operated by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (HIAPL), Hobart Airport is the ninth busiest airport in Australia and the busiest airport in Tasmania. It is the principal aviation gateway to the city of Hobart and the southern Tasmanian region and a critical piece of State infrastructure. The airport (as shown in Figure 1) has operated on the same site for nearly 60 years and is strategically located to serve many of the fastest growing residential and business areas in Tasmania and the greater Hobart area. Hobart Airport is a key economic hub for Tasmania and a site of employment for more than 731 full time staff. During the past five years Hobart Airport has experienced one of the highest growth rates by any airport not supporting mining operations and in 2014 the Airport delivered a direct and indirect economic contribution to the State of Tasmania of $142.5M. Hobart is Australia’s Antarctic ‘Gateway’ and a global Gateway to the East Antarctic. Hobart is the location of the world’s largest single concentration of Antarctic and Southern Ocean research, as well as co-located logistics operations. Hobart Airport is the base for the Australian Antarctic Division’s aviation operations. The development of Hobart Airport’s infrastructure to support future Antarctic operations of Australian and other Antarctic programs is essential for the growth of this important sector. The 2015 Master Plan presents the forecast passenger growth over the next 20 years to the year 2035 and the facilities required to accommodate this growth, with a focus on the developments required over the next five years. Key components of the 2015 Master Plan are the proposed runway extension and terminal expansion to cater for forecast passenger growth, facilitate direct flights from South East Asia for passengers and freight and servicing of the Antarctic Sector. An Exposure Draft MDP (edMDP) was submitted to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD) in June 2015 with formal public consultation being undertaken on a preliminary version of this Draft MDP in late 2015. A Draft MDP addressed comments from the community and regulatory agencies based on this consultation and was approved by DIRD in April 2016 The airport has a single runway system, Runway 12/30. This runway is 2,251 metres long and is served by two taxiways. These in turn are linked by additional taxiways to apron areas to the east and south of the terminal. The Runway Extension Project (the Project), that is the subject of this MDP, consists of a 500m runway extension increasing the runway length to 2,751m, associated relocation of navigational aids (Navaids), reconfiguration of high intensity approach lighting (HIAL), construction of jet blast walls, closure of Surf Road and construction of Grueber Avenue and a new apron (if undertaken by
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 3
HIAPL concurrently with the works as described above) with capacity for a single Code E or up to two Code C aircraft. The existing 45m wide runway pavement will be extended by 150m on the northern end and 350m on the southern end. It is anticipated that the construction period could take between one and half to two years. This could be impacted by staging and sequencing associated with the relocating of key navigational aids, which will be undertaken by Airservices Australia. Further detail on the Project is provided in Section 2, including proposed design, construction methodology and likely project staging.
1.2 Aircraft Code The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Manual of Standards 139 (MOS139) provides standards and requirements as well as general guidance on the planning, design, operation and maintenance of airports in Australia. MOS139 specifies the Aerodrome Reference Code for individual airports in terms of performance capability and size of aircraft which use that airport. Generally speaking, the higher Code numbers and letters designate larger aircraft and accordingly larger aerodrome infrastructure to accommodate them. The Aerodrome Reference Code comprises two components where: The first component is a number (1 to 4) that denotes the aeroplane reference field length, equivalent to the runway length required on take-off; and The second component is a letter (A to F) related to the aeroplane’s physical dimensions in terms of wingspan and outer main wheel span. Table 1 below describes the Aerodrome Reference Code in terms of these components. Table 1: Aerodrome Reference Code
Code element 1 Code element 2 Code Aeroplane reference Code Wing span Outer main gear Number field length letter wheel span* 1 Less than 800m A Up to but not Up to but not including 15m including 4.5m 2 800m up to but not B 15m up to but not 4.5m up to but not including 1200m including 24m including 6m 3 1200m up to but not C 24m up to but not 6m up to but not including 1800m including 36m including 9m 4 1800m and over D 36m up to but not 9m up to but not including 52m including 14m E 52m up to but not 9m up to but not including 65m including 14m F 65m up to but not 14m 9m up to but not including 80m including 14m 16m
* Distance between the outside edges of the main gear wheels
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 4
Throughout this report, the use of aircraft codes and specific types are mentioned. The table below provides a summary of relevant aircraft discussed in this report, and their associated codes.
Aircraft Code Airbus 319, 320, 321C C Boeing 737, 737-800 C Airbus 330, 330-200, 330-300 E Boeing 777, 777-200, 777-300 E Boeing 787, 787-900 E Boeing 747-400 E Boeing 767 E Boeing C17 Globemaster E
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 5
Figure 1: Hobart Airport and Surrounds
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 6
1.3 Project Proponent Hobart Airport was privatised in June 1998, with HIAPL entering into a 99-year land lease with the Commonwealth Government (50 years plus a 49 year option). HIAPL bought the improvements and the business at that time. The Hobart Airport has been operated by HIAPL since 1998, originally with a mix of international and local owners, but under full State ownership from 2004 as component part of Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (Tasports). In 2007, the State Government of Tasmania took the decision to sell HIAPL to its current owners. Since January 2008, HIAPL has been owned by the Tasmanian Gateway Consortium - this consortium comprises Macquarie Global Infrastructure Fund III, a Macquarie-managed unlisted infrastructure fund with a 50.1 percent interest in Tasmanian Gateway Consortium, and Retirement Benefits Fund Board, a Tasmanian superannuation fund with a 49.9 percent interest in Tasmanian Gateway Consortium. Under the terms of the land lease, HIAPL is mandated to operate the airport, to effect capital improvements in accordance with the Airport Master Plan, protect the environment and maintain the Airport in good repair. Under the Airports Act 1996, HIAPL is an “airport-lessee company” and the Proponent for this project. Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd 6 Hinkler Rd Hobart International Airport Cambridge Tasmania Australia 7170 The contact for this Major Development Plan is Will Davies Project Director 02 6216 1600 [email protected]
1.4 Report Structure Executive Summary; Chapter 1 – Introduction; Chapter 2 – Project Description; Chapter 3 – Legislative context, examining consistency with planning and policy requirements; Chapter 4 – Documents the assessment methodology; Chapter 5 – Assesses the impacts of both the construction and operation of the project and proposes mitigation measures where relevant. The assessment is
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 7
completed for a range of elements such as biodiversity, geology and soils, surface water and groundwater etc.; Chapter 6 – Summary of the impacts and mitigation measures discussed in previous section, which provides an outline of the information which is anticipated to be provided in a future Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP); Chapter 7 - Details the consultation and approval process; and Chapter 8 – Conclusion.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 8
2 Project description
2.1 Project rationale and objectives The extension of the Hobart Airport runway by 500m is a transformative development that opens up new possibilities to enhance Tasmania's and Australia's intercontinental air transport system and is important enabling infrastructure for Tasmania. The increase in runway length would enable direct flights from Tasmania to South-East Asia for passenger and freight opportunities and allow for improved operational flexibility and the further development of Antarctic aviation programs. This will create a number of opportunities for Hobart Airport to increase its important role in the Tasmanian economy. In particular it will foster growth in three key sectors of the Tasmanian economy, the Antarctic sector, freight and international tourism. The runway will also enable other functions such as improved air sea rescue ranges, or southern ocean monitoring operations from Hobart.
2.1.1 Development objectives HIAPL's primary objectives for undertaking of the runway extension development are to: Provide suitable runway length to enable a range of aircraft to service South East Asia for freight and passenger services and better service East Antarctica; Develop Hobart as Australia's Antarctic Gateway; and Increase the aircraft mix and payloads that can safely land and take-off from Hobart Airport.
2.1.2 Meeting the needs of civil aviation users of Hobart Airport This project is part of the Australian Government’s economic growth plan for Tasmania and provides opportunities for direct flights for passengers and cargo to South-East Asia - an important market for Tasmania’s primary producers and tourism industry. This project has been enabled by funding assistance of $38 million from the Australian Government, with the balance of the project budget being contributed by the owners of Hobart Airport. The 2015 Master Plan forecasts international passenger flights between Hobart and South-Asia commencing from 2019 after the completion of the runway extension and then showing steady growth for this market, with initial forecasting showing that flights would occur primarily during the summer months. HIAPL considers that the extension of the runway is critical to meeting these market needs.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 9
An aircraft's take-off length is typically more critical than landing length for runway operations in determining the ability of an airport to support a destination utilising that aircraft. Given this, HIAPL has assessed the capacity of its current runway and undertaken calculations on the range and its ability to cater for long distance flights. These calculations show that the current runway length of 2,251m at Hobart Airport is adequate for take-off on direct flights to: The furthest domestic sectors of Darwin, Cairns and Perth by Boeing 737-800 and Airbus A320 operated by the current operators to and from Hobart; and International sectors such as New Zealand also by Boeing 737-800 and Airbus A320. For the large Code E aircraft, such as the Airbus A330, Boeing 787 and 777 aircraft to operate to destinations further than mentioned above from the existing runway length of 2,251m, the airlines have to substantially reduce their payload and fuel or make a refuelling stop, limiting the destinations that can be reached. These restrictions make the destination of Hobart impractical and economically unviable for larger aircraft. The increase in runway length will enable these heavier and larger aircraft to take-off from Hobart and travel further distances than the current runway length allows, opening up tourism and freight opportunities linked to direct flights to South-East Asia. The 500m additional length of runway proposed at Hobart has a considerable impact on the range of the wide-bodied aircraft and considerably expands the destinations that can be reached by these aircraft, particularly the more modern aircraft such as the B777-300 and B787-900. Figure 2 shows the existing (yellow) and future (blue) range of a B787 with a viable payload. A more detailed assessment of the impacts of the project on civil aviation users of the airport is contained in Section 5.17.2.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 10
Figure 2: Range curves for existing and future scenarios for a B787 with a viable payload Further, Hobart is the hub of Australia’s Antarctic Program. That Program currently operates an Airlink to Wilkins Runway using an Airbus 319 aircraft as the main transport aircraft to Australia’s Antarctic territory. In 2014 the Australian Government developed a 20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic Plan. This important plan was undertaken by Dr Tony Press and is known as the Press Report. This report strongly advocates Australia taking a lead role in Antarctica. The relevant points of the report for Tasmania are: Coordinated Commonwealth and State priorities for infrastructure investment and development, especially in port facilities (including wharf and fuel infrastructure) and the completion of the extension of the Hobart Airport runway; Building training and education capabilities in Antarctic-related areas of Antarctic law, policy and governance; logistics; field training; trades training; science, technology and innovation; and Antarctic meteorology; and Developing stronger links with industry to encourage innovation and participation of businesses in the Antarctic sector.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 11
The report put forward a number of key recommendations, Recommendation 3 and 23 are of specific importance to Hobart Airport and are noted below. Recommendation 3: Australia should build on its development of ground- breaking inter-continental air transport by exploring capabilities including those that were previously unavailable, including: Options for Intra-continental air transport to link with the direct flights from Hobart to Wilkins Aerodrome; The viability of flying ski-equipped aircraft directly from Australia to Antarctica, or other direct flight options; Assessing the long-term viability of the Wilkins Aerodrome; and The option of regular heavy-lift aircraft flights from the extended Hobart Airport runway to Wilkins Aerodrome or elsewhere in Antarctica.
Recommendation 23: The Australian and Tasmanian Governments should work together to build Tasmania’s capacity to be a leading global gateway to East Antarctica. In addition to Australia’s Antarctic programme there are a number of other nations that have or are currently developing larger scientific research facilities in East Antarctica including; China, India, Korea and Russia. The runway extension will allow these recommendations to be met and provide flexibility in how nations service their Antarctic programs. For example being able to accommodate large heavy lift aircraft such as a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III or the like is important to support future Antarctic operations. The C-17 requires a runway length of 2,360m for day operations and 2,316m for night operations to fly with a full payload to the Wilkins Runway in East Antarctic. Design Intent The design for the runway extension is driven by HIAPL's development objectives, with the goal of expanding Hobart Airport’s capability to better cater for Code E aircraft and allow for most flights to have no major restrictions on payload. In summary, the intention driving design is to improve the capability of the runway and the apron parking so that B777-300 aircraft and other modern wide- bodied aircraft such the A330-200, A330-300 and B787-900 can use the runway with minimal restrictions to payload on medium range international routes. New apron parking has been designed for larger aircraft to minimise impact on airport operations. Although the B747-400 aircraft has been the design aircraft for Hobart Airport for the last 30 years, including the 2004 and 2009 Master Plans, the reality has been that the runway is not long enough to practically accommodate the B747-400,
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 12
A330 or most wide-bodied aircraft with a reasonable payload for the desirable destinations. The intention is to ensure that the runway is suited to a B787 as the B747-400 is being gradually retired from airline fleets. The B787, or equivalent, is considered to be the largest aircraft likely to fly future international or domestic Regular Public Transport (RPT) operations to or from Hobart.
2.2 Location of proposed development Hobart Airport is located 17 kilometres east of Hobart, in the City of Clarence and occupies approximately 565 hectares of land. The Airport is served by arterial roads linking it to the centre of Hobart and, via the regional highway network, to other locations in the State. The Airport has operated on the same site for nearly 60 years and is strategically located to serve many of the fastest growing residential areas in the greater Hobart area. The Airport’s location, between the waterways of Barilla Bay and Frederick Henry Bay, has minimised adverse community noise impacts due to water bodies at both runway ends, open space to the east and due to the fact that to date it is situated away from higher density residential areas The airport’s single runway, Runway 12/30 is 2,251 metres long and is served by two taxiways. These in turn are linked by additional taxiways to apron areas to the east and south of the terminal. The airport has a combined domestic and international terminal, with car parking and ground transport located to the west of the terminal.
2.3 Proposed design Design Parameters The runway extension and the new apron will be designed in accordance with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)’s Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139. Specifically, the runway extension will be designed for Code 4E utilising instruments on precision approach during Category I visibility conditions. The procedure design for the airspace will be based on the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standard for aircraft performance class of Category D. The new apron will be designed primarily to park a single generic Code E aircraft or a heavy lift aircraft. The apron will also be able to cater for two generic Code C aircraft. Aircraft will move under their own power on both arrival and departure; therefore no assistance will be required from tugs upon departure from their parking position. Scope of the Project The Runway 12/30 is to be extended by 500m comprising of the following elements and is shown in Figure 3: North extension of runway by 150m;
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 13
South extension of runway by 350m; Displacement of the threshold on Runway 12 (north) from extended threshold by 79m; New 60m clearway at each end of the Runway; Relocation of the 90m Runway End Safety Area (RESA) on both ends to accommodate the extended runway pavements; Reconfiguration of high intensity approach lighting (HIAL) at northern end; Drainage for runway extension; Removal of terrain obstacles infringing the airspace surfaces (specifically the modification of the dune system to the south of the runway); Provision of services to facilitate existing or future services around the construction areas (such as ducting); Jet blast protection at both ends of the extended runway and apron; Closure of Surf Road, with new footpath and cycleway to the south of the airfield; Construction of Grueber Avenue, connecting Holyman Avenue and Surf Road; Establishment of a reservation to accommodate the Tangara trail; Realignment of airside boundary fence, and the airside boundary road; Relocation of Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs); Extension of runway edge lighting; and Relocation of Illuminated Wind Direction Indicators (IWDIs). If a new apron is to be constructed (concurrently with the other works) for a single Code E aircraft on a power-in and power-out basis comprising of the following elements: Parking facility for Code E aircraft; A new high strength pavement; New low strength shoulder pavement and airside road; Earthworks and subgrade preparation; Drainage for apron; Apron flood lighting; Airfield lighting; and Service access. Airservices Australia will relocate some of the existing navigation aids and service equipment to facilitate the construction works and enable the extended runway to operate to its intended capacity. This equipment includes: Relocating Doppler VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (DVOR);
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 14
Relocation of Instrument Landing System (ILS) localiser at south end of runway; Relocation of ILS Glidepath and northern end of runway.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 15
Figure 3: Project Elements
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 16
2.3.1 Detailed project description Runway Pavement Extension The existing 45m wide runway pavement will be extended in length by 150m on the northern end and 350m on the southern end. In addition, the existing turning nodes at the ends of the current runway will be relocated to the new extended runway ends and expanded. This will permit the larger aircraft to undertake a 180 degree turn at moderate speed and backtrack along the runway for arriving aircraft, or take-off for departing aircraft. The turning nodes will be 85m wide to accommodate the large turning circle of wide-bodied aircraft. This expansion will minimise the time that the aircraft is occupying the runway and so maximise the safety of runway operations. Paved and sealed shoulders of 5m width will be provided on the two sides of the runway extension and on the two ends of the runway. These shoulders will: Support the unlikely excursion of an aircraft; Support vehicles on the runway inspection and training exercises of Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS) and Airport’s operations officers; and Prevent erosion of the runway strip surfaces from jet blast, water runoff and wind. The main pavement, including the turning nodes, will comprise of a considerable depth of crushed rock and a surface course of high quality asphalt or concrete. The main pavement will be slot grooved to aid water run-off and improve the friction characteristics of the runway, especially during wet weather. The shoulders will also be a moderate depth of crushed rock and an asphalt or concrete surface course. These pavements will be similar in quality and texture to the current pavement and so no discernible difference in ride will be detected by the aircraft’s crew and passengers. Clearway and RESA Relocations For compliance with MOS Part 139 standard, both ends of the extended runway will have a 60m long by 45m wide clearway within the runway strip, and a 90m long by 90m wide RESA immediately beyond the runway strip. The proposed RESA length dimension of 90m is the minimum length for compliance with the standard. The multiple constraints of the Airport lease boundaries, Tasman Highway position, the Pitt Water shoreline to the north and the shoreline and dunes of Fredrick Henry Bay to the south are major barriers to a practical development of larger RESA length. Hobart Airport will liaise with CASA on the engineering form of the RESA surface for the objective of enhancing aircraft deceleration. Relocation of the Runway 12 Approach Lighting and Services The existing HIAL on Runway 12 (north) will be realigned with the 79m displaced threshold to achieve a compliant lighting facility. The lighting system
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 17
will be extended further into Barilla Bay with the existing footings being reused and only minimal additional footings to be constructed. A gantry or similar structure is intended to be used to support lights so as to minimise the footings that are required. Removal of Terrain Obstacles The scope of work includes the lowering a portion of the land side sand dune between Surf Road and Fredrick Henry Bay to provide the airspace on approach to the extended Runway 30 and take-off on Runway 12. A portion of the sand dune adjacent to Surf Road will be lowered to ensure it does not penetrate the obstacle limitation surface (OLS). The extent of reshaping is dictated by the approach gradient along with the take-off divergence splay limit and approach divergence splay limit. The application of these limits ensures the regulated separation distances are maintained between aircraft and obstacles. The dune will be lowered for approximately 450m along Surf Road to match the profile of the required airspace and has been altered previously for this purpose.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 18
Figure 4: Terrain model of dunes to the south of the runway, with red area representing the footprint of sand to be lowered
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 19
Airfield Ground Lighting The airfield ground lighting reconfiguration works comprises of the following: Relocation of the existing edge lighting to ensure compliant spacing relative to the new threshold and end locations; New or relocated lighting for the extended sections of the runway, which will comprise of edge and runway end lights; Alteration of control equipment, electrical supply and control cabling in a pit and duct system reticulating around the runway from the exiting Airfield Lighting Equipment Room (ALER); Relocation of the two Illuminated Wind Direction Indicators (IWDIs) to match the relocated thresholds; New apron flood lighting to service Code E parking apron; and New taxiway lighting providing guidance to aircraft tracking to positions on the new Code E parking apron during night time operations between the apron and the existing taxiway. Provision of Service Routes and Relocations Ducting for electrical and communications cabling will be provided on the perimeter of the runway strip to house both the relocated existing services away from the extended runway strip and new cabling for airfield lighting, navigational aids, PAPIs etc. Jet Blast Protection Walling is likely to be required adjacent to the airside boundary fence along the Tasman Highway and along the Southern airside fence for approximately 80m, to provide protection from the effects of blast from jet engines, particularly at the beginning of aircraft take-off. The wall will be approximately 3m high, a sufficient height to disturb the blast stream and deflect it upwards and of a sufficient strength to withstand the high energy exhaust from jet engines. A jet blast wall of similar dimensions will also be installed at the new apron, along the airside perimeter road, to protect vehicles, equipment and people from aircraft during parking breakaway thrust. Services, Visual and Navigation Aids Relocations for the Runway Extension The navigational aids that will need to be repositioned to accommodate the extended runway configuration are: The Glidepath facility for Runway 12, as the first part of the ILS for this runway. The Glidepath sits approximately 300m along the runway from the allotted threshold and sends an inclined signal to the aircraft along the correct approach inclination path or angle; The Localiser facility for Runway 12, as the second part of the ILS for this runway. The Localiser sits at least 130m behind the end of the runway and
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 20
sends an straight line signal to the aircraft along the centreline of the correct approach; The DVOR that currently sits on the south-eastern end of the runway and would infringe the airspace for the 350m extended runway on this end. In consultation with AsA, this will be repositioned to a less prominent position to the east of the runway. On the southern end of the runway, the airside road and boundary fencing may be repositioned away from the extended runway and the relocated localiser, so that operational vehicles do not interfere with the localiser or infringe the airspace surfaces. Road Relocations Closure of Surf Road The extension of the runway will bring aircraft closer to Surf Road, which operates under an easement across Airport land, as they land and take off. A vehicle travelling on Surf Road could breach the required regulated separation distance between an aircraft and an obstacle (see Figure 5). As such, the section of Surf Road along the southern end of the runway will need to close to traffic. The southern end of Surf Road adjacent to the runway will be permanently closed to vehicles. This section of roadway – which currently lies between two gates – is part of Hobart Airport. This road will be relocated further south and converted to a pedestrian / cycle track and bridle path.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 21
Figure 5: Potential conflict between flight path and Surf Road vehicles
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 22
Grueber Avenue Grueber Avenue is a new road that will be constructed to run from Surf Road through to the Tasman Highway along the western side of the Airport. Grueber Avenue will provide the community at Seven Mile Beach with continued access to the Tasman Highway. It will also provide access to the proposed Clarence City recreational grounds just to the west of the Airfield when developed. This will benefit the local Seven Mile Beach community by: Allowing convenient access to a wider population catchment via the Tasman Highway; Limiting traffic through the Seven Mile Beach settlement; and Limiting impacts on residential amenity. There are two alignment options identified in Figure 2. Option 2 is contained entirely within the airport boundary, while Option 1 (the preferred alignment) would require the acquisition of some land from Llanherne Golf Course. Option 1 has been developed in consultation with neighbours of Hobart Airport, including Llanherne Golf Course. This option offers a more direct route between Hobart Airport and Surf Road, and would not require future realignment. It offers better access for neighbours of the airport, and is considered superior from a road safety perspective. The impacts associated with Option 1 are addressed in this MDP; however Option 2 exists if it is not possible to progress with Option 1. HIAPL has meet with Clarence City Council (CCC) to discuss the technical element of Grueber Avenue. They have agreed that the design will be in accordance with CCC's technical requirements. Design Consultant will design the road in accordance with the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) Standard Drawings, relevant State Growth Specifications and Standard Drawings, and in accordance with the Austroads Design Guidelines. HIAPL will undertake the maintenance responsibilities for the section of road that falls within the Commonwealth lease. As the section to the south will be designed and constructed in accordance with CCC road design standards, in the future CCC can assume responsibility of the maintenance. Construction of Grueber Avenue will require clearing of vegetation on the freehold land. This is addressed further in Section 5.6 Biodiversity. Tangara Trail The Tangara Trail is a recreational trail which extends from Five Mile Beach in the north, to Lauderdale, and south to Mortimer Bay and South Arm. A reservation to provide for the future extension of the trail will be accommodated in general alignment of Grueber Avenue. Apron Parking The new separate apron will provide a single bay up to Code E aircraft or, if not being utilised by the Code E aircraft, two bays up to Code C aircraft. The aircraft
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 23
will manoeuvre onto the parking bay(s) under their own power and will vacate the bay(s) also under their own power. The walking distance from the new apron to the arrivals area is approximately 200 – 250m, the same distance from the arrivals area to current bay 5. The new walkways being installed will match the existing walkways. While there is no allowance for a covered walkway as part of this project, there are future proposals to provide cover for walkways as part of the terminal upgrade. The new apron will be positioned to the immediate north-west of the current apron and comprise a high-strength rigid pavement of approximately 19,400m2 area, as well as low strength shoulder pavement, airside road area of approximately 6,200m2 and some allowance for ground service equipment (GSE) parking. As the area is low-lying and flat, large piped drains may be required to facilitate drainage. Security and vehicle access to and around the apron will be a key design objective. The apron will require services for utilities such as fuel, communications, lighting and firefighting. Capacity of New Runway The analysis of the international demand to and from Hobart shows 16 movements per annum of Code E passenger aircraft will occur in 2017, and grow to 89 movements per annum in 2035. As noted, due to the length of the existing runway, it is not commercially conducive to airlines to schedule any Code E aircraft services, despite the passenger demand for this service, as the penalties on payload are currently too great. The increased length of the runway at Hobart will considerably expand the destinations that can be reached by wide-bodied aircraft, particularly the more modern aircraft such as the B777-300 and B787-900. Based on Hobart Airport’s Busy Hour Forecast Update (August 2014), the RPT aircraft movements will double from the current 16,000 annual movements to 32,000 annual movements over the next 20 years and represents a four percent average compound growth rate. Based on an analysis of likely new services, the peak demand during the busy hour is likely to increase at this same compound growth rate. As such, during the busy hour in 2035, the runway will need to handle 22 movements at its peak. This is 10 percent above its current peak of 20 movements per hour and so further expansion of the taxiway system will be required in the future, to reduce the runway occupancy time by allowing entry to and egress from the runway strip at the threshold end.
2.4 Construction methodology
2.4.1 Temporary works Displaced Thresholds / Runway Ends The construction equipment on the work sites at the two ends of the main runway will need to stay below the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) surfaces to ensure
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 24
adequate clearance between the height of the equipment and aircraft on critical approach and take-off operations. Displacement of the thresholds and runway ends will be required for works within 360m of the existing runway thresholds/ends. This will transfer the aircraft operations along the runway and so further away from the work site. Displacement over 300m requires approval from CASA. The displacement of the threshold is a normal technique of closing an end of a runway and has proven to be a safe method of allowing operations and construction works to co-exist. It is also regulated by CASA and ICAO as an acceptable safe means of managing construction and emergency situations. In the case of the Hobart Airport works, the safest measure is a permanent (24 hours per day) displacement for the full construction period for a set stage of the extension works. This would involve two threshold displacements (north and south) at separate times. The displaced threshold entails the following works: Line marking of the displaced thresholds, approaches, touchdown zones and removal of the existing similar lines; Threshold end and edge lights so that the displaced threshold is compliant during operations including during low visibility operations; Temporary PAPIs giving the pilot the correct visual cues for the correct angle of approach to the displaced threshold and amended touchdown areas; Existing PAPIs would be decommissioned and relocated; and Amendment of published distances in the Aerodrome Information Package during times of displacement by way of Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Security The Office of Transport Security has advised their Victorian Office will engage with HIAPL prior to the construction phase to ensure that all security related matters are addressed. This will include access controls to works areas, possible airside boundary changes and special event zones if required. Hobart Airport will review the operating environment in line with the project. The security risk assessment within the Transport Security Program will be reviewed, and alterations will be made as assessed appropriate, in consultation with the Airport Security Committee.
2.5 Project staging and timing
2.5.1 Staging The works will be staged to minimise disruption to normal runway operations and address safety considerations of working adjacent to an operational runway. Works undertaken at both ends of the runway simultaneously under displaced thresholds would shorten the runway by approximately 700m, therefore rendering the runway impracticable for almost all of the operations.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 25
As such, the staging is proposed to be sequenced so that the south runway extension would precede the works on the north extension. This is intended to minimise impacts by allowing the maximum possible runway length to be available for operations. As the northern extension is shorter and less complex, it is anticipated that the relevant construction period for this part of the works will be shorter. Assuming that the works are staged as currently anticipated, completion of the southern extension will allow an extra 350m of runway length to be opened for operations, reducing the impacts of shortening the northern end of the runway during the extension works. Staging of the works will also be dependent on the carrying out of works by Airservices Australia to relocate navigational aids at Hobart Airport which will include the DVOR, Rwy30 DME, ILS (including the Glidepath and Localiser, and TASWAM which is co-located in the Localiser utility hut) and the associated support infrastructure. It is anticipated that staging requirements will be finalised during the further detailed design of the works and further discussions with Airservices Australia.
2.5.2 Construction Hours It is anticipated that most of the runway extension and apron works will be constructed during normal working hours for the construction industry. As such, most of the construction activities are expected to be carried out in parallel with normal runway and apron operations. However, some construction activities will require access to operational areas, such as the runway strip, and operational facilities such as the runway lighting system may need to be temporarily decommissioned to allow construction work to be safely undertaken. These works may need to occur outside of the normal operational hours of Hobart Airport i.e. during the night and early morning. The intent is that the construction activities will work around the current aircraft operational requirements. The nearest sensitive receptors such as residential homes, commercial buildings, and community facilities are located at a distance of approximately 1 to 2.5km from the Hobart Airport Terminal and are unlikely to be disturbed by construction noise impacts. This is addressed further in Section 5.10. Hobart Airport will use a range of communication channels including its website, media releases, community notifications and other stakeholder forums to provide timely information about the airport construction, operations and plans. A communications strategy is being developed for the construction phase of this project.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 26
3 Legislative context
3.1 Introduction This section of the MDP provides an assessment of the proposal against applicable Commonwealth and Tasmanian Government legislative, regulatory and policy requirements. Each federally leased airport (including Hobart), must carry out major airport developments in accordance with a MDP approved under the Airports Act 1996 (Airports Act). The purposes of a MDP is to establish the details of a major airport development that: Relates to the airport; and Are consistent with the airport lease for the airport and the final Master Plan for the airport.
3.2 Consistency with Commonwealth legislation
3.2.1 Airports Act 1996 Hobart Airport is subject to Commonwealth legislation to regulate its own operations and those of other businesses located on the Airport. The Airports Act is the primary legislative instrument and governs planning, operation and development on the Airport. The Airports Act outlines the requirements for core regulated or joint user airports. The Airports Act 1996 provides the basis for the operation and development of Hobart Airport. Importantly, the Airports Act 1996 establishes the primacy of the use of land for the delivery of aviation activities. In accordance with the Airports Act, a MDP must be prepared where a major airport development is proposed. There are a number of triggers listed in the Airports Act, and, regardless of the trigger, the requirement for the preparation of a MDP is the same. Section 89 of the Act defines a major development to include extending the length of a runway. Pursuant to Section 91, a key assessment criterion for a MDP is whether or not the development is consistent with the final Approved Master Plan. This is addressed in Section 3.4 below. The information requirements of a MDP and the associated public consultation process are described in Part 5, Division 4 of the Airports Act. Section 91 of the Airports Act specifies the contents of a MDP.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 27
Table 2 below outlines the Proposed Development's compliance against the requirements of Section 91 of the Airports Act.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 28
Table 2: The Project’s compliance with Section 91 of the Airports Act
Section Requirement Location in this document Airports Act 1996 S91(1A) The purpose of the MDP is to establish details of a major Section 3.1 airport development that relates to the airport and is Section 3.3 consistent with the airport’s lease and final master plan Section 3.5 s91(1)(a) The airport-lessee company’s objectives for the Section 2.1 development s91(1)(b) The airport-lessee company’s assessment of the extent to Section 2.1.2 which the future needs of civil aviation users of the airport, and other users of the airport, will be met by the development s91(1)(c) A detailed outline of the development Section 2.2 Section 2.3 Section 2.5 s91(1)(ca) Whether or not the development is consistent with the Section 3.3 airport lease for the airport s91(1)(d) If a final master plan for the airport is in force—whether Section 3.5 or not the development is consistent with the final master plan s91(1)(e) If the development could affect noise exposure levels at Section 5.9.2 the airport—the effect that the development would be likely to have on those levels s91(1)(ea) If the development could affect flight paths at the Section 5.9 airport—the effect that the development would be likely Section 5.16.6 to have on those flight paths s91(1)(f) The airport-lessee company’s plans, developed following Section 5.9 consultations with the airlines that use the airport, local Chapter 7 government bodies in the vicinity of the airport and—if the airport is a joint user airport—the Defence Department, for managing aircraft noise intrusion in areas forecast to be subject to exposure above the significant ANEF levels s91(1)(g) An outline of the approvals that the airport-lessee Section 3.2.2 company, or any other person, has sought, is seeking or Section 5.16.6 proposes to seek under Division 5 or Part 12 in respect of elements of the development s91(1)(ga)(i) The likely effect of the proposed developments that are Section 5.12 set out in the major development plan, or the draft of the major development plan, on traffic flows at the airport and surrounding the airport s91(1)(ga)(ii) The likely effect of the proposed developments that are Section 5.14.3 set out in the major development plan, or the draft of the major development plan on employment levels at the airport
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 29
s91(1)(ga)(iii) The likely effect of the proposed developments that are Section 3.7 and set out in the major development plan, or the draft of the Section 5.14 major development plan, on the local and regional economy and community, including an analysis of how the proposed developments fit within the local planning schemes for commercial and retail development in the adjacent area s91(1)(h) The airport-lessee company’s assessment of the Section 5.6.2 environmental impacts that might reasonably be expected Section 5.15 to be associated with the development Chapter 6 Appendix A s91(1)(j) The airport-lessee company’s plans for dealing with the Section 5.6.3 environmental impacts mentioned in paragraph (h) Section 5.15 (including plans for ameliorating or preventing Chapter 6 environmental impacts) s91(1)(k) If the plan relates to a sensitive development—the N/A exceptional circumstances that the airport-lessee company claims will justify the development of the sensitive development at the airport s91(3) The regulations may provide that, in specifying a Section 3.5.4 particular objective, assessment, outline or other matter covered by subsection (1), a major development plan, or a draft of such a plan, must address such things as are specified in the regulations Regulation 5.04: For subsection 91 (3) of the Act, a major development plan must address the obligations of the airport-lessee company as sublessor under any sublease of the airport site concerned, and the rights of the sublessee under any such sublease, including: any obligation that has passed to the relevant airport-lessee company under subsection 22 (2) of the Act or subsection 26 (2) of the Transitional Act; or any interest to which the relevant airport lease is subject under subsection 22 (3) of the Act, or subsection 26 (3) of the Transitional Act s91(4) In specifying a particular objective or proposal covered Section 3.7 by paragraph (1)(a), (c) or (ga), a major development plan, or a draft of a major development plan, must address: the extent (if any) of consistency with planning schemes in force under a law of the State in which the airport is located; and if the major development plan is not consistent with those planning schemes—the justification for the inconsistencies s91(6) In developing plans referred to in paragraph (l)(f), an Section 5.9 airport-lessee company must have regard to Australian Standard AS 2021—2000 (“Acoustics—Aircraft noise intrusion—Building siting and construction”) as in force or existing at that time Airports Regulations 1997
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 30
r5.04 For subsection 91 (3) of the Act, a major development Section 3.5.4 plan must address the obligations of the airport-lessee company as sublessor under any sublease of the airport site concerned, and the rights of the sublessee under any such sublease, including: any obligation that has passed to the relevant airport-lessee company under subsection 22 (2) of the Act or subsection 26 (2) of the Transitional Act; or any interest to which the relevant airport lease is subject under subsection 22 (3) of the Act, or subsection 26 (3) of the Transitional Act
3.2.2 Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996 Pending approval of the proposed development, all designs, plans and specifications will then require the approval of the Airport Building Controller and endorsement by the Airport Environment Officer (AEO) in accordance with the Airports Act and associated Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996.
3.2.3 Airports (Environmental Protection) Regulations 1997 The Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 provide the overarching environmental legislation for airports in Australia. The objectives of the Regulations are: To establish a Commonwealth system of regulation and accountability for activities at airports, particularly where those activities have the potential to generate pollution or excessive noise; To encourage continual improvement in environmental management practices for activities undertaken at airport sites. The Regulations are supported and encouraged by the Commonwealth appointed AEO for individual airports. All activities undertaken on the Hobart Airport site must comply with the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997. With this in mind, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be developed and implemented during the construction phase and an Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) during subsequent operation. Chapter 5 of this MDP provides further information on these Environmental Management Plans.
3.2.4 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Hobart Airport must comply with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This legislation is particularly relevant to the proposed development due to its requirements for managing significant flora and fauna species.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 31
The works associated with the proposed project include an area outside of the site covered by HIAPL’s airport lease. Specifically, the northern runway extension will require the relocation of the Airport’s approach lights in Barilla Bay, which sits outside the airport site to the northwest. Barilla Bay is a Ramsar wetland, and as such an EPBC referral regarding the placement of poles for approach lights in Barilla was submitted to the State and Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE) as required by the EPBC Act. The EPBC referral noted that no significant impacts were identified as a result of this project or the works in the Barilla Bay area. The impacts of the HIAL will be assessed by the DoE as part of this MDP. The EPBC Referral has been reproduced in full in Appendix A. This will enable the environmental impact of the project to be assessed holistically. Chapter 5 of this MDP sets out the environmental matters relevant to the proposed development.
3.3 Consistency with Airport Lease This proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the Head Lease held by HIAPL under the Airports Act. Under Clause 13.1 of the Airport Lease, HIAPL is required to develop the Airport Site at its own cost and expense having regard to: a) The actual and anticipated future growth in, and pattern of, traffic demand for the Airport site; b) The quality standards reasonably expected of such an Airport in Australia; and c) Good Business Practice. Amongst other things, the proposed development: Provides for the use of the Airport Site as an Airport as per Clause 3.1 (a) (iv) of the Airport Head Lease; Is for a lawful purpose and does not breach legislation as per Clause 3.1 (a) (iv); Maintains the environment of the Airport in accordance with Clause 6.2; Complies with all legislation relating to the Airport site and its structures or use or occupation in accordance with Clause 7.1; Will be undertaken in such a way as to maintain runways, taxiways, pavements and all parts of the airport essential for safe access by air transport to a standard no less than the standard at the commencement of the Lease, consistent with Clause 9.2; Has regard the actual and anticipated future growth in, and pattern of, traffic demand for the Airport site, in accordance with Clause 13.1(a) (and as set out in Section 5.12); and Will be to quality and standards reasonably expected of an airport in Australia and is being developed in accordance with good business practice, in accordance with Clauses 13.1(b) and 13.1(c).
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 32
3.4 National Airports Safeguarding Framework Airports are of significant social and economic importance to local and State economies especially so for an island state such as Tasmania. Conflict with off Airport activities is a growing issue for many Australian airports. The Australian Government recognises that responsibility for land use planning rests primarily with State, Territory and Local Governments, but that a National approach can assist in improving planning outcomes on and near airports and under flight paths. Accordingly a National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) has been developed to provide guidance on planning requirements for development that affects aviation operations. This includes building activity around airports that might penetrate operational airspace and/or affect navigational procedures for aircraft (Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD), October 2014). NASF was developed by the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group, which includes representatives from Commonwealth Infrastructure and Defence departments and aviation agencies; State and Territory planning and transport departments, and the Australian Local Government Association. The Tasmanian Government is a signatory to and has officially endorsed NASF and associated guidelines. NASF consists of: Principles for National Airports Safeguarding Framework; Guideline A: Managing Aircraft Noise; Guideline B: Managing Building-Generated Windshear; Guideline C: Managing Wildlife Strike Risk; Guideline D: Managing Wind Turbine Risk to Aircraft; Guideline E: Managing Pilot Lighting Distraction; and Guideline F: Managing Protected Airspace Intrusion. The aim of NASF is to: Enhance the current and future safety, viability and growth of aviation operations at Australian airports; Support and enable the implementation of best practice in relation to land use assessment and decision making in the vicinity of airports to support the safe and efficient operation of airports; Improve safety outcomes by ensuring aviation safety requirements are recognised in land use planning decisions; Improve community amenity by minimising noise sensitive developments near airports, including through the use of additional noise metrics; and Improve aircraft noise-disclosure mechanisms.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 33
Out of these stated purposes, the relevant Federal, State (including Tasmania) and Territory Governments developed the following NASF Principles to be adopted in each relevant jurisdiction: The safety, efficiency and operational integrity of airports should be protected by all governments, recognising their economic, defence and social significance; Airports, governments and local communities should share responsibility to ensure that airport planning is integrated with local and regional planning; Governments at all levels should align land use planning and building requirements in the vicinity of airports; Land use planning processes should balance and protect both airport/aviation operations and community safety and amenity expectations; Governments will protect operational airspace around airports in the interests of both aviation and community safety; and Strategic and statutory planning frameworks should address aircraft noise by applying a comprehensive suite of noise measures. NASF and the above principles are intended to be applied and incorporated into relevant planning schemes over time and provide guidance to state, local and territory governments which can in turn be used to guide assessment and approvals for land use and development on and around identified airports. Hobart Airport has been fortunate to have avoided conflict with surrounding land use and development, with the consequence that its curfew-free status has been maintained. However increasing residential development pressure in the City of Clarence and Sorell municipality highlights the need for Local and State Government to continue having regard to NASF.
3.5 Consistency with Airport Master Plan
3.5.1 Background Under the Airports Act, HIAPL is required to prepare and publish an Airport Master Plan every five years. Master Plans for Hobart Airport have been prepared and approved by the Minister in 1999, 2004 and 2009. Permission was granted to delay the publication of the next Master Plan until 2015 to allow it to align with this Major Development Plan. In accordance with requirements of the Airports Act, the Master Plan establishes long term planning objectives for Hobart Airport and provides a framework to guide appropriate aeronautical and non-aeronautical development. Under the Airports Act, an MDP cannot be approved unless it is consistent with the Master Plan in force at the time. At the time of publication of this Draft MDP, the Approved Master Plan in force for Hobart Airport is the 2015 Hobart Airport Master Plan. The 2015 Master Plan expressly contemplates the runway extension proposal in this MDP (see in particular sections 4.2.1 and 7.6 of the 2015 Master Plan, and
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 34
more generally Chapters 5, 11 and 12 of the 2015 Master Plan). In light of this and as detailed below, this MDP is clearly consistent with the 2015 Master Plan.
3.5.2 2015 Master Plan The 2015 Master Plan defines a physical layout for the Airport for the next 20 years (2015 to 2035), allocating future Airport land usage based on an assessment of present and forecast aviation activities, the environment, other demands and wider community expectations. In accordance with the Airports Act, the 2015 Master Plan provides the framework for Airport development for a period of 20 years up to 2035 - the forecast planning period. In that Plan, reference is also made to the initial forecast period. This is a reference to the five year period from 2015 to 2020, when the Plan is again due for review. The Environment Strategy (Chapter 13) relates to a period of five years. As noted, a key component of the 2015 Master Plan is the proposed runway extension and terminal expansion to cater for forecast passenger growth, facilitate direct flights from South-East Asia for passengers and freight and to service the Antarctic Sector. The 2015 Master Plan sets out the scope of this project and how its implementation aligns with the overall development objectives, land use zones and airport site uses proposed for Hobart Airport. The development proposed in this MDP is consistent with the 2015 Master Plan. In particular: The scope of the project is consistent with the description of the project as set out in Section 7.6 of the 2015 Master Plan; The extension project will take place in the Runway Precinct of the Airport Site as set out in Section 4.2.1 of the 2015 Master Plan. The 2015 Master Plan specifically provides for the following projects to occurring within three years of the approval of the 2015 Master Plan, subject to approval of this MDP: Extension of the runway by 500m (150m to the northern end and 350m to the southern end); The development of a new large aircraft apron to the northern end of the existing passenger apron; The alteration and relocation of Airservices Australia equipment; and The closure of Surf Road to vehicle traffic. The final alignment of Grueber Avenue may be slightly different to the 2015 Master Plan. This is the result of consultation with private land owners in establishing an alignment that delivers the safest outcome and best meets the needs of all potential road users. The runway extension project has been developed having regard to the aircraft forecasts set out in Chapter 5 of the 2015 Master Plan, and these forecasts, in turn, contemplate the extension of the runway; Chapter 11 of the 2015 Master Plan sets out the PANS-OPS that are likely to result from the runway extension development; and
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 35
Chapter 12 of the 2015 Master Plan sets out the potential noise profile of the runway extension including providing ANEC, N70, N60 scenarios for 2035 with the runway extension taken into account.
3.5.3 Pre-existing interests and obligations Section 91(3) of the Airports Act and Regulation 5.04 of the Airports Regulations require a MDP to address the obligations of the airport-lessee company as sub- lessor under any sub-lease of the airport site concerned, and the rights of the sub- lessee under any such sub-lease. As referenced in the 2105 Master Plan: "The leases on the Airport in existence prior to 11 June 1998 and still current are: Airservices Australia Facilities - Control Tower, Fire Station and Car Park, Radio/Electrical Maintenance Workshop, Gym/SAR Store, Fire Training Ground, DVOR/DME, Localiser, Glidepath, SGS, Course Bars and Markers; and Bureau of Meteorology - Main Building, Instrument Site (west), Instrument Site (east – Anemometer). Since the last Master Plan, HIAPL has negotiated the lease of the Qantas Domestic Terminal Lease (DTL) and Aircraft Waste Facility. HIAPL now operate these facilities. The Master Plan fully recognises the operation of these leases, and is to no detriment to the operation of the leases." HIAPL has agreed with the Bureau of Meteorology that the proposed development will affect the operation of instruments in the area to the west of the northern side of the runway (i.e. part of the Runway Precinct in the 2015 Master Plan). The impact of this will be managed between HIAPL and the Bureau of Meteorology by allowing for adequate time for new instruments to be established at the east site and a sufficient overlap of operation of the two sites to confirm continuity of records. The Bureau of Meteorology has been advised of the proposed project and is in working towards moving the impacted equipment. The runway extension will also impact Airservices Australia equipment, which will be relocated in conjunction with Airservices Australia as part of the project. Consultation is ongoing with Airservices Australia to ensure efficient and consistent approach to this task. The leases between HIAPL and Airservices Australia that relate to the relocated Airservices Australia equipment will be amended between HIAPL and Airservices Australia to reflect the relevant locational changes. To the best of HIAPL’s knowledge only the following may represent interests for the purposes of the Regulations: Surf Road easement; A pipeline easement along the Tasman Highway boundary; and
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 36
Existence of the following trunk and other services: Telstra East Coast and Seven Mile Beach optic fibres; Telstra incoming optic fibre to Customs Kennel; Aurora optic fibre along Holyman Avenue; Water re-use inbound and outbound lines along Holyman Avenue; Airservices Australia – numerous communications; Incoming high voltage at airport metering point (Aurora); Incoming high voltage along Pittwater Road; and Numerous Aurora poles and associated assets. The Development is of no detriment to continuation of the level of accommodation provided for these interests prior to 11 June 1998, with the exception of Surf Road. A benefitting easement exists on Surf Road. As noted in Section 2.3.1 of this MDP, the proposed project is expected to impact this easement and require the closure of Surf Road to vehicular traffic. Notwithstanding this, this MDP provides for a pedestrian and cycleway bypass to be built adjacent to Surf Road to maintain non-vehicular access and for a new road (Grueber Avenue) to be constructed to link Holyman Avenue to Surf Road, and provide continued access to the Tasman Highway for the Seven Mile Beach community. Sinclair Creek flows across the Airport. The TasWater Wastewater Treatment Plant relies on Sinclair Creek for acceptance of treated wastewater in certain circumstances under the Environment Protection Notice governing its operation. No other interests associated with this water course have been identified by title or any other searching. The interest in this watercourse will not be affected by the Project. Access to the TasWater Wastewater Treatment Plant will be maintained. Proclamation under Section 9A and 52A of the State Roads and Jetties Act 1935, registered 24 June 1997 has the following effects: Section 9A provides that the Governor may, by proclamation, declare – (a) the intended new line of a State highway or subsidiary road; or (b) the intended line of a new State highway or subsidiary road; and Section 52A provides that the Governor may, by proclamation, declare any State highway or subsidiary road, or part thereof to be a "limited access road". A proclamation under this section may be combined with a proclamation under section 9A. Based on its consultations with State Government agencies, HIAPL is not aware of any potential declarations that would affect the Project. Public consultation, title and other searching in preparation of the 2015 Master Plan have identified no other interests and so there are no other interests to the best of HIAPL’s knowledge.
3.6 Consistency with Airport Environment Strategy Hobart Airport has an Airport Environment Strategy that provides a long-term strategic vision for Hobart Airport and its interaction with the environment.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 37
The key objectives of the Airport Environment Strategy are to summarise the Airport’s environmental approach to management of environmental values. The environmental values outlined within the Airport Environment Strategy are: Heritage – Aboriginal and Historic; Biodiversity – Vegetation communities and Threatened Species; Air Quality; Water Quality – Surface and Groundwater; Soil Quality – Contamination; Energy and Natural Resources – including Climate Change and Greenhouse gas emissions; Waste Management; and Noise – Ground based emissions. The current Environment Strategy was approved July 2013. The 2015 Environment Strategy is expected to be approved as part of the 2015 Master Plan and the MDP is consistent with this Strategy.
3.7 Consistency with State and Local Government Planning Hobart Airport’s land is owned by the Australian Commonwealth Government. Therefore, pursuant to Section 112 of the Airports Act, new developments are not subject to the statutory State and Local Government planning and environmental approval process. Any developments at the Airport are controlled through the detailed requirements of the Airports Act, including specific and stringent environmental and building controls, and compliance with the 2015 Master Plan and the Airport Environment Strategy. At the same time, under section 91(4) of the Airports Act, a Major Development Plan is required to describe the extent of consistency of the major airport development with state and local government planning regimes in force where the airport is located. Therefore these regimes have been considered when developing this MDP. Figure 6 below summarises the statutory and regulatory framework for development of both Commonwealth owned land and that owned by HIAPL, with the Master Plan clearly central to both regimes. Hobart Airport must also comply with state legislation in the context of: Effects on State and Local government land use planning and development policies; Environmental considerations (including aircraft noise, flora, fauna, cultural, heritage, drainage and wastewater issues); Airport access;
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 38
The provision of telecommunications, water and electricity services; and Land acquisition. The State and Local planning context forms the basis of the Hobart Airport Master Plan’s direction and concepts have been consulted in developing the 2015 Master Plan, including the policies, schemes and plans addressed in this Section. HIAPL will be further consulting with these bodies in relation to this MDP, including as set out in Chapter 7. Consistency of the objectives and the proposed development set out in this MDP and, where any inconsistency is identified, justification for that inconsistency, are addressed in this section.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 39
Figure 6: Statutory Regulatory Framework Overview
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 40
3.7.1 State Coastal Policy 1996 The State Coastal Policy 1996 (State Coastal Policy) applies the sustainable development objectives of the Resource Management Planning System to Tasmania's coast, and is guided by three main principles: Natural and cultural values of the coast shall be protected; The coast shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner; and Integrated management and protection of the coastal zone is a shared responsibility. The area to which the Policy is applied is the ‘Coastal Zone’ which is defined under the policy as: … State waters and to all land to a distance of one kilometre inland from the high-water mark. The airport land is entirely within the Coastal Zone, as is the area surrounding it. A number of principles and objectives apply to the airport and the surrounding land that reinforce the strategic importance of the airport, or raise matters that are recognised as being of importance within the coastal zone, notably:
Principles The coast shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner. This principle recognises: the economic and social values of sea ports and airports, mineral and forest resources, agriculture, marine farming and fisheries to Tasmania, and the legitimate aspirations of individuals and communities for allocation of space and resources in the coastal zone for these activities; (emphasis added) Outcomes 2. Sustainable Development of Coastal Areas and Resources 2.1. COASTAL USES AND DEVELOPMENT 2.1.1. The coastal zone shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner subject to the objectives, principles and outcomes of this Policy. It is acknowledged that there are conservation reserves and other areas within the coastal zone which will not be available for development (emphasis added) 2.1.6. In determining decisions on use and development in the coastal zone, priority will be given to those which are dependent on a coastal location for spatial, social, economic, cultural or environmental reasons 2.3. TOURISM 2.3.1. Tourism use and development in the coastal zone, including visitor accommodation and other facilities, will be directed to suitable locations based on the objectives, principles and outcomes of this Policy and subject to planning controls. (Emphasis added) 2.5. TRANSPORT 2.5.5. The multiple use of port areas will be encouraged but priority will be given to efficient port operations and safety requirements subject to cultural, natural and aesthetic values not being compromised (emphasis added) 2.6. PUBLIC ACCESS AND SAFETY 2.6.1. The public's common right of access to and along the coast, from both land and water, will be maintained and enhanced where it does not conflict with the protection of natural and cultural coastal values, health and safety and security requirements.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 41
The proposed runway extension development is consistent with the State Coastal Policy, and recognises the need to balance the strategic economic and social significance of the airport with the public access, sustainability and safety outcomes of the Policy. In planning for the runway extension, provision has been made for the continuation of existing public access rights along the coast from both land and water, together with the protection of natural and cultural coastal values, health and safety and security requirements.
3.7.2 Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010 – 2035 The Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035 is a broad policy document that will facilitate and manage change, growth, and development within Southern Tasmania over the next 25 years. The Strategy document contains a vision, strategies and policy statements to implement those strategies. The Strategy is given statutory status under Division 1A of the Land Use Planning Approvals Act 1993. The Strategy is intended to be implemented through planning schemes, and scheme amendments are required to be consistent with the Strategy. The proposals in the 2015 Master Plan are consistent with this strategy. The Strategy document notes the importance of Hobart Airport to the State, noting in relation to "Strategic Direction 4 - Improving our Economic Infrastructure" that: "Southern Tasmania is highly dependent upon the State’s three northern ports for exports and imports and Hobart airport for movements of passengers and time sensitive products. Maintaining a strong strategic approach to industrial land with efficient and cost effective intrastate road and rail linkages to and from the sea and airports are vitally important, particularly in this modern era of 24 hour 7 days a week freight logistics." There are no statements in the Strategy document regarding protection of the operational environment of Hobart International Airport. Notwithstanding this there is a strong strategic and policy context that controls the location and density of future residential and commercial development affecting the areas around the airport. HIAPL considers that the developments proposed in this MDP are consistent with the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035. In particular, HIAPL considers that this development is essential to maintaining Hobart Airport's status as a transport hub in Tasmania to allow for increased movements of passengers and time sensitive products.
3.7.3 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 The State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997, also known as the Water Quality Policy, provides a framework for the development of ambient water quality objectives and the management and regulation of point and diffuse sources of emissions to surface waters (including coastal waters) and groundwater.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 42
The Water Quality Policy was made under section 11 of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (Tasmania) and came into effect in September 1997. The Water Quality Policy applies to all surface waters, including coastal waters, and ground waters, other than: Privately owned waters that are not accessible to the public and are not connected to, or flow directly into, waters that are accessible to the public; or Waters in any tank, pipe or cistern. The objectives of the Water Quality Policy include: Focusing water quality management on the achievement of objectives which will maintain or enhance water quality; Ensuring that diffuse source and point source pollution does not prejudice the achievement of water quality objectives; and Ensuring efficient and effective water quality monitoring programs are carried out and that monitoring responsibility is shared by those who benefit from the resource. Under the Water Quality Policy, persons undertaking activities that might affect surface water or groundwater are required to put safeguards in place to minimise the impact of any direct or indirect contamination that may arise from the activity. Certain activities may also require the preparation of an environmental emergency management plan and the monitoring of effluents from the activity and/or of pollutants in receiving waters. Section 5.5 of this MDP assesses the potential impacts on surface water and groundwater arising from the Project in relation to both construction and ongoing operations and the mitigation strategies. Based on the assessments referred to in that section and the mitigation strategies proposed, HIAPL considers that the undertaking of the proposed project is consistent with the principles of the Water Quality Policy. In particular, HIAPL's pollutant monitoring program in the Sinclair Creek and associated mitigation measures, outlined at Section 5.5.3, are consistent with the principles in the Water Quality Policy on pollutant monitoring. Further, the operation of existing safety shut-off valves on all stormwater inlets (as referred to in Section 5.5.2) allows HIAPL to mitigate the impact of contamination in the event of an emergency.
3.7.4 Clarence Planning Scheme Although Hobart Airport sits outside the formal planning jurisdiction, the City of Clarence is a strong and active supporter of the continued development and protection of the Airport. For its part HIAPL acknowledges that the continued support of the Council is critical to future success. HIAPL is of the opinion that the runway extension development set out in this MDP is consistent with the Clarence City Council (CCC) planning scheme to the extent such consistency is possible. (Noting that aeronautical and related uses are not covered by the scheme).
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 43
Indeed, as noted in the 2015 Master Plan, HIAPL has focused on aligning proposed land uses on the airport site with the zone definitions and land uses in the Clarence City Council Interim 2014 Planning Scheme, where alignment can be achieved. The exceptions where alignment could not be achieved were for land designated for aeronautical or aviation-related use, as these uses are not contemplated in the 2007 Planning Scheme. The Interim Planning Scheme demonstrates that Clarence recognises the economic importance of the Airport and is a key stakeholder keeping Hobart Airport curfew free. In particular, in the Interim Planning Scheme, Council provides for a development control buffer around the Airport. These controls aim to ensure that surrounding land use and development is compatible with the operation of Hobart Airport. The area covered by the overlay in the Interim Planning Scheme is the same as that in the 2007 Planning Scheme, and consequently neither covers the balance of the Seven Mile Beach Spit, nor does it provide for changes to flight paths, noise exposure or airport operations. This buffer zone is shown in Figure 7. Section 2.3.1 addresses the specific design standards and maintenance responsibility associated with Grueber Avenue.
Figure 7: Clarence Planning Scheme 2007 Airport buffer overlay (Sheets 13 and 14) The scope of the Airport Buffer Overlay to the east of the main runway has been of little consequence in the past, as the Recreation zoning of the land under the Interim Planning Scheme prevented residential and commercial development that would potentially give rise to conflict with airport operations. However Draft Amendment A -2013/1 to the 2007 Planning Scheme highlighted the potential risks arising if the provisions of the Recreation zone were to be relaxed, in the absence of such an overlay or other provisions that are consistent with the National Airports Safeguarding Framework. HIAPL will consult with the
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 44
Clarence City Council as to any need for the Airport Buffer Overlay to be reviewed and amended as a result of the proposed runway extension. Based on a review of the Interim Planning Scheme, HIAPL considers that the proposed runway extension and associated changes to aircraft noise impacts (as outlined in Section 5.9) will not affect the permitted land uses in zones adjacent to the Airport, or require changes to the zoning boundaries in the Scheme. The Interim Planning Scheme also addresses Hobart Airport within its Local Competiveness Objectives at Section 3.0.9, including setting as an objective that the land use planning and regulatory system allow the City to realise its competitive advantages to achieve a number of outcomes, including: Achieving economic growth associated with the city's strategic location between the air and seaport gateways to southern Tasmania; and Achieving increased product and commodity export and increased tourist visitation through Hobart Airport. The draft interim scheme recognises that these outcomes will be achieved by recognising: “The separate land use planning process that applies to the Hobart International Airport site under Australian Government legislation, and the objectives under the associated Airport Master Plan, such as provision of air freight storage and handling facilities and improved passenger terminals.” HIAPL considers that the runway extension development proposed in this MDP is closely aligned with the achievement of the objective and outcomes for the Clarence region provided for in the Interim Planning Scheme and set out above. In particular, HIAPL considers that the extension of the runway is an essential part of achieving these development objectives as it will allow for increased product and commodity export and increased tourist visitation through Hobart Airport, including via the expanded reach of the Airport to South East Asia. HIAPL notes that complete consistency with the draft Interim Scheme is not possible, as aeronautical and related uses are not covered by the scheme. Further, HIAPL notes that, in recognition of the land use and planning processes applying to Hobart Airport, the draft Interim Planning Scheme shows the airport land as "unzoned", as set out in Figure 8.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 45
Figure 8: Excerpt from Clarence Draft Interim Planning Scheme 2014 map, showing the airport land unzoned. HIAPL considers that such inconsistencies are justified on the basis that: The proposed development is consistent with the 2015 Master Plan; The undertaking of the runway extension project is consistent with HIAPL's obligation to develop the airport under the terms of its Airport Lease; While the draft Interim Planning Scheme does not provide for or contemplate aviation uses, such uses are integral to the operation of the Airport; As noted, the proposed development is consistent with the achievement of the objectives and outcomes for the Clarence region provided for in the Interim Planning Scheme; The proposed development will deliver a number of significant benefits to the community, civil aviation users and other users of Hobart Airport.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 46
4 Assessment methodology
4.1 Assessment scope This chapter sets out the methodology by which HIAPL has assessed the impacts of the construction and operation phases of the Project on the airport and surrounding area, including in relation to the following environmental and social factors: Resource Use; Land; Geology and Soils; Surface and Groundwater; Biodiversity; Cultural Heritage; Air Quality; Aircraft Noise; Hazardous Materials; Ground-based Noise; Traffic and Transport; Social; Economy and Employment; Visual Impact Assessment; Aviation Safety; and Services.
4.2 Assessment technique Assessment criteria were designed in order to assess identified impacts in a consistent manner. For that reason, HIAPL has adopted the use of a “significant criteria assessment”. This is a standard technique used in assessments of this nature that ensures different topics can be addressed consistently. A description of the significance criteria used for this MDP is set out in Table 3.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 47
Table 3: Significance Criteria
Significance Impact Criteria Classification High Adverse Impact is Environmental effects are likely to be important considered major considerations at a national to international scale but if adverse, may impact the project, depending upon the relative importance attached to the issue during the decision making process. Considerable adverse change to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday community activities. Mitigation measures and detailed design work are unlikely to remove all the effects upon the affected communities or interests. Residual effects would be predominant. Moderate Impact moderate These effects, if adverse, while important at a local scale, Adverse but acceptable for are not likely to be key decision making issues. most people Nevertheless, the cumulative effects of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall effects upon a particular area or particular resource. Noticeable adverse changes to current amenity, lifestyle and everyday community activities but with scope for mitigation. They represent issues where effects would be experienced but mitigation measures and detailed design work may ameliorate/enhance some of the consequences upon affected communities or interests. Some residual effects may still arise. Low Adverse Impact These effects may be raised as local issues, but are perceptible but unlikely to be of importance in the decision making acceptable process. Nevertheless, they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the project and consideration of mitigation measures. There may be localised or limited noticeable change to current amenity, lifestyle or everyday community activities. Negligible Minimal change No effects or those which are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.
HIAPL’s assessment of each impact identified, along with the mitigation measures HIAPL proposes to implement in relation to each impact, is set out in Chapter 5 for each factor listed above. This information is also summarised in Chapter 6. The impacts have been identified through environmental assessment of the construction and operation of the works. This assessment included the following sources: Review of specialist studies undertaken at the airport, including groundwater monitoring, fauna assessments, detailed wind and marine ecology studies; Review of local planning documents; Field surveys; Environmental assessments; Database information contained within EPBC Protected Matters Reports; State Natural Values Atlas Reports;
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 48
State database searches (Land Information System Tasmania, TASI database); and Other reports and relevant management plans.
4.2.1 Grueber Avenue works impact assessment As noted in Section 2.3.1, HIAPL is considering two options for the construction of Grueber Avenue. This MDP assesses the impacts for the preferred option (Option 1), as this represents a worst-case scenario and includes impacts outside of the airport boundary.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 49
5 Assessment of impacts and proposed mitigation measures
5.1 Introduction Located 17 kilometres east of the city of Hobart, the airport is comprised of approximately 500 hectares of Commonwealth land. The airport is bounded by Frederick Henry Bay to the south, Barilla Bay to the north and agricultural/residential/light industrial land to the east and west. Located on the boundary of a coastal spit, the site contains areas of both Commonwealth and State significance, particularly in relation to biodiversity values. HIAPL recognises the importance of these values and strives to achieve a sustainable balance between conserving the value of environmentally important areas while still allowing for carefully planned development to facilitate future growth. Appropriate management and the implementation of mitigation measures aim to ensure that any potential impacts to environmental values resulting from development and operation of the Airport are minimised. Environmental Management Commitments to managing the environment at the airport and the mitigation measures in place to reduce potential impacts are integrated with day-to-day activities, including those undertaken by tenants and contractors on site. All significant environmental values are included in the HIAPL environmental risk register which includes the preferred controls or procedures in place to mitigate potential environmental impacts resulting from both operational and construction activities. All Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMPs) for projects on airport land are reviewed by the Airports Environmental Officer (AEO) to ensure that potential impacts to environmental values are captured and that appropriate management strategies are identified and implemented. Environmental auditing, undertaken by the HIAPL Environmental Manager, occurs on projects to ensure management strategies are consistent with the methods outlined within CEMPs. Integrated Management System (IMS) HIAPL have recently implemented an IMS which incorporates Quality, Environment, Aerodrome Safety, Security and Health and Safety. The environmental risk register is incorporated into the IMS at two levels. At the enterprise wide level all generic environmental risks are included with other enterprise wide risks for Financial, Reputational and Brand, Compliance and People and Safety; and A separate and more specific environmental risk register is maintained which details specific risks relating to the environment. An assessment of the potential impacts on the physical, biological, cultural and social environments of the project area has been undertaken using information obtained through previous site investigations and specialist studies. The risks
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 50
posed from construction on each of these values have been assessed using HIAPL’s risk management procedure for the environment, contained within the IMS. Each of the risks identified are considered manageable through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. These are summarised in the sections below. Environmental assessments A range of environmental assessments have been undertaken as part of the Project, including: An ecological marine assessment of Barilla Bay; A terrestrial fauna assessment for Barilla Bay; A geomorphological assessment of the Seven Mile Beach dune area south of the runway; An ecological assessment of the dune area; and A visual impact assessment of the whole project area. All assessments have concluded that the proposed runway extension has a low risk of causing adverse environmental harm or ecological impact. Management Plans CEMPs will be required to be prepared by the relevant works contractor prior to the commencement of any construction works associated with the project. These CEMPs will cover all relevant aspects of the construction of the Project, including monitoring, auditing and reporting requirements that are to be implemented throughout the duration of the project. Regular site audits will be undertaken by the HIAPL Environment Manager for compliance with the CEMP. The AEO will review the CEMP and site audit activities as required. Further issue-specific plans will also be prepared where relevant. These may include: Erosion and Sediment Control Plans; Vegetation Management Plans; Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan; Dust Management Plan; and Risk Management Plan.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 51
5.2 Resource use
5.2.1 Baseline conditions The effective management and minimisation of resource use and reducing potential impacts is a key objective for the Hobart Airport. Current activities at the airport that use natural resources include: General airport operations including activities within buildings; Tenant activities; Vehicle and ground based aircraft activities; Operation of plant and equipment; Grounds maintenance and landscaping; and Construction activities relating to specific projects.
5.2.2 Assessment of impacts The construction and operation of the Project will require resources in the form of materials and energy. Materials used during construction would include but not be limited to: Pavement materials (such as crushed rock and asphalt); Subgrade materials; Steel; Concrete; and Materials for drainage pipes and services. Energy (such as fuel and electricity) will be required during construction and operation of the Project. The materials and energy required for the Project are expected to result in a low adverse impact to resources.
Resource Use Impacts Significance assessment Construction Low adverse Operation Low adverse
5.2.3 Mitigation measures The management of resources associated with the Project will be identified in the CEMP and would require consideration of the following: Identification of opportunities for efficient use of materials and minimisation of waste during construction; and Material that is not suitable for reuse to be managed as waste. All waste generated from construction activities will be required to be managed in accordance with the State Environmental Management and Pollution Control
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 52
Act (EMPCA) 1994 and the EPA Tasmania Information Bulletin 105 – Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal (2012).
5.3 Land use
5.3.1 Baseline conditions Historically, land use in the area of the airport was limited to sheep grazing and used by the army in the 1940s. In 1956 it became the site of the Hobart airport. Current land uses at Hobart Airport include aviation-related activities and non- aviation development and uses to support the airport. The 2015 Master Plan land use and precinct development sets out a framework to guide the airport’s growth to enable it to meet increased demand. The 2015 Master Plan takes into consideration proposed developments, including this Project. Land uses directly adjacent to the airport include: Oyster farms within Barilla Bay to the north of the Airport; Llanherne Golf Course to the south west; Tasmania Golf Course to the north; The recreational network of Tangara Trail; Easement known as Surf Road; Seven Mile Beach coastal / recreational areas to the south; Cambridge Airport; Waste water treatment plant; and Private land. The 2015 Master Plan designates a number of precincts with the airport. The project will occur predominantly within the Runway Precinct, with parts within the Terminal and Aviation Precincts (Grueber Avenue) and the HIAL lighting external to the airport. The closest oyster production area in Barilla Bay is approximately 500m from the proposed HIAL development footprint. Other sensitive receptors such as residential homes, commercial buildings and community facilities are located at a distance of approximately 1 to 2.5km from the Hobart Airport Terminal.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 53
Figure 9: Existing land uses
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 54
5.3.2 Assessment of impacts Other than an extension to the approach lights in Barilla Bay and a small section of the proposed alignment for Grueber Avenue, all works associated with the project occur within the boundaries of the airport-lease area, on Commonwealth land. This includes the Seven Mile beach dune area to the south of the runway to the high tide water mark. The state waters of Barilla Bay, where there is a proposed extension to the approach lights, and the freehold land areas where Grueber Avenue will be routed, are outside of the airport-lease area. An assessment of potential environmental impacts to the Grueber Avenue development will be undertaken prior to any construction. A flora and fauna assessment is scheduled for spring/summer 2015 during the flowering season. A Forest Practices Plan has been developed for the pine plantation, which has indicated that there are no environmental values of concern in this area. Outside of this area, the proposed road alignment occurs along an existing road and along the boundary of a small section of airport land identified as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA). A revised environmental assessment will be undertaken of this area once preliminary design is finalised. The extension of the current approach lights requires the construction of footings within Barilla Bay, outside the Airport boundary, on which to attach the approach lights. The new footings will be in the same alignment as the existing footings, but will extend approximately 80m further into Barilla Bay. The existing approach lighting system consists of a series of lighting masts extending into Barilla Bay, which are intermittently spaced approximately 25m apart in a northwest-southeast alignment of the runway. An additional five footings for the lights are required to be installed. The power source for the HIAL will not change from what exists currently. There is not expected to be an impact associated with the maintenance of the power supply. Oysters are farmed throughout the upper and lower Pittwater area and harvested for sale to the general public. The nearest oyster farm (Barilla Bay Oysters) is located approximately 500m from the proposed footprint development. There is the potential for oyster farms in Barilla Bay to be impacted by increased sedimentation from construction works associated with the installation of additional approach lights, particularly during the months of harvesting (October- December). Spawning occurs during January – February and oysters cannot be harvested at this time. The installation of new approach lights may therefore have a low to moderate adverse impact on land use in the Bay depending on the timing of the works. While the majority of Grueber Avenue alignment Option 1 (Figure 3) falls within the existing Commonwealth lease land, there are two sections which traverse freehold land and are subject to local planning regulations. The larger affected parcel to the south of the alignment is owned by Hobart Airport, while the smaller parcel towards the centre of the alignment is owned by Llanherne Golf Club. In
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 55
consultation with Clarence City Council, it has been established that the affected parcel of land held by Llanherne Golf Club is zoned recreational and as such is not subject to a minimum lot size should it be subdivided; furthermore the affected parcel of land can be designated for road use by Council. It should be noted Hobart Airport and Llanherne Golf Club have commenced discussions in relation to transferring ownership of this affected parcel of land. There may be low adverse impacts to land uses on the airport during construction due to likely minor construction traffic impacts. The Project is consistent with and enhances the land use intent of the Runway Precinct, therefore the operation of the Project has been assessed as having a beneficial impact to land use.
Land Use Impacts Significance assessment Construction Low – moderate adverse Operation Beneficial
5.3.3 Mitigation measures The management of land use impacts associated with the Project will be identified in the CEMP and would require consideration of the following: Where possible construction of approach lighting in Barilla Bay would be scheduled to occur during the months of January and February to limit the impact to oyster farming, as this period is the oyster spawning time and they cannot be harvested during this time. Construction will be avoided during the harvesting period (October – December). Installation of new footings will be scheduled in consultation with oyster farmers to ensure impacts are minimised; and Marine water quality to be monitored prior, during and post-construction and in consultation with Barilla Bay oyster farmers. Traffic management will occur during construction to minimise impacts to other land uses at and surrounding the airport. See Section 5.12 for further details.
5.4 Geology and soils
5.4.1 Baseline conditions Geology and Soils The majority of airport land is underlain by Quaternary fine sands, silts and clays with some layered gravel deposits. The surface generally consists of wind-blown fine grained sands, while coarser sands can be found in some areas southeast of the terminal area. Clayey sands and clay deposits are located within the north eastern sector of the aerodrome. The airport is located on the Seven Mile beach spit, which is composed of Quaternary beach, near-shore marine and aeolian sands up to 10m or more in thickness, overlying gently seaward-dipping dark-coloured Quaternary/Tertiary clays. Overlying the beach area is estuarine and barrier swamp deposits of clay,
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 56
silt and fine sand. Near-shore sediments are present along the landward edge of the spit. The only variation in geological substrate throughout the site is Llanherne Hill which is comprised of the Upper Parmaneer Supergroup from the Mesazoic era. The soil at the airport is comprised of near-shore marine and aeolian sands. Contaminated Land Airservices Australia (AsA) has had an onsite presence at the airport for decades and has used Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) since the early 1980s. These foams contain fluorosurfactants which include the contaminants perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA). Both pollutants are considered to persist within the environment. In 2003, AsA changed to a different AFFF product that was understood to not contain PFOS and in 2010 transitioned to a flurosurfacant-free foam. The Hobart Airport fire station uses only water for training purposes. Historical firefighting activities on site by AsA have been reviewed and indicate that no firefighting training using foams containing PFOS occurred in the area proposed for the runway extension. No known areas of contaminated soil are within the Project footprint. Geomorphology The airport is located on a coastal spit, characterised by accumulations of sand formed by waves, tides and winds. These landforms rely on a supply of sediment which is transported by wave energy and form in the predominant direction of longshore sediment flow. Seven Mile Beach spit has been formed by a low energy, fourteen second south-westerly swell which has determined the parallel alignment to the shore of the beach, spit and relict dunes that exist. The dunes and lowland plain upon which the airport is positioned forms part of a larger depositional spit feature that has formed between Barilla Bay and Frederick Henry Bay. The Seven Mile Beach dune system within the vicinity of airport comprises of incipient and established foredunes. Incipient foredunes are new or developing dunes, and are located on the immediate backshore (upper beach profile) of Seven Mile Beach. Established foredunes run parallel to and are set back from the incipient dunes. Established foredunes develop from incipient foredunes and over time become more isolated by the seaward development of new incipient foredunes. Acid Sulfate Soils Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are sediments containing iron sulphides that occur naturally in waterlogged environments. ASS occur in two main forms: potential acid sulfate soils (PASS), where the pyrite is retained in a reduced state (not oxidised), and actual acid sulfate soils (AASS), where the pyrite is oxidised by exposure to air. Activities that expose PASS to air can result in leaching of acid into the environment with potential impacts to soil, water and biota.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 57
The airport is located in a coastal environment on the boundary of the Seven Mile Beach Spit. Due to the low lying nature of the land, there is the potential for ASS to be present on the site. Current mapping (LIST 2014) indicates that there is generally a low potential for coastal ASS across the site with a small area of high potential to the north in Barilla Bay. There are two known potential PASS sites located within the airport boundary, shown in Figure 10. These will not be impacted by the Project. An environmental risk assessment of the Barilla Bay area was undertaken in July 2014 by Marine Solutions to determine potential impacts on marine ecology from construction activities relating to extending the HIAL in the Bay. The potential to encounter ASS within Barilla Bay was assessed and identified that PASS and AASS were not present in levels warranting concern. In addition to this, reports indicate that the likelihood of potential acid sulfate soils occurring in south east Tasmania is minimal.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 58
Figure 10: Mapping of potential ASS (extracted from Land Information System Tasmania, 2015)
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 59
5.4.2 Assessment of impacts Geology and Soils During construction, there is the possibility that soil disturbance would encourage soil erosion and dust generation. Where necessary, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be required to be developed for the construction phase of the Project, detailing mitigation measures to be implemented. During operation of the Project, no mitigation measures are expected to be required for dust, erosion and sedimentation.
Geology and Soils Significance assessment Construction Low adverse Operation Low adverse
Contaminated Land Additional soil testing and analysis undertaken on soils in the runway extension area as part of a geotechnical assessment indicate that tested soils were free of PFOS / PFOA contamination. The results of the PFC soil analysis undertaken as part of the geotechnical assessment indicates that PFC levels were well within the PFC waste classification categories for airports as defined in Managing PFC Contamination at Airports: Contamination Management Strategy and Decision Framework (June, 2015) which is consistent with the National Environmental Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measures 1999 and the PFC – Management Action Advice (GEM002). Based on HIAPL's historical knowledge of the site proposed for the Grueber Road development, it is unlikely that areas of land contamination exist. The majority of the road alignment is based on an existing road. As there is no change to a more sensitive land use in these areas, no further investigation has been considered. In other areas the proposed road alignment extends through a pine plantation, degraded saltmarsh area and land used as a golf course. Land use history indicates the absence of any land contaminating activities.
Contaminated Land Significance assessment Construction Low adverse Operation Low adverse
Geomorphology Modification of the height of the existing foredune at Seven Mile Beach is required to accommodate the aircraft movement as a result of the Project and is a requirement under CASA regulations. The proposed changes will result in a 5 to 6.5 m lowering of the eastern and western areas of the established foredunes to a new level that is commensurate with the central portion of the foredune. Approximately 16,500m3 of sand is to be removed from the dune area. Airport
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 60
navigation and communication assets that are presently located on the established foredunes will also be relocated. During the period in which the topography of the foredunes is modified and the time it takes for vegetation to recover, the potential for erosion and further modification of the morphology of the dune will be heightened. Marram grass is widely distributed in the foredunes. It spreads vigorously across bare sandy areas and it is likely that this will quickly stabilise the lowered foredunes. Lowering the dunes is not expected to result in any long term impacts on the stability of the foredunes and the surrounding environment. The outcome of the assessment indicated that the potential for impacts during construction would be low adverse, however the dunes would be stabilised following construction, therefore there would be negligible impact during operation.
Geomorphology Significance assessment Construction Low adverse Operation Negligible
Acid Sulfate Soils The potential to encounter ASS within Barilla Bay was assessed with outcomes indicating that PASS nor AASS were not present in levels warranting concern. An assessment of PASS for the runway extension and new apron areas was included as part of the geotechnical investigation. Analytical results did not identify any actual or potential ASS that affect soils in the Project areas. The risk of encountering PASS in the Grueber Avenue alignment is considered low, based on recent PASS testing on the airport and the distance from the coast.
ASS Significance assessment Construction Low adverse Operation Low adverse
5.4.3 Mitigation measures Geology and Soils Erosion and sediment control will be implemented during construction, as discussed in Section 5.5. An assessment of potential soil contamination within the proposed project footprint was undertaken as part of the geotechnical assessment for the runway extension areas. Soil samples did not identify the presence of PFC related contaminants. No tests for hydrocarbons and metals were undertaken. If excavated material is to be reused on site, no further analytical testing is required. However should any of the excavated material be disposed of outside the airport boundary (i.e. at a certified landfill) then soil will be required to be tested in accordance with the EPA Bulletin 105: Classification and Management Potentially Contaminated Soils (IB105) to ensure that the soil quality meets state regulatory requirements;
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 61
A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) is underway for the Grueber Avenue component of the works to assess for contaminated soil. Details of this assessment will be understood prior to any construction works commencing. If the material contains contaminants, it will be managed in accordance with the EPA Tasmanian Information Bulletin 105 – Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal (2012); While there is no evidence of historical firefighting foam use in the project footprint, PFCs are highly mobile and known to occur in low levels in groundwater. As large areas of land will be excavated, appropriate management of soil material will be required. Any soil known to have levels of PFCs will be managed in accordance with the Airservices Australia Managing PFC Contamination at Airports Contamination Management Strategy and Decision Framework (June 2015); Any soil sampling undertaken as part of contamination assessments will be undertaken in accordance with NEPM Soil Sampling Guidelines on Site Characterisation - Schedule B2; Stockpiles classified as inert will be reused. If soil is to be removed from the site to an external land fill facility, Level 1 or Level 2 soil classification criteria will be met in accordance with the EPA Tasmania Information Bulletin 105 – Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal (2012). Geomorphology Visual monitoring of dune stabilisation will occur following the sand removal and dune modification, and if necessary temporary stabilisers would be used to provide surface cover until more permanent vegetation is established. The established foredunes within the vicinity of the airport are to be fenced off to prevent vehicles and trail bikes damaging the vegetation and degrading the physical form of the dunes, as a long term management measure. Should vehicles need to traverse this area, access is to be restricted to formed gravel tracks and the surface of these tracks regularly maintained; A standalone management plan for Barilla Bay and the dune environs are not considered necessary due to the low risk associated with impacts to this environment. Any management requirements and mitigation measures will be assessed as part of the CEMP review process. Specific conditions required as part of the Commonwealth assessment process will be included in CEMPs for these areas. Acid Sulfate Soils Although the risk of acid leaching or encountering ASS has been assessed as low, periodic visual and odour monitoring throughout the duration of any sedimentary disturbance will occur.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 62
5.5 Surface and groundwater
5.5.1 Baseline conditions Surface Water The Hobart airport is located within the Meehan Range catchment on a low lying plain with a largely flat topography between three to six metres above sea level. Three major water bodies surround the site and interconnect with a number of swale drains and Sinclair Creek. Sinclair Creek originates from the Meehan Range to the west and flows across the airport site as a modified open drain, discharging to Pitt Water to the east once leaving the airport land. Sinclair Creek (as shown in Figure 1 of Section 5.4) is an important feature of a saltmarsh environment to the east of the runway which is subject to tidal inundation. The airport has an extensive internal network of piped and open lined and unlined drains which provide for the majority of stormwater drainage throughout the site. Sinclair Creek receives a substantial amount of this drainage. A large number of operations and activities at the airport have the potential to interact with the surface water drainage system and therefore there is a potential risk of pollutants entering receiving waters and being transported beyond the boundaries of the airport land. Water quality at the Hobart Airport is also influenced by activities that occur beyond the airport boundary. The airport is surrounded by rural/residential areas and semi-industrial areas within the catchment. While sampling beyond the airport boundary does not occur, water samples are obtained from a site located on the boundary, where results are used to determine the nature of offsite influences. HIAPL undertake routine water quality monitoring of Sinclair Creek and results indicate water quality that is generally within the parameters of the Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997, but on occasion exceeds the recommended levels for nutrients, bacteria and occasionally zinc. Elevated levels often coincide with stormwater events caused by heavy rainfall which is characteristic of urban waterways. HIAPL’s routine monitoring ensures the early detection of potentially contaminating events and aids in determining the point or diffuse sources of pollution and implementing management and/or mitigation measures that result in long term improvement of surface water quality results. Groundwater The airport’s groundwater is vulnerable to the effects of contamination particularly due to the permeable nature of the sandy soils and high water table. Groundwater has been recorded on average approximately two metres below the ground surface. Groundwater use within the area is generally from shallow extraction systems for purposes such as irrigation. The quality of groundwater is influenced by its proximity to open water and any activity outside of the airport grounds, including extraction by other users. The airport extracts groundwater for monitoring and reporting purposes on groundwater quality. Routine groundwater monitoring is undertaken at the site on an annual basis in both targeted areas and at the perimeter of the airport boundary.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 63
Groundwater sampled at the airport as part of routine monitoring indicates that groundwater is impacted with low levels of PFOS contaminants. While there is no groundwater data for the immediate construction area, two groundwater wells within 100m of the southern runway works area test positive for low level PFOS contamination. All sites indicate that PFOS levels are within the Airservices Australia Interim PFC waste classification categories for airports (June 2015).
5.5.2 Assessment of impacts Construction activities have the potential to increase the amount of sediment entering the drainage system and an increase in sealed surface areas such as the runway and aprons increase surface runoff, which in turn, can increase flow conditions and the mobilisation of contaminants. Potential pollutants such as jet fuel, hydraulic fluids and rubber from aircraft tyres have the potential to affect the quality of surface water run-off. The extension of the runway will not provide a significant increase to surface water run-off, and the impact of the construction and operation is assessed as low adverse. Due to the highly porous sandy soil conditions and high water table across the airport, there is also the potential for groundwater to be encountered and exposed to pollutants generated from construction activities. The sandy soils associated with the airport are highly erodible and therefore the disturbance of these soils during construction has the potential to increase erosion. Dust will be generated during construction as a result of exposed soil surfaces and associated stockpiling and handling of materials. Combined with surface runoff during wet weather events, there is a risk of sediment discharging to the open swale drains and stormwater system. The use of plant and equipment during construction works carries the risk of the release of harmful contaminants which have the potential to be exposed to the natural environment. Typical chemicals and substances stored or utilised within the project area may include fuels, oils, lubricants, hydraulic fluids and other chemicals relating to the operation of machinery. Accidental spillage or leakage, refuelling activities, failure of plant or equipment, inappropriate storage, handling and use of substances have the potential to release contaminants into the immediate environment. Once released, these contaminants may be mobilized in surface runoff or directly discharged to the stormwater system. Should PFC impacted groundwater be intercepted during construction, and exceed AsA recommended levels, liaison with AsA will occur to confirm and implement best practice management strategies. Overall the potential impact to surface water from construction has been assessed as low adverse and would be managed through the implementation of the CEMP. Operational impacts to surface water quality primarily relate to contaminants that may occur on the surfaces of the runway, taxiway and apron surfaces and be discharged via the stormwater system. The majority of the project area is surrounded by natural grassy areas which serve to filter runoff from the runway and apron areas. A smaller part of the project area is located near existing stormwater inlets which discharge into Sinclair Creek. Sinclair Creek currently
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 64
receives runoff from existing apron areas yet still has an environmental buffer of landscaped grass in between. Safety shut-off valves will be adopted for the new apron. This system ensures that any major spill from operational activities is contained prior to reaching natural drains and water courses. The project will not significantly increase the existing operational impacts to surface water which are managed in accordance with existing HIAPL management measures. The operational impact of the project on surface water has been assessed as negligible. Groundwater is unlikely to be encountered during construction, due to the depth of groundwater and the likely depth of excavation for construction. Excavation depths are expected to be a maximum of 1,500mm. As identified in Section 5.4, it is unlikely that ASS will be encountered during construction, and this would be managed in accordance with the measures in the CEMP. The impact to groundwater is therefore expected to be negligible. During operation, there will be no impacts to groundwater.
Surface Water Significance assessment Construction Low adverse Operation Negligible Groundwater Significance assessment Construction Negligible Operation Negligible
5.5.3 Mitigation measures In order to mitigate potential impacts associated with the Project, the following mitigation measures are proposed to be included in the CEMP: Where necessary, an erosion and sediment control will be required to be implemented, to minimise sediment related water quality impacts, and may include: - Installation of sediment fences or sand bags prior to ground disturbance; - Mulching, revegetation or other measures applied to cleared areas as soon as possible to stabilise the soil; and - Daily checks of the site for signs of erosion and sedimentation. Operation and maintenance of plant and equipment to minimise the risk of spills and contamination; Where necessary, a dust management plan will be required to outline dust suppression measures to be implemented during construction such as watering of access roads if required; Existing information regarding the airport drainage network will be utilised early in the planning phases of the project to ensure that potential impacts are identified early and managed appropriately; Provision of vehicle wash down areas and procedures where required;
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 65
Should groundwater be intercepted and dewatering required, all groundwater is to be managed in accordance with the Airservices Australia Managing PFC Contamination at Airports Interim Contamination Management Strategy and Decision Framework (June 2015); Appropriate pollutant control devices will be installed where activities produce potential contaminants; and Temporary soil and water management structures to be removed only after areas have been stabilised.
5.6 Biodiversity
5.6.1 Baseline Conditions Hobart Airport has a number of biodiversity values that require careful management and in some cases protection from future development. Land areas that have significant biodiversity values are contained within defined conservation areas. These areas contain Federal and/or State listed flora and remnant vegetation communities that are protected under Federal and State legislation. Those regions outside the conservation areas which are likely to be affected by the Project also have environmental values that require protection and effective management. These include areas within the airport boundary but also the surrounding receiving waters managed by the State Government of Tasmania. Environmentally Significant Areas The initial identification of environmentally significant areas was undertaken as part of the development of the AES in 2005 and is a requirement of the Act and the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997. In 2009, the Federal listing of the Tasmanian Lowland Native Grasslands as Critically Endangered added to the areas of environmental significance at the Hobart Airport. An assessment of the native grasslands at the airport was undertaken in 2011 identifying areas that qualify for EPBC listing. This new information has been incorporated into Figure 11 Hobart Airport Environmentally Significant Areas and is further illustrated by areas of national significance in Figure 12.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 66
Figure 11: Environmental Significant areas
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 67
Figure 12: Vegetation significance within Environmentally Significant areas
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 68
Commonwealth Values Environmental values of Commonwealth significance on airport land and protected under the EPBC Act include the following: Carex tasmanica (Curly sedge) in landside areas; Perameles gunnii (Eastern-barred bandicoot); EPBC listed lowland native Tasmanian grasslands; and Aboriginal heritage artefact and artefact scatter locations, predominantly landside. Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon (PWOL) a Ramsar listed wetland to the north-east of the airport which has the potential to receive runoff from airport land and is the location for the existing and proposed HIAL. The HIAL extension footprint is addressed in Appendix A. State Values Environmental values of State significance on airport land and protected under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) and the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NC Act) include the following: Thirteen state-listed flora species have been identified on airport land, of which only Coastal hound’s tongue (Cynoglossum australe) has been recorded in the area proposed for the runway extension, as well as the Seven Mile Beach dune area at the southern end of the runway. This species is listed as rare under the TSP Act and is common on airport land, occurring in surrounding areas both airside and landside. The status of this species is currently under review for delisting and will be formalised within the next 12 months. The remaining twelve species are not considered to occur within the footprint to be impacted by this project; Listed as vulnerable under the TSP Act, Pseudemoia pagenstecheri (Tussock skink) has a high likelihood of occurring on site within the EPBC grassland areas. While preliminary surveys have not resulted in the positive identification of this species, there have been inconclusive sightings in landside grassland areas, outside the project footprint; and State listed vegetation communities exist on airport land and are predominantly located landside. The Eucalyptus viminalis – Eucalyptus globulus coastal forest and woodland is located in tracts to the east of the runway with fragmented patches of this forest type located in the ESAs outside the project footprint. The HIAL extension footprint is addressed in Appendix A.
5.6.2 Assessment of impacts Commonwealth Values Existing HIAL lights and footings may require upgrading and repair as part of the project. Impacts to receiving waters and species within those waters have been
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 69
assessed as part of this Project. An EPBC referral was prepared and submitted in August 2014 for assessment however was postponed so that all potential impacts could be assessed as a whole project. The details of the EPBC referral addressed the potential impacts on marine ecology and nesting/migratory birds which may inhabit the waters and land areas of the wetland. The outcomes of each assessment indicate that impacts to fauna in Barilla Bay and foreshore are low and there would not be a significant impact to EPBC listed environmental values. The EPBC Referral is reproduced in Appendix A. In 2013, the Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh vegetation community was listed as Vulnerable under section 184 of the EPBC Act, however is not currently listed under Tasmanian legislation. The airport has two locations where this vegetation community exists. The largest and more intact saltmarsh lies east of the runway between the airside fence and Pittwater Road. This area will not be impacted on as part of the runway extension project. A smaller, more isolated and fragmented saltmarsh area is located land side and fringes the land area proposed for the Grueber Avenue alignment. While vulnerable communities do not trigger the requirement for a permit or assessment of significant impact under the Act, HIAPL acknowledge that appropriate management actions should be implemented to minimise the risk of adverse impacts where possible. As such, on finalisation of the preliminary designs for the road, an ecological assessment of the saltmarsh community will be undertaken in order to determine the long term management actions required for this community. Any recommendations made from the investigation will be incorporated into relevant CEMPs for this aspect of the project. State Values The potential for impacts to listed species is limited to the Coastal hound’s tongue which is the only state listed species that has the potential to occur within the vicinity of the proposed extension works, having been recorded in the area proposed for the runway extension, as well as the Seven Mile Beach dune area at the southern end of the runway. This species is listed as rare under the TSP Act. Disturbed land areas have the potential to be invaded by weed species local to the area. The dune area has infestations of Lupins Lupinus arboreus which are included as a target species in the HIAPL Weed Monitoring Program. These weeds are monitored and mapped on an annual basis. Environmental assessments undertaken on the dune area where Coastal hound’s tongue is present indicate that any impacts to the area of dune being removed and the dune system as a whole, will be low. Coastal hound’s tongue is not currently in the footprint of the dune area to be removed. The closest population of this species is at the end of the eastern most part of the dune near the airport boundary. The twelve state-listed flora species that are not considered to occur within the footprint will not be impacted by this project. The State listed vegetation communities to the east of the runway will not be impacted on as a result of the Project. The EPBC grassland areas where there have been inconclusive sightings of the Tussock skink are not subject to disturbance as a result of the Project.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 70
A desktop terrestrial fauna assessment was undertaken to determine whether there would be any impacts on nesting birds or migratory birds that utilise or flyover the wetland area. Impacts to fauna as a result of the new HIAL installation in Barilla Bay and foreshore activity are considered low. A Forest Practices Plan has been prepared for the freehold land title which is comprised of an ageing pine forest plantation. No environmental values have been identified for the freehold land area. The information contained within the FPP will be incorporated into the overall ecological assessment for Grueber Avenue. On completion of the preliminary design for Grueber Avenue, an ecological assessment will be undertaken of the proposed route by a qualified ecologist. An on ground survey will be required in order to identify the presence of any listed species at the State or Commonwealth level. The 2011 floristic survey identified that Coastal hound’s tongue may occur within the proposed road alignment. This species is currently under review for delisting at the state level and is known to occur in large population numbers in other areas of the airport that will not be impacted on by the proposed works associated with this project. The timing of the ecological survey will be scheduled at the optimal flowering time for this species (October to March). No additional threatened species have been previously recorded in the proposed works area, both land side and airside. The ecological investigation report will be provided to the AEO for review and comment prior to any works commencing. No other impacts to biodiversity are anticipated as a result of the Project works.
Biodiversity Significance Assessment Construction Low Adverse Operation Low Adverse
5.6.3 Mitigation Measures Should this species be observed at the time of the ecological investigation (and delisting has not yet occurred) a permit to destroy will be sought from the Threatened Species Unit within the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE). The management of risks to biodiversity values will be addressed by undertaking the following: Prior to construction works occurring, a floristic survey will be undertaken in the proposed area of works to determine the presence and extent (or absence) of listed species present; Should the state listed species Coastal hound’s tongue be present in the construction footprint area, a threatened species Permit to Destroy will be sought from the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) for the removal of individuals; Active weed monitoring will occur throughout the project to ensure that invasive species are identified and controlled. CEMPs will be reviewed to
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 71
ensure that weed management and control is both planned and effective. HIAPL's ongoing annual weed monitoring program will include construction areas associated with the project. This will ensure that any potential weed management issue is addressed early and controlled to minimise the risk of weed infestation of these areas. To avoid any potential impacts to oyster leases works associated with the HIPAL has consulted with the closest lease holder. Where possible, installation will be undertaken at a time that does not impact on harvesting of the oysters for example during the oyster spawning season (January – February). Any construction works during the harvesting period (October- December) will be avoided; Prior to construction the shoreline adjacent to the development will be searched to identify any active nesting sites and where practical, a buffer of 200 metres be placed around the nest site. Nests containing eggs will be more sensitive to disturbance than pairs with dependent young; Should a nest site be located in the immediate construction footprint, the Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania will be contacted in the first instance for advice and preferred action; and Prior to works associated with the installation of new HIAL in Barilla Bay a foreshore ecological assessment will be undertaken to assess the potential for nesting birds. If any nests or nest sites are located, a barricade will be installed around the nesting site, including a suitable buffer. All construction works will be required to avoid the exclusion zones. On completion of the HIAL installation, any nesting sites will be reassessed and exclusion barricades removed. Nest locations within the proposed construction area which cannot be protected by a barricade will be relocated to a suitable location by a wildlife handler. To the extent possible, construction will be avoided during breeding seasons for coastal birds. Mitigation Measures Reproduced from Appendix A: EPBC Act Referral: A works approval is required from Crown Land Services prior to any construction work commencing. Included in the works approval will be any conditions imposed on the construction method and/or timing. A proposed amendment to the existing license agreement to extend the existing approach lights is also required; Selecting an appropriate construction method and timeframe that minimises sediment dispersal; Although the risk of acid leaching has been assessed as low, risk mitigation measures will be required to be adopted during the construction phase to ensure Acid Sulphate Soils do not become an issue during the construction phase. This may include periodic visual and odour monitoring throughout the duration of any sedimentary disturbance; Schedule relevant construction activities to occur at low tide to minimise sediment transfer caused by water flow through the existing channel;
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 72
Monitor marine water quality prior to and post construction and in consultation with Barilla Bay oyster farmers; Access the coastal environment via formed tracks that are already in place for the maintenance of the existing approach lights; A CEMP will be prepared for the proposed works. All environmental requirements provided in specialist reports will be considered for inclusion in the CEMP; and Onsite inspections by the HIAPL Environmental Manager during the construction phase will ensure that the environmental management measures within the CEMP are being adhered to.
5.7 Cultural Heritage
5.7.1 Baseline conditions Historical Cultural Heritage As the airport is located on Commonwealth land, any place of heritage value is protected under the EPBC Act. It is also important to consider places of heritage value that are subject to the provisions listed under the Tasmanian Historic Cultural Heritage Act (1995). The Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) is a list of heritage places owned or managed by the Commonwealth Government. There are no sites on airport land that are currently listed on the CHL. In terms of historic heritage, Llanherne House is the only registered place of historic significance located on airport grounds and is currently registered under the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR). Llanherne House is located on the top of Llanherne Hill, directly behind the Airport Control Tower. It is not located in any area that is subject to works associated with the Project. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) maintains the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index (TASI) database which contains information on previously recorded Aboriginal heritage sites throughout Tasmania. All sites are protected under the Aboriginal Relics Act (1975) which is administered by AHT. Aboriginal heritage values exist in a number of locations at the airport in the form of individual artefacts and artefact scatters. The results of the TASI database search indicated that there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within the proposed development areas.
5.7.2 Assessment of impacts Investigations in 2008 and follow up investigations in 2011 and 2014 by AHT confirm that there are no known Aboriginal artefacts or scatters that have previously been recorded within the proposed area for construction and associated works. As such, the potential for undiscovered artefacts is likely to be low in the
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 73
immediate footprint area and the existing Aboriginal heritage within the airport boundary will not be impacted by the construction or operation of the Project. Accordingly there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and AHT have no objection to the project proceeding. Construction or operation of the Project will not impact on any historic (European) heritage value.
Heritage Significance Assessment Construction Negligible Operation Negligible
5.7.3 Mitigation management The management of risks to heritage values will be addressed by undertaking the following: Should a suspected artefact be located during construction relevant activities will be required to cease immediately and contact will be made with the relevant State and Commonwealth departments. An assessment of the site will be undertaken and appropriate actions identified; and An Unanticipated Recovery Plan will be submitted to AHT prior to construction work commencing. This plan will outline the course of action to be taken should an artefact be observed during construction.
5.8 Air Quality The proposed runway extension development at Hobart Airport will impact on local air quality, as a result of increased air and road traffic. The following section provides the findings of a desk top qualitative assessment of local air quality impacts for the construction and operational phases of the Project. The Australian Government Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations (1997) provide ambient air quality objectives at an airport, but these do not apply to aircraft engine emissions and are particularly related to air pollutants emitted from a stationary source within the airport. However, no stationary sources of air emissions will occur as a result of this project. Therefore, the key policy document for air quality off site from the airport is the Tasmanian Government Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 (EPP (Air)). The relevant air quality objectives for the key pollutants of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide in the EPP (Air) are based on the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) within the meaning of the National Environment Protection Council (Tasmania) Act 1995.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 74
5.8.1 Baseline conditions Air quality monitoring is not carried out at the airport. The nearest monitoring station is the Hobart New-Town Station, located approximately 16 km from the airport. As per the table below, background air quality levels for all key pollutants recorded at the Hobart New-Town Monitoring Station are well below the relevant NEPM objectives. Table 4: Background air quality levels for key pollutants at Hobart
Pollutant Background air Reference Applicable NEPM Background quality and source year Objective air quality compared to NEPM
3 3 PM10 0.0171 mg/m Hobart New- 2013 0.050 mg/m 34 percent of (Maximum, 24 hour Town (24-hour) NEPM objective avg. period, 75th Monitoring percentile for 2013) Station
3 3 PM2.5 0.0068 mg/m Hobart New- 2013 0.025 mg/m 63 percent of (Maximum, 24-hour Town (24-hour) NEPM objective avg. period, 75th Monitoring percentile for 2013) Station
CO 2.3ppm Tasmania 2000-2004 9.0ppm 26 percent of (carbon (Maximum 8-hour avg. NEPM 2013, (8-hour) NEPM objective Monoxide) period, maximum from Prince of during time period) Wales Bay
SO2 0.136ppm Tasmania 2001-2003 0.20ppm 68 percent of (sulphur (Maximum, 1-hour NEPM 2013, (1-hr) NEPM objective dioxide) avg. period, maximum from during time period) Technology Park
NO2 There is no monitoring Tasmania - 0.12ppm Assumed to be 0 (nitrogen data for NO2 in Hobart. NEPM 2013 percent of dioxide) According to the NEPM objective Tasmanian Air Monitoring Report 2013, there are no significant sources of NO2 and ambient air quality is expected to be well below the relevant Air NEPM objective.
Meteorological conditions at Hobart Airport are also relevant for air quality impacts, particularly wind direction and strength. Based on observations from the past 50 years, the most frequent winds in the morning occur from the NW direction. In the afternoon, no particular wind direction dominates, but the most frequent tend to occur from the SE and NW directions. A majority of wind speeds are less than 20 km/h.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 75
For further context, nearby sensitive receptors, i.e. residential homes, commercial buildings, and community facilities that may be impacted by local air quality sources at the airport, are located at a distance of approximately 1 to 2.5km from the Hobart Airport Terminal.
5.8.2 Assessment of impacts Construction Impacts Air emissions can occur during the construction phase of the project, typically dust and products of combustion as discussed below. Construction activities potentially generate dust. Whilst these emission are not on- going, there may be instances where high-winds can lead to the dispersion of dust from uncontrolled earthworks sites and uncovered stockpiles with resultant, impacts on sensitive receptors. These impacts can be effectively managed by application of appropriate controls. Some vehicle traffic emissions will also occur from truck and heavy vehicle movements, which will vary over the course of the construction period. However, it is estimated that the increase in vehicle emissions, based on the low ambient emission levels for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, will not be a significant additional impact during construction. It is also likely that a concrete or bitumen plant will be required on-site during the construction period. Such plants can be sources of dust, particularly at the points of loading from deliveries and into hoppers and related equipment. However, these can be controlled through suitable mitigation practices such as water sprays at loading points and covers or having enclosed systems. It should be also noted that asphalt plants can also be sources of odour. With sensitive receptors located at least 1km away from the closest airport boundary, it is not likely that there would be significant air quality impacts from such a plant. Operational Impacts – Aircraft Emissions An assessment of total air emissions from flights was undertaken, based on airline schedules, projected air traffic and emission factors from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It is expected that emissions will increase regardless of whether the project proceeds or not, due to increased air traffic. The combustion of fuel from both road vehicles and aircraft engines will exhaust air emissions. In 2019, without the project occurring, it is estimated that there will still be an increase in air quality emissions (a 22 percent increase for each CO, NO2 and SO2) compared to a 2014 baseline. This is primarily due to increased passenger demand for domestic air traffic. As a result of the project, it is anticipated that there will be an additional minor increase in flights, due to new flights international flights including to and from Antarctica. Based on an emissions estimate, the project induced increase in air traffic demand will lead to a minimal increase (approximately 0.6 percent to 0.7 percent) of total projected air emissions in 2019 compared to 2014 levels.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 76
Operational Impacts – Road Traffic Emissions Road traffic emissions are generated from passenger, employee, commercial and freight road travel at the airport. The relevant emissions are PM10, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. Based on forecast traffic demand modelling for the project, peak hour traffic is anticipated to increase from 854 vehicles per hour to 1,310 vehicles per hour in 2019 – again, it is expected that emissions will increase regardless of whether the project proceeds or not, due to the forecast increase in air traffic. The NSW Government Transport, Roads & Maritime Services (2012) Tool for Roadside Air Quality (TRAQ) was used as a first-pass, worst-case screening assessment for the site. TRAQ utilises the CALINE 4 air dispersion model, and provides predicted concentrations at various distances from a road. The results of the assessment (Table 5) indicate that at a worst-case scenario, air quality levels for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and PM10 are well below the relevant NEPM objectives. Furthermore, the nearest sensitive off-airport receptors are situated more than 1km from the closest airport boundary and based on the results, sensitive receptors (such as residential properties) will not be impacted by roadside air emissions. Table 5: Worst-case scenario air quality level assessment
Air quality Maximum 8-hour Maximum 1-hour Maximum levels average CO average NO2 concentration (ppm) concentrations (ppm) 2014 2019 2029 2014 2019 2029 2014 2019 2029 Assumed 2.30 2.30 2.30 0 0 0 20.20 20.20 20.20 background air quality 10m from road 2.46 2.71 2.87 0.004 0.007 0.010 23.30 24.40 26.10 200m from road 2.30 2.38 2.38 0.001 0.002 0.003 20.80 21.00 21.30 NEPM Objective 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.120 0.120 0.120 50.00 50.00 50.00
Overall Impact Air quality was assessed at a qualitative and semi-quantitative level for the proposed runway extension at Hobart Airport. The assessment identified that there will be increases in aircraft and vehicle movements at the airport during the assessment period, regardless of whether the project proceeds or not. Further, the increase in air emissions from this additional traffic “without project” will be greater that the additional emissions resulting from the project. Based on background air quality and the scale of the project, it is likely that there will be no exceedances of NEPM objectives for the relevant pollutants of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. The table below provides a summary of air quality impacts at Hobart Airport.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 77
Table 6: Results of assessment for operational air quality impacts contributed by road traffic emissions
Air quality Air emission Summary of Impact Summary of Assessment source Construction Particulate matter Dust (possibly sand) Low – local impact during
(PM10, PM2.5) occurring from times of high-winds, construction earthworks, otherwise negligible. dune profiling and stockpiling Construction Combustion Vehicle construction Negligible – as emissions emissions from truck and construction emissions will
(PM10, PM2.5, CO, heavy vehicle movements. not impact ambient air SO2 and NO2) quality. Operation Combustion Aircraft emissions increase Negligible – as project emissions due to project. leads to minimal increase
(CO, SO2 and NO2) in air traffic. However, air emissions will increase regardless of the project (due to increasing forecast flights). Operation Combustion and Road traffic emissions Negligible - minimal emissions form employee and increase and below NEPM
(PM10, CO and passenger movements. objectives. NO2) Operation Particulate matter Emissions from hot fire Negligible – as there is no
(PM10, PM2.5) training exercises. change in emissions from baseline.
5.8.3 Mitigation measures Under certain windy conditions, construction work can potentially lead to dust emissions. To mitigate these impacts, as part of construction, air quality controls and procedures will be included in the CEMP as required. Specifically, under high-wind conditions (where wind speeds exceed 10m/s over a 10 minute period), construction activities that produce dust will be required to be controlled by water spraying or covering, or where no control exist, relevant activities will be required to cease. Where areas are disturbed, these will be require to be stabilised in order to control dust emissions from wind-blown dusts and spills. Furthermore, any activities that can result in dust generation such as transportation and stockpiling of spoil or construction material, will be required to be covered or controlled by sprays. All fuel-burning construction equipment will be required to meet relevant industry emission standards. During the period in which the topography of the foredunes is modified and the time it takes for vegetation to recover, the potential for wind-blown sand is increased. Marram grass is widely distributed in the foredunes. It spreads vigorously across bare sandy areas and it is likely that this will quickly stabilise the lowered foredunes. This will be required to be monitored and where additional measures are required, these will be provided to ensure that these environmental and safety impacts are mitigated. Details of these monitoring and mitigation
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 78
measures will be detailed in the CEMP, Risk Management Plan and Dust Management Plan as required. The qualitative assessment of air and road traffic increases due the operational phase of the project found that that whilst there would be some impact on the local air quality a result of the project, the air quality is still well under the relevant NEPM objectives. Therefore no extensive mitigation actions are required to be carried out for the operational phase of the project.
5.9 Aircraft Noise The proposed extended runway has the potential to change the aircraft noise impact on the area surrounding the airport when compared to the existing conditions. A noise study has been undertaken to investigate the change in noise environment due to the proposed runway extension. This is highlighted in the limited changes to the arriving and departing aircraft tracks shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. A computer noise model for aircraft in flight (including take-off and landing) was developed using the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) noise modelling software Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 7.0d. Noise levels are predicted by assigning aircraft movements and models to flight tracks. Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate the arrivals and departures flight tracks (respectively) with and without the extension of the runway. The noise model was based on discussions with Airservices Australia, local Air Traffic Control (ATC), local aircraft operators and forecasts by Airbiz and Tourism Futures International (TFI). The potential aircraft noise impact has been predicted for the following noise metrics: 1. ANEC (Australian Noise Exposure Concept) The ANEC is a variation of the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) and is typically produced for informational purposes. The ANEC is identical to the ANEF but is not formally endorsed by Airservices Australia, nor is endorsement required. Developments falling within different ANEF/ANEC contours are to be considered for acceptability under Australian Standard AS2021:2015.
2. N70 and N60 The N70 and N60 parameters represent the sum of aircraft movements that would exceed a maximum predicted noise level of 70 dB(A) or 60 dB(A) respectively at a particular location on the ground. The two noise levels are generally considered to cause noise disturbance during the day and night time respectively, and therefore the noise model considers flights for both time periods separately. Given the relatively limited urban development around Hobart Airport and consequently typically lower levels of ambient noise, aircraft event noise may be more prominent compared to more developed urban settings. The
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 79
N60 has been produced for the day time period as it represents a lower noise level threshold commensurate with a lower ambient noise level. Four noise contours have been modelled to enable two pairs of comparisons: Table 7: Noise modelling comparisons
Scenario Comparison Without Runway With Runway Extension Extension Current / Short Term 2014 Existing Scenario 2016 with Runway Extension Medium Term Forecast (20 2035 without Runway 2035 with Runway extension Years) extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 80
Figure 13: Arrivals flight tracks with and without runway extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 81
Figure 14: Departures flight tracks with and without extended runway
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 82
5.9.1 Baseline conditions Due to the orientation of the runway, the majority of land within the ANEC contours are located over Pitt Water to the north, and Frederick Henry Bay to the south. No significant noise sensitive receivers are located within the ANECs. Aircraft noise impact for the existing runway length (without the proposed runway extension) are represented in the 2014 Existing Scenario and the 2035 without Runway Extension noise contours.
The N70 contours for the 2014 Existing Scenario and the 2035 without Runway Extension scenario extend over Pitt Water and Frederick Henry Bay. The N60 contours are larger than the N70 due to the wider area exposed to the lower noise level. The night time N60 contours are smaller than the day time N60 contours due to a different aircraft mix during the night period compared to the day time.
5.9.2 Impact assessment
To investigate the aircraft noise impact of the runway extension the ANEC, N70 and N60 contours have been produced for the extended runway. The difference in forecast flights for 2035 with and without the runway extension was not significant for an average day, with only two additional aircraft movements per day (less than 2 % increase). Similarly, the forecast difference in flights between 2014 and 2016 with Runway Extension for an average day was not significant with two additional movements per day (less than 5 %). Peak days are forecast to have a smaller percentage increase in flight movements than the average days. The forecast change in fixed wing aircraft movements are summarised in Table 8. This assessment has been undertaken for an average and peak day period (levels across 24 hours) for short and medium term scenarios. The noise study compared the 2014 and 2016 with-runway extension scenarios, which did not include any additional (non-Antarctic) international traffic as (non-Antarctic) international flights are forecast to commence in 2017, but does include some additional domestic flights. Table 8: Forecast fixed wing aircraft movements
Scenario Average Day Movements Peak Day Movements Without With % Without With % Increase Runway Runway Increase Runway Runway due to Extension Extension due to Extension Extension Runway Runway Extension Extension Current / 55 57 105% 70 72 103% Short Term Medium 105 107 102% 136 138 101% Term Forecast (20 Years)
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 83
Discussions with Hobart ATC confirmed flight tracks for an extended runway would generally be similar to existing tracks except for minor adjustments to specific tracks to reflect the extended runway threshold locations. Tracks affected by an extended runway include arrival tracks and their touchdown points on the runway, and departure tracks and the location of turns when achieving prescribed altitude thresholds. These changes have been included in the noise modelling. The difference in forecast flights for 2035 with and without the runway extension was not significant with only two additional aircraft movements per day (less than 3 percent increase). Similarly, the forecast difference in flights between 2014 and 2016 with Runway Extension was not significant with two additional movements per day (less than 5 percent). The extended runway will marginally alter the touchdown and takeoff points for aircraft operating on the runway, which will have a small effect on the location of the aircraft noise source. For arriving aircraft into Hobart, the extended runway will provide target touchdown points slightly closer to the surrounding bodies of water and therefore shift the noise profile of aircraft away from the airport and over the water bodies. For aircraft departing from Hobart, the aircraft will begin their takeoff procedures at the proposed runway thresholds resulting in a small shift in the aircraft noise profile from departures towards the proposed runway departure thresholds. The result of the changes to the take-off and landing points discussed above is that the contours increase marginally in size and footprint with the runway extension. However, in some locations these changes result in marginal decreases in the contour footprint. The noise contours are presented in Figure 15 to Figure 22 on the following pages. Given forecasts indicate an increased number of aircraft movements from 2014 to 2035, the size of the ANECs and the quantity of predicted N70 and N60 events increases accordingly between these years. Both the year 2014/2016 and the year 2035 comparisons show small changes in ANEC footprint. The ANEC for the extended runway scenarios are ‘stretched’ along the runway ends into the adjacent bodies of water, are narrower near the middle of the runway.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 84
Figure 15: ANEC, 2014 without Runway Extension and 2016 with Runway Extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 85
Figure 16: ANEC, 2035 without Runway Extension and 2035 with Runway Extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 86
Figure 17: N70, 2014 Existing Runway and 2016 with Runway Extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 87
Figure 18: N70, 2035 with Runway Extension and 2035 without Runway Extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 88
Figure 19: N60 Daytime, 2014 Existing Runway and 2016 with Runway Extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 89
Figure 20: N60 Daytime, 2035 with Runway Extension and 2035 without Runway Extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 90
Figure 21: N60 Night time, 2014 existing runway and 2016 with Runway Extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 91
Figure 22: N60 Night time, 2035 with Runway Extension and without Runway Extension
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 92
5.9.3 Mitigation measures Hobart Airport has to date been fortunate in that the operation of aircraft has caused little conflict with the local community. This is aided by the geographical nature of Hobart Airport – with bodies of water at each end of the airport’s runway and a large tract of vacant recreational land to the east under the Airport’s key approach path, and with good planning from Clarence City Council. Due to the orientation of the airport runway, noise from aircraft movements mostly affects locations without major areas of noise sensitive receivers and this is expected to be consistent with the proposed runway extension. As such, there are no sensitive use areas forecast to be subject to exposure above the significant ANEF levels and Hobart Airport has not been required to develop any plans for the management of aircraft noise intrusion over existing residences. As no significant change to the aircraft noise environment surrounding Hobart Airport has been identified in the short- or medium- term due to the proposed runway extension, no specific noise mitigation strategies are proposed at this stage. If any such plans were required HIAPL would have regard to AS2021, the view of airlines and relevant government bodies. It is also considered important that an appropriate buffer be maintained around the airport to manage encroachment of residential development. However, notwithstanding the above, Hobart Airport is mindful of the potential impacts of aircraft noise. The Airport therefore will continue to work with planning authorities and the community to control potential noise impacts from its operation to the surrounding community.
5.10 Ground-based noise This section sets out the likely effect of the runway extension project on ground based noise at and around Hobart Airport.
5.10.1 Baseline conditions Notable existing ground-based noise sources from Hobart Airport have been identified as: Aircraft taxiing, idling and ground-running on the taxiways and aprons; Traffic noise from predominantly public vehicles accessing the airport terminal and car park. Aircraft Auxiliary Power Units (APUs); and Ground-based support vehicles, including generators. Ground-based noise sources may be audible occasionally at nearby noise sensitive receivers, including residential dwellings. The nearest identified area of noise sensitive receivers are residential dwellings located more than 1 km south of the airport on Surf Road. The change in ground-based noise sources and noise levels have been assessed for the proposed runway extension.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 93
5.10.2 Impact assessment Noise emission from airports are governed by the Airport (Environmental Protection) Regulations 1997. Ground-based noise sources must comply with the stipulated noise limits. Noise limits applicable to the proposed runway extension and identified noise sources are summarised below: Noise generated from construction, maintenance or demolition of a building or other structure at an airport should not exceed 75 dBLA10 at the site of a sensitive receptor for a period of at least 15 minutes, adjusted to take account of tonal character or impulsive characteristics (if any); Noise generated from road traffic at the site of the airport should not exceed 60 dBLAEq,24hrs and 55 dBLAeq,2200hrs to 0600hrs; and Note that the Regulations specifically exclude noise generated by aircraft in flight (including take-offs and landings) or aircraft taxiing at an airport. Construction Works Construction works are most likely to be undertaken at the proposed runway threshold, aprons, Surf Road and Grueber Avenue. Noise from construction works will be generated due to construction vehicles and equipment accessing and working near the runway; these may include trucks, bulldozers, excavators and compactors. It is expected that construction works will predominantly occur during the daytime, and night time works limited to works that affect runway or other airport operations. Construction noise levels from works on the runway and aprons are expected to comply with the Regulations given the large distance and significant noise attenuation between the works being undertaken on the runway and the nearest noise sensitive receivers. Similarly, construction noise from the modification and construction of Surf Road and Grueber Avenue are expected to comply with the Regulations. Road Traffic Noise from vehicles are not expected to exceed the noise limits outlined above for the expected traffic flows or the proposed future road network. Ground-based Aircraft and Other Operations The proposed runway extension will affect aircraft taxi movements on the runway and the aprons. The large distance between the airport and the nearest residential receivers provides significant noise attenuation. Therefore, the small changes in aircraft ground movements is not expected to result in a significant change in noise level at the residential properties from aircraft taxiing or idling. Furthermore, noise from aircraft taxiing are specifically excluded from the Regulations. Noise from other ground based operations, including APUs and support vehicles, are also expected to comply with the Regulations.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 94
Ground based Noise Significance Assessment Construction Low adverse Operation Negligible
5.10.3 Mitigation measures The large distance between the airport and the noise sensitive properties provides significant noise attenuation which will reduce noise generated by construction. Noise from existing major noise sources are therefore not expected to change significantly. As the proposed runway extension will change the existing noise emissions by a negligible amount, no specific noise mitigation strategies are proposed however it is recommended reasonable noise mitigation controls should be considered in the planning of the construction activities. Any noise complaints received relating to the project will be documented within HIAPL's Integrated Management System (IMS). Any mitigation actions required will be documented and implemented in response to any complaint.
5.11 Hazardous materials
5.11.1 Baseline conditions Hazardous materials are those that have the potential to cause harm to the environment, people or property. Hazardous materials that have the potential to be present at the airport include fuels, paints, solvents, herbicides and asbestos related material. HIAPL have an Asbestos Register which is reviewed and updated annually. A review of the register indicates that there is no known asbestos related material currently located airside or in the project area.
5.11.2 Impact assessment Any hazardous materials will be handled and stored according to relevant standards and existing management plans, therefore there are negligible impacts relating to hazardous materials as part of the Project. The relevant standards will also apply to construction activities.
Hazardous Materials Significance Assessment Construction Negligible Operation Negligible
5.11.3 Mitigation measures CEMPs will be required to address appropriate storage and handling requirements to prevent impacts to the environment or to human health. Should asbestos be
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 95
encountered during construction the management requirements outlined in the HIAPL Asbestos Management Plan (Feb 2011) will be required to be adhered to.
5.12 Traffic and transport The existing and planned transport networks for Hobart Airport were reviewed for current, opening and design life stages (years 2014, 2016 and 2035). This review includes a forecast of traffic volumes, the development of movement volumes for key intersections, and a SIDRA analysis of the preliminary intersection layouts. Transport System There are a range of transport types that use the existing road network to access Hobart Airport. Ground transport users include passengers, employees, commercial operators and freight operators. The key travel modes that utilise the network include private vehicles, the Redline Airporter Bus, taxis and registered hire cars, rental cars, off-airport shuttle buses, cycling, walking and freight and logistics. The wide range of modes described above circulates through Hobart Airport in different ways. Circulation routes are largely related to the mode, function that the vehicles are performing and the location of the terminal, parking and commercial facilities at Hobart Airport. Hobart Airport aims to increase public transport options over time. However, this will not notably affect the overall operation of the road network in relation to the runway extension, and as such has not been considered further in the assessment of transport impacts. This is a conservative approach, as any future mode change will likely reduce overall traffic growth.
5.12.1 Baseline conditions The existing network allows access to the airport via Holyman Avenue from the Tasman Highway. Holyman Avenue is a two-way road to the parking control system at the airport, where it becomes a one-way roadway through the pick-up / drop-off area to Golf Street. Gatty Street intersects with Holyman Avenue south of the parking control system on Holyman Avenue and is a short two-way road connecting with Golf Street to the east. There is currently no connection between Holyman Avenue and Seven Mile Beach Road / Surf Road / Pittwater Road. The existing road network is shown in Figure 23.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 96
Figure 23: Existing road network
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 97
Existing Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes have been sourced from Austraffic, with counts dated November 2014 at Holyman Avenue, Gatty Street, Seven Mile Beach Road and Pittwater Road. Traffic volumes at the Tasman Highway / Holyman Avenue intersection have been sourced from the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources. The existing two-way peak hour volumes on the network are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Current network two-way peak hour volumes
Road AM Peak Volumes (vph) PM Peak Volumes (vph) Tasman Highway 2,130 2,450 Holyman Avenue 600 530 Gatty Street 420 410 Seven Mile Beach Road 150 230 Surf Road 90 100 * Note that Surf Road numbers are based on traffic count just north of Surf Road on Pittwater Road, but these are considered to be representative of peak hour volumes on Surf Road.
Growth Rates Existing traffic volumes have been forecast out to the 2016 and 2035 design years through the application of the following growth rates. These rates have been sourced from the master planning expectations of the Hobart International Airport, and the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources. Table 10: Traffic growth rates
Road Traffic Growth Rate Tasman Highway 2.8% Holyman Avenue 4.0% Gatty Street 4.0% Seven Mile Beach Road 2.8% Pittwater Road 5.8%
Future Road Network The extension of the runway will result in the following changes to the road network: Construction of the new Grueber Avenue connection from Holyman Avenue to Surf Road. This will be a two lane, two way road; Removal of Surf Road connection to Pittwater Road; and The closure of a section of Surf Road at the south eastern end of the runway and hence removal of the existing Surf Road / Pittwater Road connection will result in
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 98
a portion of existing traffic redirecting through Grueber Avenue to access the Tasman Highway. The future road network is illustrated in Figure 24 below. It is understood that the future government planning includes an upgrade to the existing Tasman Highway / Holyman Avenue intersection. The timing for this upgrade is currently unknown.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 99
Figure 24: Future road network
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 100
5.12.2 Impact assessment The key traffic and transport impacts arising from the runway are summarised as follows: Increase in traffic volumes resulting from increased passenger movements. This is a minor incremental increase which has been included in the following analysis; Closure of Surf Road and rerouting of some existing traffic along the new Grueber Avenue access to the Tasman Highway; and Construction traffic. The following intersections have been assessed as part of this analysis using SIDRA 6.1: Tasman Highway / Holyman Avenue; Holyman Avenue / Gatty Street; and Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue. The degree of saturation (DOS) is a measure of the operational capacity for intersections. DOS greater than 85% is considered over capacity for a roundabout and 80% for a priority-controlled (i.e. unsignalised) intersection. Tasman Highway / Holyman Avenue Access to the Hobart Airport is provided via the Tasman Highway, a key north- east regional freight link. SIDRA analysis demonstrates that the Airport entry at the Tasman Highway / Holyman Avenue roundabout is currently operating outside acceptable limits (126% during the morning peak, and 98% for the evening peak). The Airport’s growth will increase traffic flows by 2-3 per cent causing further congestion, and raising efficiency concerns for the key freight route (i.e. the Tasman Highway). As mentioned previously, the government has identified a need to upgrade the Tasman Highway / Holyman Avenue intersection. However, the local authority has identified that these future upgrade works have not been progressed. Despite being outside the jurisdiction of the Hobart Airport Master Plan, the Australian Government has a strategic interest in highlighting this potential supply chain issue in the regional freight network. Holyman Avenue / Gatty Street The Holyman Avenue / Gatty Street intersection is currently a priority-controlled “T” intersection. No changes to the operation of the Holyman Avenue / Gatty Street intersection is proposed as part of the future works at the airport. The SIDRA results for the morning and evening peak hour periods are presented below in Table 11.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 101
Table 11: Holyman Avenue / Gatty Street Intersection Operations
Scenario Maximum DOS Maximum Delay 95th percentile Queue 2016 AM Peak 26% 5 sec 9 m 2016 PM Peak 23% 5 sec 8 m 2035 AM Peak 62% 10 sec 50 m 2035 PM Peak 53% 7 sec 25 m
These results demonstrate that the intersection is anticipated to continue to operate within acceptable limits over the design horizon, with adequate DOS and minimal delay and queues. Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue The preliminary layout of the Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue intersection was developed and is shown below.
The SIDRA analysis results over the design horizon for this intersection with the above layout arrangement demonstrated that the preliminary layout will not be able to cater for the expected traffic volumes at the intersection over the design horizon (127% - 113% DOS with unacceptable delays and queues in 2035). In order to improve capacity at the Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue intersection, two upgrade options were assessed: 1. Change of priority “T” intersection; and 2. Roundabout. Option 1 – Change of Priority “T” Intersection The major traffic volumes are generated within the terminal precinct and therefore results in vehicles travelling to / from the Airport (Holyman Avenue) and the Tasman Highway being the dominant movements. The following layout was therefore developed to provide priority to this major movement.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 102
A summary of the Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue intersection with the above layout is presented below in Table 12. Table 12: Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue Change of Priority Intersection Options
Scenario DOS Delay 95th percentile Queue 2016 AM Peak 23% 13 sec 9 m 2016 PM Peak 20% 12 sec 8 m 2035 AM Peak 52% 42 sec 29 m 2035 PM Peak 45% 32 sec 22 m
These results demonstrate that the intersection can be operate well within acceptable limits over the design horizon. As shown, the DOS is expected to remain below 55% with minimal queuing. During the 2035 morning peak period, delays on the Grueber Avenue north-westbound approach are anticipated to exceed 40 seconds. Whilst high, according to the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Roads and Traffic Authority, 2002), this level of delay is satisfactory in regards to intersection service levels. Option 2 – Roundabout In order to improve operations at the Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue intersection, upgrading to a roundabout with a single circulating lane has been assessed.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 103
A summary of the Grueber Avenue / Holyman Avenue intersection with the roundabout layout is presented below in Table 13. Table 13: Grueber Avenue / Holyman Roundabout Intersection Options
Scenario Maximum DOS Maximum Delay 95th Percentile Queue 2016 AM Peak 28% 11 sec 14 m 2016 PM Peak 24% 11 sec 11 m 2035 AM Peak 64% 16 sec 50 m 2035 PM Peak 55% 14 sec 37 m
These results demonstrate that the intersection can be operate well within acceptable limits over the design horizon. The DOS is expected to reach a maximum of 64%, with delays less than 20 seconds. The maximum anticipated queue is 50 m on the Holyman Avenue (southbound) approach during the 2035 morning peak. This queue is not expected to spill back to adjacent intersections and is considered satisfactory. Closure of Surf Road The traffic impact from the closure of Surf Road is addressed by the new Grueber Avenue which is assessed above. This will not affect journey times notably. Pedestrian, cyclist and non-vehicle access will be maintained through the provision of a new sealed path along the Airport’s southern boundary. Additionally, Grueber Avenue will provide additional connectivity for cyclists into the airport and to the Tasman Highway. Construction Impacts A high level estimate for the quantity of construction vehicle traffic generated as a result of the projects is an additional 20 trucks per day for the construction period, approximately 2-3 vehicles per hour. The majority of these construction vehicles will travel along Pittwater Road. A small portion will need to travel along Holyman Avenue, however this is considered to have a negligible impact on the existing traffic numbers. Pedestrian, cyclist and non-vehicle access across the southern end of the runway will be maintained during construction. Summary of Impacts With the proposed network changes included in the project, the overall impact of the runway extension on the transport network is negligible.
Traffic and Transport Significance Assessment Construction Negligible Operation Negligible
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 104
5.12.3 Mitigation measures As part of the construction phase of the project, it is anticipated that the Hobart Airport will liaise with relevant State and local government stakeholders to determine the need for a traffic management plan that identifies any traffic control measures for both the construction and non-construction traffic where airport related traffic interfaces with the broader road network. The traffic management plan will include details of monitoring during construction to ensure access control arrangements are in place. In addition, other users of the internal airport road network would be consulted with and informed in a timely manner of changes, temporary or permanent, over the construction and operation phases of the project. This is noted in the Consultation Chapter, Section 7.
5.13 Social
5.13.1 Baseline conditions Hobart Airport is located within the Clarence City Council Local Government Area which is home to around 52,000 people. The closest residential settlement to Hobart Airport is the suburb of Seven Mile Beach. According to the 2011 ABS Census of Population, 1,114 people resided in 437 dwellings in this suburb. Seven Mile Beach is located to the south-west of the airport and is not overflown by aircraft arriving or departing Hobart Airport. Seven Mile Beach is located outside both the ANEF and N70 contours as described in Section 5.9. Areas to the east of Hobart Airport and along the spit are largely unpopulated. Certain neighbours to Hobart Airport hold a right of carriageway over an easement on the southern boundary to the Hobart Airport land title. Surf Road currently traverses this easement. Given the proposed closure of Surf Road, extensive consultation has occurred with those affected parties and the alignment of Grueber Avenue has been established with input from the affected land title holders. Access As outlined in Section 5.12 the suburb of Seven Mile Beach is not directly connected to the airport precinct by road. Access into and out of the area is off the Tasman Highway via Acton Road/Estate Drive. Access to the Tasman Highway from this area is also currently available via Surf Road and Pittwater Road. Pittwater Road provides access on the eastern side of the airport. There are only a few residential, commercial and community uses along Pittwater Road, therefore it is likely that most vehicles using this road are doing so to access the Tasman Highway. Surf Road is also used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders for access from west to east and vice versa and is listed as part of the Tangara Trail. Community facilities / activities
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 105
There are a number of community facilities located in the vicinity of Hobart Airport. These include: Seven Mile Beach area:
Wyndham Vacation Resorts Seven Mile Beach; Seven Mile Beach Cabin Park; Llanherne Golf Course and Club; Royal Hobart Golf Course and Club; Seven Mile Beach National Park; Seven Mile Beach Rural Fire Brigade – volunteer fire fighting service located at 76 Surf Road, Seven Mile Beach; Bus stops serviced by Metro Tasmania; Tangara Trail - recreational trail that extends from Five Mile Beach in the north, to Lauderdale, and south to Mortimer Bay and South Arm. Surf Road is included in the trail; Future Clarence City recreational grounds – as outlined in Council’s Master Plan for a site at 74 Surf Road Seven Mile Beach; Triathlon route – for events such as Strategic Tasmanian Sprint Triathlon Championships and the Tri Tas State Series. Surf Road and the Seven Mile Beach area are used as part of this course; Lewis Park – located on Surf Road, provides public toilet, community hall, garbage collection, picnic and playground facilities; Seven Mile Beach Ocean Swim – part of the Tasmanian Ocean Swim Series, the 2.5km and 5km swim course is based at Lewis Park on Surf Road; and Surf schools also operate intermittently from Seven Mile Beach. East of Hobart Airport: Monmouth Pony and Riding Club; Visit Vineyards; Beaches and open space areas along Seven Mile Beach spit, accessed via an unformed road.
5.13.2 Impact assessment An assessment of the potential impacts of the Project have been discussed in individual chapters within this document, particularly the potential impacts on: Air quality (Section 5.8); Noise (Section 5.9 and 5.10); Traffic and transport (Section 5.12); Economy and employment (Section 5.14);
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 106
Visual impacts (Section 5.15). The results of these assessments indicate that the project will have a beneficial effect on the local economy, both during the construction phase and also on the wider Tasmanian economy once the extended runway is operational. There will be some minor increase in traffic during the construction phase of the Project. Extension of Hobart Airport’s runway will have negligible impact on the resident population of areas surrounding the airport. Access The closure of Surf Road to vehicles will change access to the eastern side of Hobart Airport from the Seven Mile Beach area. Vehicles will no longer be able to travel from Seven Mile Beach along Surf Road to Pittwater Road to access this eastern area. Given the low number of vehicles currently using Surf Road in the AM and PM peaks (see Section 5.12) this change is not expected to cause significant impact or significantly change travel durations. It is noted that the Seven Mile Beach Fire Brigade located on the western side of the airport would respond to fire situations to the west of the airport. Access to this area will be via the new Grueber Avenue or the existing Acton Road/Estate Drive to the Tasman Highway and then to Pittwater Road. If drivers need to access the area to the east of the airport from the Seven Mile Beach area they will do so via the Tasman Highway either via Acton Road/Estate Drive or the new Grueber Avenue which will connect Holyman Avenue to Surf Road. Non-vehicle access such as pedestrians and cyclists will be maintained along Surf Road through the provision of a new sealed path along the southern boundary of the airport. Events, such as the triathlon, that currently use this portion of Surf Road as part of their course would need to utilise the new sealed pathway. The Seven Mile Beach community to the west of the Airport will have improved access to the Tasman Highway, via Grueber Avenue, and this is considered to be a benefit. Community facilities There will be no impact on community facilities in the vicinity of the airport, except for Llanherne Golf Course if the preferred alignment for the new Grueber Avenue is selected. Should this be the outcome, HIAPL would continue discussions with the management of Llanherne Golf Club to negotiate a suitable arrangement to acquire the required land. As discussed in the access section, access to community facilities may change based on changes vehicular restrictions on Surf Road, but pedestrian, cyclist and non-vehicle access will be maintained in this area. It is noted that there are no public toilet facilities on the eastern side of the airport. Access to public toilets located in Lewis Park at Seven Mile Beach will still be accessible via the sealed pathway. If travelling by vehicle, drivers will need to access the Tasman Highway from Pittwater Road and then travel via Holyman/Grueber Avenue to access these facilities.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 107
Social assessment Resident population Negligible Access Low adverse Community facilities Overall negligible – Llanherne Golf Club may experience low adverse impacts if the preferred alignment is chosen for the new Grueber Road
5.13.3 Mitigation management A number of mitigation measures are inherent in the design: Provision of the new Grueber Avenue to provide a second access point to the Tasman Highway via Holyman; Provision of a sealed pathway along the southern boundary of the airport (Surf Road) to maintain pedestrian, cyclist and non-vehicle access between Seven Mile Beach and the eastern side of the airport. In addition to these measures HIAPL will: Continue to keep the local community and stakeholders informed of project progress and timing for the closure of Surf Road to vehicles; Continue discussions with Llanherne Golf Club to negotiate the acquisition of land should it be required; and Liaise with groups that currently use Surf Road for events (such as triathlon organisers) and Council in relation to the Tanagra Trail when designing the new sealed pathway along Surf Road.
5.14 Economy and employment This section sets out HIAPL’s analysis of the likely effect of the proposed runway development on key civil aviation users of the airport, on the local and regional economy and community, and on employment levels at the airport.
5.14.1 Baseline economic condition Hobart is the capital city and the largest population centre in the State of Tasmania. The Greater Hobart region is home to more than 216,000 persons (ABS 2012) with the airport catchment area being approximately 300,000 people. Hobart is the primary base for government and corporate businesses, health services and tertiary education in Tasmania. It is the State’s main arrival point. Hobart and the southern area of Tasmania have a diverse economic base including significant aquaculture and agriculture businesses, a strong base of professional scientific institutions including CSIRO, Australian Antarctic program, the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) and the Menzies Institute, home to the University of Tasmania, public administration, health care, manufacturing and a strong and vibrant tourism and arts sectors.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 108
Hobart Airport plays an important and essential economic and social role in the community, particularly for an island community such as Tasmania. Strong connectivity and access is essential for Hobart and Tasmania in developing the attractiveness of Hobart as a place to live, conduct business and build industry. Hobart is an Antarctic Gateway city, housing the Australian Antarctic Division’s aviation base and the world’s largest concentration of Antarctic and Southern Ocean research.
5.14.2 Project impact assessment The runway extension project is part of the Australian Government’s economic growth plan for Tasmanian and $38m of funding assistance is being provided from the Australian Government, with an additional $2 million provided from HIAPL. The runway extension will enable direct passengers and cargo flights to occur between Hobart and South East Asia. The coming years forecast a growth in high value high perishable Tasmanian produce seeking these markets as well as growth in tourism demand for Tasmania. The runway extension also enables greater flexibility in air logistics and passenger operations between Hobart and East Antarctica. This increased capability significantly enhances Hobart’s competitiveness as the leading Gateway for the East Antarctic. The runway extension project is supported by key stakeholders and is perceived as a key strategic investment for the state that will bring significant opportunities to the state’s economic development in the medium to long term. Three key sectors that will benefit from the extended runway and have been used in economic modelling are outlined below. The Tasmanian Antarctic, Sub-Antarctic and Southern Ocean (ASO) Sector The ASO sector contributes significantly to Tasmanian’s economy. Hobart is currently one of only five global gateways to the Antarctic and one of three to East Antarctica. Hobart Airport currently provides infrastructure for an intercontinental air service (airlink) from Hobart to the Wilkins Aerodrome in Antarctica. The airlink provides a faster option for moving expeditioners, scientists and time-sensitive cargo to and from the Antarctic. The extension of the airport runway will provide greater flexibility for Antarctic operations by enabling larger/heavier or longer range aircraft to undertake operations between Hobart and Antarctica. This capability will benefit Antarctic programs and the competitiveness of Hobart as an Antarctic Gateway. According to the 20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic Plan, the extension of the Hobart Airport runway opens up new possibilities to enhance Australia’s intercontinental air transport system. The runway extension is expected to make Hobart a more attractive proposition as an air transport hub to other nations’ Antarctic programs operating aircraft that at present are unable to access Hobart Airport.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 109
A more flexible and enhanced capability air logistics link facilitated by the extended runway has the potential to fundamentally change the operating model of the Australian and other Antarctic programs, both in Hobart and on the ice. For example, building Hobart as the point of a stronger, more frequent and capable aviation hub could enable programs to operate using a more diverse fly-in fly-out (FIFO) workforce for Australian and international Antarctic programs. Such a change will: Strengthen the Tasmanian economy by allowing the growth of new Australian businesses specialising in Antarctic station support, including equipment, maintenance, medical, construction, science, research and training; Facilitate high value science to be undertaken, enabled by a high frequency of travel between Hobart and Antarctic; Facilitate increased collaboration and enhance the world leading collection of Antarctic scientific institutions in Hobart through improving the opportunities for field work to occur; Support the need for multimodal logistics to service the Antarctic, both aviation and shipping. It is important that Hobart has the infrastructure for both to compete as an Antarctic gateway. As Hobart grows as a resupply point for programs operating East Antarctic stations and bases, new Antarctic programs that could potentially be serviced from Hobart in the future could include China, Russia, Korea, Japan and India, all of which have stations located accessible through Hobart. An extended runway enhances the opportunity to attract other nations to operate their East Antarctica based Antarctic programs from Hobart, by providing a full aviation option. The International Tourism Sector Currently there is no international direct flight (outside the Antarctic flights) operating from Hobart Airport. This is primarily due the outbound operational restrictions of the current runway. The runway extension allow the airport to accommodate flights directly to and from South East Asia (e.g. Hong Kong, China, Malaysia and Singapore) without the need to make a technical refuelling stop in Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. This will provide Hobart direct connection to Asia as well as position Hobart as a ‘one-stop’ destination to Europe or America via a key Asian hub port. Airports play a major role in facilitating the development of inbound tourism. The increased global connectivity resulting from this project, combined with the state government’s tourism initiatives, is expected to provide significant opportunities to increase international tourism activities in Tasmania. The Air Freight Sector Air access is critical to time-sensitive freight. A lengthened runway will increase the connectedness of Tasmania and enhance the flow of freight.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 110
Currently only less than 1% of freight out of Tasmania is transported via air (a very low proportion). Air freight provides timely access to markets and enables Tasmanian companies to better compete in a global marketplace by enabling access to international markets more quickly and frequently. An extended runway, and, consequently, the ability for aircraft to reach important global markets faster improves options for transporting produce out of the Tasmania and enables Tasmanian agricultural producers to reach to new potential international markets, particularly for high-value high-perishable goods (e.g. seafood, cherries). In the coming 5 years Tasmania’s production of high value perishable goods such as cherries and salmon is expected to double. This, when combined with increasing demand from various producer groups in terms of improving freight options from Tasmania, is driving demand for quicker, more direct freight links to South East Asian markets. In addition, as freight is an important revenue component for passenger airlines and supports passenger routes and capacity, loading freight on the regular passenger transport services represents an opportunity to increase airline yield across the airline groups operating at Hobart Airport.
5.14.3 Impact of the Project on the State economy and employment This section outlines the expected impact of the development on growth at the Airport and in the State, based on a comparison with a ‘base case’ scenario. The base case is estimated from what would have happened in the absence of the Project – in this instance, Hobart Airport continuing to operate on a ‘business as usual’ basis. Gross State Product (GSP) The construction phase for the Project is expected to result in a positive deviation in GSP, primarily driven by an increase in real investment to Tasmania. Upon completion of the construction phase of the runway extension, the operational benefits of the extension begin to flow through the economy. These benefits are driven in two ways. Firstly, by a productivity shock to the air transport sector as a direct result of enabling large aircraft to undertake operations at Hobart Airport as well as improving connectivity. Secondly, the development is expected to foster an increase in demand for recreational services and retail trade, two industries closely linked with tourism, as the capacity enhancement of the Airport provides Hobart with a direct connection to Asia as well as positioning Hobart as a ‘one- stop’ destination to European visitors. Impacts are also seen as result of efficiencies in Antarctic operations via increased uplift capability. The Project’s impact on GSP is $134 million.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 111
Figure 25: Tasmanian GSP deviations, $m (medium scenario) Source: Deloitte Access Economics
Employment impact The Project also results in an increase in employment at the airport. The construction phase of the Project is estimated to result in an additional 8 FTEs in 2015, and an additional 36 and 27 FTEs in 2016 and 2017/18 respectively. Once operational, the Project is expected to continue to stimulate employment at the airport above the ‘base case’ of operations as normal, with 19 FTEs in 2018 and 23 in FTEs in 2019. In 2025, the Project is expected to create an additional 34 jobs, growing to an additional 46 FTE in 2035. Post-construction the Project will continue to have a positive effect on the Tasmanian economy. Based on a medium impact scenario the following employment impacts of the Project can be forecast. This shows the expected increase in overall employment at Hobart Airport as a result of the runway extension project.
Figure 26: Tasmanian employment deviations (medium scenario) due to runway extension over a 20 year period Source: Deloitte Access Economics
Wider economic impact Hobart has a competitive advantage in Antarctic and Southern Ocean research; the Antarctic sector established largely around Hobart has been making considerable
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 112
contributions to the Tasmanian economy for some time. As of 2009-2010, the Antarctic sector employed over 830 Tasmanians and generated $182.5 million worth of activity to Tasmania. The Tasmanian economy also benefited significantly from Antarctic and related scientific meetings and conferences regularly held in Hobart. The extended runway will be an important catalyst for future growth and development of Antarctic sector activity and serve to strengthen Hobart’s position as the preferred Antarctic Gateway by providing a complete logistics hub, with increased aviation capability in addition to shipping. The improved airlink will bring in a range of wider opportunities to Tasmania including: The possibility to develop and locate specialist FIFO Antarctic workers in Tasmania as the Antarctic sector expands. A 2012 study by Dr Blacklow has estimated that relocating FIFO Australian Antarctic Division workers and support staff to Tasmania will directly create 322 FTE jobs and generate $32.7 million economic activity. The indirect or flow-on impact is estimated to generate an additional $36.3 million economic activity and 357 FTE. The estimates for the total impact are equivalent to an increase in Tasmanian nominal economic (GSP) growth by 0.3%, representing a significant contribution to the Tasmania economy; and Attracting other international Antarctic research programs to use Hobart as a gateway to the Antarctic. Whilst international research organisations staging in Hobart may not necessarily direct employ large numbers of Tasmanians, they do make significant contribution in terms of consumption and spending from international programs. They also make a significant cultural contribution to Tasmania. This MDP does not attempt to quantify the potential economic or social impact of other countries’ Antarctic programs locating in Hobart, as it is difficult to do so without any certainties around details such as size of the operation. However, we note that Christchurch shares many similar geographic and historic connections with the Antarctic as Hobart. Christchurch has adopted a model of serving its own program, the program of one other major nation (i.e. United States) and a few small Antarctic programs (i.e. Italy). Following the runway extension, Hobart hopes to develop a similar model to Christchurch, based on promoting the use of Hobart Airport's enhanced Antarctic infrastructure and capabilities. A study in 2013 found the aggregated, direct economic impact of Antarctica-related activities was $102.9 million per annum for the Canterbury economy and $161.7m for the New Zealand economy. It also estimated that 2,307 jobs in Canterbury directly or indirectly depend on Antarctica-related activities1.
5.14.4 Economic value of the project An economic evaluation of the project has been undertaken by Deloitte Economics and has included an assessment of the likely impacts of the Project,
1 http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10600222/Antarctic-office-planned
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 113
namely its impact on the Antarctic sector, freight and international passenger movements. The benefits quantified as a result of impacts in the Antarctic, international tourism and international freight areas amount to $42.3 million in present value terms at the 7% discount rate (over a 25 year benefit assessment period). Over the evaluation period to 2035 the project Gross State Product is expected to increase by $134 million in present value terms and create an additional 46 jobs when compared to the baseline scenario. Based on costs and benefits, the runway extension project generates a positive economic return with a NPV of $2.8 million and a BCR of 1.07. The largest components of these benefits are potential savings to the Australian Antarctic program which accounts for 57.1% of the benefits while international passenger movements and international freight account for 38.6% and 4.3% of the benefits respectively. The runway extension improves the opportunity for employment and improved GSP by providing enhanced essential infrastructure capability. Given the nature of the project there is no foreseen negative impact on existing business.
Figure 27: Airport Runway Extension Project Evaluation
Source: Deloitte Access Economics
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 114
5.15 Visual Impact Assessment
5.15.1 Baseline conditions Three specific locations have been selected for assessing the scenic quality: Airside (the runway and surrounds); The Seven Mile Beach dune system; and Barilla Bay. These places have been selected because each is undergoing modification as part of the proposed development (the runway extension, dune modification and extension to the high intensity approach lights respectively). The airside area has been classified low scenic quality, as it lacks any features or variety. The dune system of Seven Mile Beach provides gently rolling hills in the foreground when viewed from Surf Road and the middle-ground from other locations, such as Hobart Airport and the beach itself. There are more substantial hill systems located in the background. The dunes have extensive areas of similar vegetation with no forested areas or other textures to speak of. Historically the dune system has been subject to various levels of modification. The dune system has been classified as moderate scenic quality due to the distinctiveness and variety offered by the moderate slopes in the foreground (the dunes themselves) and the rolling hills behind. Barilla Bay has been classified as high scenic quality due to a combination of the large water body, rolling hills in the background and moderate vegetation variety.
5.15.2 Assessment of impacts An analysis has been undertaken for the variation between areas (airside, the dune system and Barilla Bay) that can view the three locations pre-development and post-development. For each view, a montage has been generated with three elements, The existing view The view with the runway extension in place The same image with the project complete but using green highlighting to indicate the changes associated with the runway extension and yellow highlighting to identify changes associated with the removal of terrain obstacles. This mapping indicates the following: Airside – some additional parts of Seven Mile Beach community, the Royal Hobart Golf Course and a small area of Acton will be able to view the runway extension that previously could not;
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 115
Dune system – because this involves the removal of the existing landform it means some areas that could previously view the dune system can no longer. These areas are limited to the Seven Mile beach Peninsula, some parts of Midway Point and a very small section of Acton; and Barilla Bay – The extension to the high intensity approach lights will be visible to some parts of Acton, boats on Barilla Bay, Single Hill and the rural areas of Cambridge. Airside The runway is within an extensive flat area with little spatial definition and in a heavily modified environment. The vegetation lost is limited to open, well maintained grassed areas with no topographic expression. The small scale intervention will be difficult to perceive and is considered appropriate in the context of its surrounding heavily modified environment. The current landscape character is fully maintained and as such the development is assessed as being of negligible impact to the observer. A montage of these changes has been prepared and is shown in (Figure 28). The rendered image is to aid in identification of the extent of works, it involves the ‘before’ images being draped with the extent of works.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 116
North end of runway
Without extension
With extension
Rendered
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 117
South end of runway
Without extension
With extension
Rendered
Figure 28: Airside montage before and after runway extension work
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 118
Dune System and Seven Mile Beach Initially the impact of the development will be evident, predominantly due to the vegetation clearance associated with construction activities. Beyond this, the reduction in height of the dunes is not expected to alter the other key frames of reference that give this area its scenic quality, namely the moderate slopes in the foreground with rolling hills in the middle or background providing distinctiveness and variety to the observer. The presence of well-vegetated rolling dunes in front of any works, combined with the fact that no manmade structures will be constructed will ensure that what immediate impact there is will be small scale and capable of maintaining a natural appearance if appropriately revegetated. Appropriate mitigation measures (discussed below) are intended to ensure any impact is temporary in nature, is not evident one year post construction, maintaining the current landscape character. The reduction in the dune heights in this location is assessed as being of low adverse impact to the observer. A montage of these changes has been prepared and is shown in Figure 29. The rendered image is to aid in identification of the extent of works, it involves the ‘before’ images being draped with the extent of works.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 119
Dune from Surf Road
Without extension
With extension
Rendered
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 120
Dune ridge
Without extension
With extension
Rendered
Figure 29: Montage of dune ridge system before and after modification
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 121
Seven Mile Beach
Without extension
With extension
Rendered
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 122
Barilla Bay This location has been assessed as the highest scenic quality, due to the water and landforms present. The development (extension to the HIAL) is small scale and very difficult to see from this location. The existing approach lighting cannot be discerned from the background and as such looks natural in appearance. The existing character of Barilla Bay when viewed from this location or from recreational boaters is one of a reasonable level of landscape modification as a result of the extensive areas of Oyster farms and also the surrounding urban (Midway Point) and industrial (Kennedy Drive) development. The current landscape character is maintained and as such the development is assessed as being of low adverse impact to the observer. A montage of these changes has been prepared and is shown in Figure 30. The rendered image is to aid in identification of the extent of works, it involves the ‘before’ images being draped with the extent of works.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 123
Barilla Bay
Without extension
With extension
Rendered
Figure 30: Montage of Seven Mile Beach and Barilla Bay, with and without the project
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 124
Visual Impact Significance Assessment Airside Construction Negligible Operation Negligible Dune System Construction Low adverse Operation Low adverse Barilla Bay Construction Low adverse Operation Low adverse
5.15.3 Mitigation measures In order to mitigate any short term construction impacts associated with the lowering of the dune system, the following is recommended: The sculpting of the final landform to ensure a natural and not geometric / hard edged shape, such as small scale gentle rolling dunes; and Revegetation of the area with appropriate local providence species currently present.
5.16 Aviation safety
5.16.1 Airfield capacity The 500m lengthening of the runway will widen the mix of aircraft that can be used for operations into and out of Hobart Airport creating an opportunity for the larger aircraft in the airline’s fleet. It will also increase both the payload and range of some of the current aircraft fleet. The 2,750m-lengthened runway can be utilised by all Code 4C aircraft (B737, A320 and A321) with full payload and fuel, and most Code 4E aircraft (B747, A330, B777 and B787) with a full payload and fuel, or minimal weight restriction. The intention of the design is to expand Hobart Airport’s capability to better cater for Code E aircraft, with most flights having no major restrictions on payload. New apron parking has been designed for larger aircraft to minimise impact on operations. Some aircraft type may require a reduced MTOW depending on end destination. For Hobart Airport, this range limitation is not considered problematic as the range required by the likely aircraft type mix from the 2,750m runway will achieve the required market destinations, particularly into Asia for the foreseeable future. The longer runway will allow larger heavy lift type aircraft such as the Boeing C17 Globemaster to operate to the Antarctic with a full payload and full fuel tanks. This is particularly critical in poor weather conditions that often prevail in
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 125
the southern oceans, so that the aircraft has sufficient fuel to divert to alternative airports should weather conditions rule out the intended destination. The additional runway capacity will have a positive impact on freight being carried on both regular and dedicated flights, out of Hobart. This freight benefit will be emphasised in the longer term, as international flights from Hobart to Asian destinations become more prevalent. In the shorter term, an opportunity for charter flights direct from China becomes a possibility. The impact on helicopter and General Aviation operations will be negligible, as they do not depend upon the proposed runway length.
5.16.2 Airfield operations During the construction phase, the main impact on the aircraft operations will be a reduction in the runway length available for landing and take-off operations due to the height of the construction equipment working in sequence, on one end of the runway. During the works the maximum anticipated shortening of the runway will be 350m, resulting in 1,900m of runway for critical take-off operations to domestic destinations. Where construction activities have the potential to impact airline operations, HIAPL will consult with airline partners to ensure any disruption is limited. In some instance it may be necessary to undertake construction activities outside of peak aircraft movement periods to ensure aircraft operations are not adversely affected.
5.16.3 Navigational and visual aids and RESA The changes and relocations to navigational and visual aids are: Relocation of the Instrument Landing System on Runway12 comprising the glidepath near the threshold by 80m to the north west and the localiser at the end of the runway by 430m to the south-east; Reconfiguration of the existing Runway 12 HIAL system by 80m to the north- west across the Tasman Highway into Barilla Bay; Relocation of the PAPI guidance system on both approaches; Relocation of the VOR system and DME on the south-eastern end of the runway; and Reconfiguration of runway lighting being the runway threshold and end lights, high and medium intensity runway edge lights. A relocation of the two existing RESAs at each runway end will also allow an upgrade of these facilities to better aid the deceleration of aircraft in the unlikely event of an overshoot of the runway. In general, the relocation of navigational aids and approach lighting can be constructed during normal operations or at night during limited operations, whilst the existing facilities are operating and then a transfer of function over a short period. The disruption to operations will be minimal.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 126
5.16.4 ARFFS response time The position of the ARFFS is on the southern side of the RPT Terminal and is located at the mid-point of the existing runway and so the response times are equal for both ends of the current runway. With an extension of 150m on the north end and 350m extension on the south, the response times will be marginally longer for the south end. The required response time is three minutes. With the extended runway of 350m, the actual travel time of the ARFFS tender, travel at 70km an hour, will be extended by 18 seconds to the south threshold and 8 seconds to the north threshold. Current response times on the south end range between 1.26 and 1.37 minutes, and current response times on the north end currently range between 1.13 – 1.35 minutes, so with the Project, response times will still be within acceptable thresholds.
5.16.5 Line of sight and control tower The current line of sight from the control tower and the fire station to the point on the centre line of the approach path of 1,000m prior to the thresholds on both ends of the runway is clear with no obstacles restricting this vision. The extension of the runway by 350m to the south and 150m to the north pushes these back by the same distances and also lowers the approach path by 7m on the southern approach and 3m on the northern approach. The initial assessment is that the line of sight from the control tower is still clear to both approaches on the extended runway. The ARFFS line of sight to the south approach is also clear. As it is a relocation of navaids, ILS, localiser and glidepath facilities for Runway 12, the impacts are relatively simple in that the new facility will be very similar to the current facility but relocated to the southeast by 350m for the localiser and 150m to the north-west for the glidepath. The Project will have some operational impact on the altitudes of arriving and departing Hobart traffic as they pass abeam Cambridge. The current premise is that the aligned runways (12/30) at both aerodromes are sufficiently spaced to meet the parallel runway requirements and that is how they operate in relation to segregation and wake turbulence management. This will not change unless Hobart Airport changes the runway alignment. The broader issue regarding management of Cambridge and Hobart is an aerodrome licensing and procedures issue for CASA determination. However, until Cambridge is licensed, it is difficult to draw conclusions about operational impact.
5.16.6 Airspace Obstacles in the vicinity of an airport can have safety implications for the operation of aircraft in flight. Airspace at leased Commonwealth airports is therefore protected under Part 12 of the Airports Act, together with the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations. Protection is provided in the form of Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS), used for flying by sight, and Procedures for
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 127
Air Navigation Services Airport Operations (PANS-OPS) surfaces, used when flying by instrument without external visual reference to the ground. The OLS and PANS-OPS are created in accordance with regulations contained within Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Parts 139 and 173, respectively. As the intent of the regulations is to protect aircraft operations in the vicinity of aerodromes, the physical layout of the aerodrome and, in particular, its runways determines the associated airspace volumes. The proposed lengthening the runway infrastructure and the consequent repositioning of the runway threshold results in: The Runway 30 threshold position moving 350m to the south-east; and The Runway 12 threshold extending 79m to the north-west. The position of the Departure End of Runway (DER) for Runway 30 is unaffected as the north-west extension uses an area already set aside for departures. The DER for Runway 12 will extend 350m to the south-east in line with the approach threshold. There is no re-definition of the Aerodrome position via the Aerodrome Reference Point (ARP), Reference Elevation Datum (RED) or the runway alignment. Because the protection surfaces move relative to the runway threshold or DER, splays which widen as they move away from the current threshold/DER will narrow compared to the original. This is due to base widths being set at threshold/DER and thence angular splay boundaries are generated. A narrower splay implies the maximum difference between the splays and does not mean a change to base width (Figure 31).
Figure 31: Splay angles
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 128
The Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Outer Horizontal is based on the ARP, hence is unaffected. All other surfaces are dependent on the runway position, and will extend by the amount of the threshold displacement or DER location. No lateral change to the OLS occurs. The departure OLS to the north-west remains unchanged while the approach OLS at this end moves 79m. In comparison to the existing OLS, the approach splay is narrower by 23.7m, but lower by 1.58m. To the southeast the 350m displacement makes the approach narrower by 105m but lower by 7m compared to the existing, and the departure narrower by 87.5m and lower by 7m. The PANS-OPS procedures provide guidance to a runway threshold for all approaches except those to radio navigation aids, and from a DER for departures. The navigation aids at Hobart Airport are, for all intents and purposes, aligned with the runway centreline. Thus, the protected flight paths associated with those navaids do not change laterally, or in any step altitudes. This includes the VOR procedures to Runway 12 and Runway 30 and the NDB on Runway 30. The Visual Segment Surface (VSS) for non-precision approaches moves with the approach thresholds. Compared to the existing the VSS for the north-west end is narrower by 23.7m but lower by 2.6m. For the south east end the VSS is narrower by 105m and lower by 11.5m. Note that VSS for both ends at Hobart Airport are wholly contained within the approach OLS. For all Instrument Flight Approach Procedures using position fixes to a runway (ILS, RNAV (GNSS) and RNAV (RNP)) position fixes need not change and hence the longitudinal position, and the consequent protection splay boundary, does not change. The vertical path will change and be at a lower level to ensure that aircraft touch down consistent with the new runway thresholds. For the Runway 12 ILS, compared to existing, the splay boundary will be slightly narrower along the flight path, but slightly wider at the 300m above airport level. The protection height will be 2.25m lower along its length. The two RNAV (GNSS) procedures protection boundaries need not change at all with such a small change in runway position and only the nominal flight altitude will. For RNAV (RNP), the protection boundaries are not affected by the change and only the height of the surface will change. For Runway 12 (north-west) there is a height change is 3.95m while runway 30 (south east) difference is 17.5m lower. Departures include an assumption that aircraft cross the DER at a height of 5m and then protection surfaces climb at a grade 0.8 percent less than the aircraft climb gradient. The standard protection gradient is 2.5 percent. As the DER at the north western end does not change, there is no change to the protection surfaces for departures in this direction. For departures to the south east, the displacement makes the protection area laterally narrower than the existing by up to 105m and vertically 8.75m lower. The revised OLS and PANS-OPS for Hobart Airport were developed taking the extended runway into consideration. HIAPL updated the OLS for Hobart Airport
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 129
in 2013 (see Figure 32). Changes between the 2009 PANS-OPS and the 2015 PANS-OPS are shown in Figure 33. With the proposed 350m extension of the south-east end of the runway, vehicles travelling along the Surf Road would be a significant obstacle penetrating the important approach and take-off climb surface components of the OLS by 2.4m. Possible solutions such as traffic lights, stopping traffic in both directions for the duration of an approach or take-off, were examined for Surf Road, however it was determined that the safest solution was the closure of Surf Road and alternative access provided via the new Grueber Avenue. Using the same assessment criteria as the traffic on Surf Road, the VHF omnidirectional radio (VOR) antenna at the south end of runway will need to be relocated for an interim period of eight years until the facility becomes redundant, due to replacement by satellite navigational technology that is being progressively implemented through Australian airports by Airservices Australia. Lowering of the sand dunes on the southern end of the runway will also be required to ensure that terrain does not encroach into the critical protection surfaces for the Runway 30 approach and Runway 12 take-off surfaces. HIAPL will undertake a separate approval process, under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations, to formally declare its future airspace as a result of the proposed runway extension.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 130
Figure 32: Current and proposed OLS comparison
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 131
Figure 33: Current and proposed PANSOPS comparison
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 132
5.16.7 Navigational aids Due to the relationship between the positioning of the main features of the runway, such as the threshold and end, and the positioning of the navigational and visual aids, these current facilities will need to be relocated or replaced by more advanced navigational systems. These facilities include the localiser, the glidepath, DVOR, NDB, and the PAPIs. Reinforcing the proposed solution of diverting the traffic off the current alignment of Surf Road, the required positioning of the relocated Runway 12 localiser is incompatible with the continued general vehicle access along the current Surf Road as the interference and distortion of the signal from the localiser to the aircraft would be unreliable. As the navigational and visual aids play an important role in guiding aircraft in critical procedures, particularly landings, the aids must be available for both visual and instrument flight movements. As such, the relocations will be staged such that the new critical aids are operational before the old critical aids are decommissioned. The main control measure will be prior installation and commissioning of new navigational aids before the decommissioning and removal of the current navigational aid. With some aids, such as the Runway 12 localiser, due to its potentially harmful radar transmissions, this will involve detailed programming of its installation and the construction activities around the new and current localiser so that safe aircraft and construction operations are both maintained. There will be no change to security arrangements during the construction phase, as the facilities are located within the airside environment, and works will occur under airside security arrangements.
5.17 Services
5.17.1 Baseline conditions Passenger Aircraft Apron Hobart Airport has a contiguous international and domestic RPT apron, together with separate freight and GA aprons. The RPT apron has five parking positions for narrow-body Code C (B737/A320 size) aircraft. A single large wide bodied aircraft such as a B747-400 or B777-200 can be accommodated on a secondary position that makes three of the narrow-bodied positions inoperable. Two of the Code C positions can also be occupied by the smaller wide-body Code D (B767 size) aircraft. All bays on both the RPT and freight aprons are currently power-in and power-out positions. A power-in, power-out operation is an aircraft taxiing into at its parking stand under its own power and, on departure, the aircraft turns and manoeuvres out from the stand, again, under its own engine power. These positions require considerable space for the manoeuvring of the aircraft but are operational efficient by requiring minimal labour and equipment resources in the departure process.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 133
The current passenger apron operates under a ‘grandfather’ agreement, due to modern standards of grading requirements with CASA. Any modification to the Apron or its lighting impacts this agreement and results in significant cost to Hobart Airport and Airlines. The passengers currently board the aircraft by walking along the terminal face and then over the apron via the designated walkways. Passenger numbers at the airport are below the typical level of approximately 5M passengers which would be required to make the introduction of aerobridges a feasible option. As such, there are no plans to install aerobridges at the Airport. Freight and GA Apron Hobart Airport is an important air freight centre, with the major commodities handled including seafood, fruit and vegetables, flowers, ‘just in time’ manufactured goods, newspapers and livestock. Further horticulture upgrades such as irrigation schemes and increase in high-value, high-perishable freight is expected to expand the demand for air freight. The freight apron has two parking bays which can accommodate Qantas Freight and Toll Air Express. Hobart Airport has two freight terminal and apron areas. A larger facility to the south caters for Code C aircraft, and a smaller facility to the north. The Qantas Freight and Toll Air Express facilities are located respectively to the south and north. Freight carried on passenger aircraft is loaded and unloaded on the domestic apron, and transported on trolleys to and from the freight area. Current Antarctic and Wide Body operations The current aircraft for Antarctic operations is an Airbus A319. Operations occur on the freight and passenger aprons depending on parking demands on the RPT apron. The ability to effectively cater for a wide body aircraft is limited at Hobart during RPT operation times due to their requirement to utilise the RPT apron for parking. The wide body parking position effectively reduces RPT operational bays from five to three during the parking of the larger aircraft. As a result increased movements in larger aircraft and the requirements for overnight parking for these aircraft are not readily facilitated at Hobart Airport without impacting RPT operations.
5.17.2 Assessment of the new apron impacts to services To accommodate the considerable 75m length, 65m wingspan and weight of a Code E or Code D aircraft, for international and Antarctic operations, compared to the smaller 40m length and 36m wingspan of a Code C aircraft, a new and separate apron will be designed and purpose-built on the northern side of the existing RPT apron to accommodate the Code E aircraft will be constructed. It is anticipated this apron will facilitate Antarctic, larger freight operations and International Passenger operations in the immediate future. This will be supported by a new entry / exit taxiway from the parallel taxiway.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 134
These planned operational and infrastructure changes will enhance the efficiency of the aircraft movements on the new northern apron and existing apron. The staging of works, including the development of the apron, will be aligned to changes to the passenger terminal so as to ensure efficient and safe operations and are expected to occur within the next five years Given that baggage handling facility is at the northern end of the terminal, the new apron airside roads will be positioned as a continuation of the existing apron servicing road and the new bays are close to the existing apron impacts have been minimised due to proximity and connection to existing infrastructure. The main impacts are summarised: Improved facilitation for wide bodied aircraft; Level differences and drainage runoff so that the interface zones are compliant; Consideration for future drainage requirements as RPT operations increase increasing apron space; and Passenger marshalling and transport between terminal and parking area. Given that any future extension of the terminal will be predominantly to the north, the new apron will match the terminal expansion and so minimise the distance separation and delivery times in the long term. In comparison with similar airports in Australia, the separation distances between the terminal and aircraft on the new apron are very comparable. The walking distance from the new apron to the arrivals area is approximately 200 – 250m, the same distance from the arrivals area to current bay 5. The new walkways being installed will match the existing walkways. While there is no allowance for a covered walkway as part of this project, there are future proposals to provide cover for walkways as part of the terminal upgrade.
5.17.3 Mitigation measures The design of the new apron will consider the vertical profile, grades and drainage aspects so that no conflict occurs with the aircraft movements, wingtip ground clearances and ponding of run-off on the two aprons, particularly in the interface zones. The lighting levels will be graduated over the northern section of the existing apron to avoid significant changes in night-time viewing distances. Additional gates on the northern end of the departure lounge in the terminal and way-finding measures on the apron will be added to minimise the walking distance and confusion on the intended boarding aircraft.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 135
6 Impact Summary
HIAPL's assessment of the environmental impacts expected as a result of construction and operational activities, mitigation measures and residual impacts, and set out in Chapter 5, has been summarised in Table 14 and Table 15. The overall adverse impacts were assessed as either negligible or low with considerable benefit in terms of direct and indirect economic contribution to the Tasmanian economy, enhancing key infrastructure in Tasmania, increasing the available destinations which can be reached from the Airport, and developing Hobart as Australia’s Antarctic Gateway. While no residual impacts were deemed to be unacceptable, if, upon further assessment or as a result of consultations on this MDP, any additional impacts are identified, additional measures will be examined. HIAPL will require a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be prepared by the contractor prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with this project, and these will be required to be made available for review by the AEO. Issue-specific plans for specific environmental factors will also be required, however there is no trigger for AEO review of these. It is expected that the mitigation measures outlined in the tables below will be incorporated into the CEMP to manage to the construction impacts of the project.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 136
Table 14: Summary of potential construction impacts with mitigation measures
Environmental Summary of Potential Construction Impact Impact Proposed Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Issue Assessment Resource Use Use of materials and energy during the Low CEMPs to identify methods for efficient use of Low construction of the project. materials and minimisation of waste materials. Land Use Impacts to State-listed species Moderate Any State-listed species occurring within the Low - moderate project construction area will only be able to be removed once a Permit to Destroy is submitted and approved by the State Government or the delisting of this species occurs. Impacts to oyster breeding cycle during Moderate Schedule construction outside of harvesting Low - moderate construction works associated with installation months (October – December), ideally schedule of HIAL. in January / February. Marine water quality to be monitored prior, during and post construction and consultation with Barilla Bay oyster farmers. Geology and Soils Potential erosion and additional modification of Low An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be Low morphology of foredunes following height developed for the construction phase of the reduction of foredunes. Project, detailing mitigation measures to be implemented. Temporary stabilisers to be installed if re-vegetation of foredunes is delayed. Potential disturbance of soils containing Low Any soil identified to have levels of PFCs will Low contaminants such as PFCs, hydrocarbons and be required to be managed in accordance with metals. the Airservices Australia Managing PFC Contamination at Airports Interim Contamination Management Strategy and Decision Framework (March 2015). A 5 to 6.5 m lowering of the eastern and Moderate Marram grass is expected to spread vigorously Low western areas of the established foredunes is to stabilise the dune. Visual monitoring is required. The potential for erosion and further proposed to determine if temporary stabilisers modification of the morphology of the dune should be used to provide surface cover until will be heightened prior to re-vegetation of the more permanent vegetation is established. dune. Risk of acid leaching through disturbance of Low Periodic visual and odour monitoring proposed Low previously unknown acid sulfate soils. to be undertaken during ground disturbance.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 137
Environmental Summary of Potential Construction Impact Impact Proposed Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Issue Assessment Surface and Discharge of sediment to open swale drains and Low CEMPs to identify appropriate erosion and Low Groundwater stormwater systems through construction sediment control measures to ensure works. containment of sediment. Dust being generated during construction as a Moderate Where necessary, a Dust Management Plan will Low result of exposed soil surfaces, associated outline dust suppression measures to be stockpiling and handling of materials. implemented during construction such as watering of access roads. Interception of groundwater, need for Low All groundwater is to be managed in accordance Negligible dewatering during construction. with the Airservices Managing PFC Contamination at Airports Interim Contamination Management Strategy and Decision Framework (Final Draft 2015);Low Biodiversity Impacts to State-listed rare Coastal hound’s Low Should the state listed species Coastal hound’s Low tongue (Cynoglossum austral) within runway tongue be present in the construction footprint extension footprint and Seven Mile Beach dune area, a threatened species permit to ‘destroy’ area south of the runway. will be required to be sought from the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Impacts to fauna as a result of the new HIAL Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) for installation in Barilla Bay and foreshore the removal of individuals activity are considered low. The details of the EPBC referral addressed the Low If any nests or nest sites are located, a barricade Low potential impacts on marine ecology and will be required to be installed around the nesting/migratory birds which may inhabit the nesting site, including a suitable buffer. All waters and land areas of the wetland. The contractors will be notified of the exclusion outcomes of each assessment indicate that zones. On completion of the HIAL installation, impacts to fauna in Barilla Bay and foreshore any nesting sites will be reassessed and are low and there would not be a significant exclusion barricades removed. impact to EPBC listed environmental values.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 138
Environmental Summary of Potential Construction Impact Impact Proposed Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Issue Assessment Cultural Heritage The potential for undiscovered artefacts is Low An Unanticipated Recovery Plan will be Negligible likely to be low in the immediate footprint area required to be submitted to AHT prior to and the existing Aboriginal heritage within the construction work commencing. airport boundary will not be impacted by the construction of the Project. Construction of the Project will not impact on any historic (European) heritage value.
Air Quality Generation of dust through construction Moderate – Low Air quality controls and procedures to be Low activities. included CEMP. The increase in vehicle emissions, based on the low ambient emission levels for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, will not be a significant additional impact during construction. Ground-based Construction noise levels from works on the Low Low Noise runway are expected to comply with the Regulations given the noise level attenuation provided by distance. Hazardous Encountering asbestos during construction. Low Construction contractors will be required to Low Materials comply with the relevant management requirements outlined in HIAPL Asbestos Management Plan. Traffic and Construction traffic is considered to have a Negligible A Traffic Management Plan will be required to Negligible Transport negligible impact on the existing traffic be implemented for the construction phase of the numbers. project to identify any traffic control measures that are required, for both the construction and non-construction traffic. Social Closure of Surf Road means vehicles can no Low Low longer travel from Seven Mile Beach along Surf Road to Pittwater Road. Economy and The construction phase of the Project is Benefit Employment estimated to result in an additional 8 FTEs in 2015, and an additional 36 and 27 FTEs in 2016 and 2017/18 respectively.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 139
Environmental Summary of Potential Construction Impact Impact Proposed Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Issue Assessment Visual Impact Initially the impact of the development will be Moderate The lowered section of dune is proposed to be Negligible to Low evident, predominantly due to the vegetation sculpted to ensure a natural and not geometric / clearance associated with construction hard edged shape and re-vegetated with activities. appropriate local providence species currently present. Aviation Safety During the construction phase, the main impact Low Where construction activities have the potential Negligible to Low on the aircraft operations will be a reduction in to impact airline operations, consultation with the runway length available for landing and airline partners will be required to ensure any take-off operations due to the height of the disruption is limited. In some instance it may be construction equipment working in sequence, necessary to undertake construction activities on one end of the runway. outside of peak aircraft movement periods to ensure aircraft operations are not adversely affected.
Table 15: Summary of potential operational impacts with mitigation measures
Environmental Summary of Operational Impact Impact Proposed Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Issue Assessment Land Use The Project is consistent with and enhances the Beneficial Beneficial land use intent of the Runway Precinct. The operation of the Project has been assessed as having a beneficial impact to land use. Geology and Soils During operation of the Project, no mitigation Low Low measures are expected to be required for dust, erosion and sedimentation.
The operation of the project is not expected to Low Low Contaminated add significantly to the likelihood of spills or Land contamination occurring on site.
Once operational the project is not expected to Negligible Negligible Geomorphology impact dune stabilisation.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 140
The operation of the project is not expected to Low Low Acid Sulfate Soils add significantly to the likelihood of ASS being encountered or the exposure of PASS to air. Surface and Contaminants collecting on hard surfaces and Low Pollution control measures and ability to Negligible Groundwater discharging via the stormwater system. capture pollutants from the apron run-off will During operation, there will be no impacts to be a design requirement so that the quality of groundwater. the run-off is unaffected by the new works. Cultural Heritage The potential for undiscovered artefacts is Negligible likely to be low in the immediate footprint area and the existing Aboriginal heritage within the airport boundary will not be impacted by the operation of the Project. Construction or operation of the Project will not impact on any historic (European) heritage value. Air Quality The project induced increase in air traffic Low Low demand will lead to a minimal increase (approximately 0.6 percent to 0.7 percent) of total projected air emissions in 2019 compared to 2014 levels. Road traffic emissions from increased employee and passenger movements. Aircraft Noise The runway extension is not expected to Negligible Negligible significantly change the aircraft noise impacts on the surrounding area when compared against the existing runway scenario. Ground-based An insignificant change in noise level at the Negligible Negligible Noise residential properties is anticipated from aircraft taxiing or idling.
Traffic and The traffic impact from the closure of Surf Negligible Transport Road is addressed by the new Grueber Avenue. With the proposed network changes included in the project, the overall impact of the runway extension on the transport network is negligible.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 141
Social The Seven Mile Beach community will have Benefit improved access to the Tasman Highway, via Grueber Avenue.
Economy and The Project’s impact on GSP is $134 million. Benefit Employment Once operational, the Project is expected to continue to stimulate employment above the ‘base case’. Based on costs and benefits, the runway extension project generates a positive economic return with a NPV of $2.8 million and a BCR of 1.07. The largest components of these benefits are potential savings to the Australian Antarctic program which accounts for 57.1% of the benefits while international passenger movements and international freight account for 38.6% and 4.3% of the benefits respectively. Visual Impact The existing approach lighting cannot be Low Low discerned from the background and as such looks natural in appearance. The current landscape character will be maintained once operational and as such the development is assessed as being of low adverse impact to the observer. Aviation Safety Once operational, the ARFFS response times Benefit will be marginally longer for the south end but will still be within acceptable thresholds. The longer runway will have a positive impact on regular and dedicated flights including allowing larger heavy lift type aircraft such as the Boeing C17 Globemaster to operate to the Antarctic with a full payload and full fuel tanks.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 142
7 Consultation
During the past 12 months, HIAPL has worked with a range of stakeholders to develop both the Airport Master Plan and the Runway Extension MDP. The Airports Act sets out a number of requirements in relation to stakeholder and community consultation in relation to a MDP. The consultation program for the MDP aimed to: Provide information about the Runway Extension MDP to relevant stakeholders and community members during the preparation of the document; Provide opportunities for HIAPL to consult with people and groups to better understand the real and perceived impacts and benefits of the development plans; and Address the consultation requirement of the Airports Act for the Runway Extension MDP. Table 16 outlines HIAPL’s approach to meet the legislated consultation requirements, and the additional consultation actions undertaken, during the preparation of the Runway Extension MDP. Table 16: Legislated and non-legislation engagement activities
Informal Formal pre-release Formal public consultation consultation comment period (Mid 2014 – April (April - May 2015) consultation 2015) Legislated Informal Consultation with Letter to State consultation discussions with the State Minister and requirements – airlines, local government, an authority MDP government authority of a responsible for authorities and State, a local Town Planning State Government government body, and relevant local representatives to an airline or other government discuss planned user of the airport authorities airport concerned or any advising the development. other person. release of the Airlines and local Master Plan for government bodies public comment in the vicinity of Advertisement in the airport relevant regarding noise newspapers Information on HIAPL website Copies of the master Plan available in hard and soft copy for review
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 143
Informal Formal pre-release Formal public consultation consultation comment period (Mid 2014 – April (April - May 2015) consultation 2015) Additional Informal Additional Additional consultation discussions with stakeholder stakeholder activities stakeholders on a meetings meetings undertaken / range of Master Business as usual Community planned Plan related topics briefings with briefing to inform the airport Business as usual content of the stakeholders that briefings with document. address the Master airport Business as usual Plan process. stakeholders that briefings with address the Master airport Plan process. stakeholders that address the Master Plan process.
7.1 Informal consultation HIAPL started discussing the MDP with stakeholders in mid-2014 as a topic in a range of ‘business as usual’ meetings, Master Plan meetings and more focused airport planning discussions. Stakeholders who participated in these discussions included: Hobart Airport’s Community Aviation Consultation Group (CACG); Hobart Airport’s Planning Coordination Forum (PCF); Clarence City Council; Hobart City Council; Sorell Council; Airlines – Virgin and Qantas Group; Cambridge Airport; Airport tenants; Impacted neighbours to Hobart International Airport; Department of State Growth; Tourism Tasmania; Department of Planning and Local Government; Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment; and Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (including Air Services). From these meetings and discussions HIAPL gathered information to inform the preparation of the Runway Extension MDP.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 144
7.2 Formal pre-release consultation In April and May 2015 HIAPL carried out more formal pre-release consultation activities with a range of stakeholders to discuss the content of the 2015 Master Plan and Runway Extension MDP. Stakeholders who participated in these discussions included: Airservices Australia; Clarence City Council; Hobart City Council; Sorell Council; Southern Tasmanian Councils; Department of Planning and Local Government; Department of State Growth; Airlines; Hobart Airport’s Community Aviation Consultation Group (CACG); Hobart Airport’s Planning Coordination Forum (PCF); Affected neighbours to Hobart International Airport; Tasmanian Fire Service – Seven Mile Beach; State elected members; Federal elected members; Airlines - Virgin and Qantas Group; Tourism Industry Council Tasmania; Tourism Tasmania; Australian Antarctic Division; Tasmania Chamber of Commerce; Airport tenants; TasWater; Tasmanian Polar Network; and Cambridge Airport.
7.3 Formal public comment period consultation To meet the requirements of the Airports Act in relation to consultation HIAPL has undertaken the following actions: Peter Gutwein, Treasurer and Minister for Planning and Local Government, has been advised in writing that the Runway Extension MDP has been released for public comment; Officers from the Department of Planning and Local Government have been advised in writing that the Runway Extension MDP has been released for public comment;
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 145
Clarence City Council has been advised in writing that the Runway Extension MDP has been released for public comment; Sorell City Council has been advised in writing that the Runway Extension MDP has been released for public comment; Hobart City Council has been advised in writing that the Runway Extension MDP has been released for public comment; An advertisement has been placed in The Mercury advising that the Runway Extension MDP has been released for public comment; HIAPL’s website has been updated to provide information about the release of the Runway Extension MDP for public comment. This includes links to an electronic (soft) copy of the Runway Extension MDP and fact sheets on the project; Printed copies of the Runway Extension MDP Plan have been made available for viewing at required locations including public libraries, Sorrel, Clarence and Hobart City council offices and other locations as outlined under the requirements of the Act. Hobart Airport will continue to use a range of communication channels including its website, media releases, community meeting opportunities, other stakeholder forums to provide timely information about the airport operations and plans.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 146
8 Conclusion
The proposed runway extension and associated work will enable heavier and larger aircraft to take-off from Hobart and travel further distances than the current runway length allows. This will open up new possibilities to enhance Tasmania’s and Australia’s intercontinental air transport system and is important enabling infrastructure for Tasmania. Hobart is the hub of Australia’s Antarctic Program. The 20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic Plan strongly advocates Australia taking a lead role in Antarctica. The runway extension will provide flexibility in how nations service their Antarctic programs. For example being able to accommodate large heavy lift aircraft such as a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III or the like is important to support future Antarctic operations. Environmental matters relevant to the proposed development are addressed in this MDP in Chapter 5. The northern runway extension will require the relocation of the Airport’s approach lights in Barilla Bay which is external to the airport’s leases area. Barilla Bay is a Ramsar wetland as such an EPBC referral regarding the placement of poles for approach lights in Barilla was submitted to the State and Commonwealth Department of Environment. The EPBC referral noted no significant impacts as a result of this project. The impacts of the HIAL will be assessed by the DoE as part of this MDP. The EPBC Referral has been reproduced in full in Appendix A. This will enable the environmental impact of the project to be assessed holistically. The likely impacts associated with both the construction and operation of the project have been assessed and where necessary mitigation measures have been proposed. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be required prior to the commencement of relevant construction works associated with the project. These CEMP will cover all relevant aspects of the construction of the Project and are expected to include monitoring, auditing and reporting requirements that are required to be implemented throughout the duration of the project. Regular site audits will be undertaken by the HIAPL Environment Manager to assess compliance with the CEMP. The AEO will review the CEMP and site audit activities as required. With mitigation measures in place, the impacts associated with the construction of the project are considered to be acceptable. Many of the impacts associated with the operation of the extended runway are beneficial, including having a positive impact on land use, aviation safety and the economy and employment. The Project’s impact on GSP is forecast at $134 million. Once operational, the Project is expected to continue to stimulate employment above the ‘base case’. Considering costs and benefits, the runway extension project generates a positive economic return with a NPV of $2.8 million and a BCR of 1.07. The largest components of these benefits are potential savings to the Australian Antarctic program, which accounts for 57.1% of the benefits, while international passenger movements and international freight account for 38.6% and 4.3% of the benefits respectively.
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 147
9 References
Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2012). Manual of Standards Part 139 – Aerodromes. Available: https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00095 Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (2015). National Airports Safeguarding Framework. Available: https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/environmental/airport_safeguarding/nasf/nas f_principles_guidelines.aspx Department of Premier and Cabinet (1996). Tasmanian State Coastal Policy. Available: http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/91392/State_Coastal_Poli cy_1996.pdf Environment Protection Authority Tasmania (2012). Information Bulletin No. 105: Classification and Management of Contaminated Soil for Disposal. Available: http://epa.tas.gov.au/documents/ib105_classification_and_management_of_conta minated_soil_2012.pdf Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (2015). 2015 Preliminary Draft Master Plan. Available: http://hobartairport.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/10230_HIAP_Master_Plan_WEB.pdf Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (2009). 2009 Hobart Airport Master Plan. Available: http://hobartairport.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Final-Master- Plan-.pdf Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (2010). 2010 – 2015 Hobart Airport Environment Strategy. Available: http://hobartairport.com.au/wp- content/uploads/2014/06/2010-AES-preparation-_-APPROVED_FINAL_Web- version2.pdf National Environment Protection Council (2011). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. Available: http://www.scew.gov.au/system/files/resources/93ae0e77-e697-e494-656f- afaaf9fb4277/files/schedule-b2-guideline-site-characterisation-sep10.pdf Press, AJ (2014). 20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic Plan. Available: http://20yearplan.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/146155/20-Year- Plan.pdf Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority (2011). Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010 – 2035. Available: http://stca.tas.gov.au/rpp/wp- content/uploads/2011/05/land_use_strategy_Gazettal-version.pdf
Hobart International Airport Major Development Plan Page 148
Appendix A EPBC Act Referral
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Referral of proposed action What is a referral? The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) provides for the protection of the environment, especially matters of national environmental significance (NES). Under the EPBC Act, a person must not take an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on any of the matters of NES without approval from the Australian Government Environment Minister or the Minister’s delegate. (Further references to ‘the Minister’ in this form include references to the Minister’s delegate.) To obtain approval from the Environment Minister, a proposed action should be referred. The purpose of a referral is to obtain a decision on whether your proposed action will need formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. Your referral will be the principal basis for the Minister’s decision as to whether approval is necessary and, if so, the type of assessment that will be undertaken. These decisions are made within 20 business days, provided sufficient information is provided in the referral.
Who can make a referral? Referrals may be made by or on behalf of a person proposing to take an action, the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency, a state or territory government, or agency, provided that the relevant government or agency has administrative responsibilities relating to the action.
When do I need to make a referral? A referral must be made for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the following matters protected by Part 3 of the EPBC Act: World Heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A) National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C) Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B) Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A) Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A) Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A) Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E) The environment, if the action involves Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A), including: o actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment of Commonwealth land (even if taken outside Commonwealth land); o actions taken on Commonwealth land that may have a significant impact on the environment generally; The environment, if the action is taken by the Commonwealth (section 28) Commonwealth Heritage places outside the Australian jurisdiction (sections 27B and 27C) You may still make a referral if you believe your action is not going to have a significant impact, or if you are unsure. This will provide a greater level of certainty that Commonwealth assessment requirements have been met. To help you decide whether or not your proposed action requires approval (and therefore, if you should make a referral), the following guidance is available from the Department’s website: the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance. Additional sectoral guidelines are also available.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies. the Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments—Impacts on water resources. the interactive map tool (enter a location to obtain a report on what matters of NES may occur in that location). Can I refer part of a larger action? In certain circumstances, the Minister may not accept a referral for an action that is a component of a larger action and may request the person proposing to take the action to refer the larger action for consideration under the EPBC Act (Section 74A, EPBC Act). If you wish to make a referral for a staged or component referral, read ‘Fact Sheet 6 Staged Developments/Split Referrals’ and contact the Referrals Gateway (1800 803 772). Do I need a permit? Some activities may also require a permit under other sections of the EPBC Act or another law of the Commonwealth. Information is available on the Department’s web site. Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? If your action is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park it may require permission under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If a permission is required, referral of the action under the EPBC Act is deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act (see section 37AB, GBRMP Act). This referral will be forwarded to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) for the Authority to commence its permit processes as required under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983. If a permission is not required under the GBRMP Act, no approval under the EPBC Act is required (see section 43, EPBC Act). The Authority can provide advice on relevant permission requirements applying to activities in the Marine Park. The Authority is responsible for assessing applications for permissions under the GBRMP Act, GBRMP Regulations and Zoning Plan. Where assessment and approval is also required under the EPBC Act, a single integrated assessment for the purposes of both Acts will apply in most cases. Further information on environmental approval requirements applying to actions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is available from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ or by contacting GBRMPA's Environmental Assessment and Management Section on (07) 4750 0700. The Authority may require a permit application assessment fee to be paid in relation to the assessment of applications for permissions required under the GBRMP Act, even if the permission is made as a referral under the EPBC Act. Further information on this is available from the Authority: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2-68 Flinders Street PO Box 1379 Townsville QLD 4810 AUSTRALIA Phone: + 61 7 4750 0700 Fax: + 61 7 4772 6093 www.gbrmpa.gov.au
What information do I need to provide? Completing all parts of this form will ensure that you submit the required information and will also assist the Department to process your referral efficiently. If a section of the referral document is not applicable to your proposal enter N/A. You can complete your referral by entering your information into this Word file. Instructions Instructions are provided in blue text throughout the form. Attachments/supporting information The referral form should contain sufficient information to provide an adequate basis for a decision on the likely impacts of the proposed action. You should also provide supporting documentation, such as environmental reports or surveys, as attachments.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Coloured maps, figures or photographs to help explain the project and its location should also be submitted with your referral. Aerial photographs, in particular, can provide a useful perspective and context. Figures should be good quality as they may be scanned and viewed electronically as black and white documents. Maps should be of a scale that clearly shows the location of the proposed action and any environmental aspects of interest. Please ensure any attachments are below three megabytes (3mb) as they will be published on the Department’s website for public comment. To minimise file size, enclose maps and figures as separate files if necessary. If unsure, contact the Referrals Gateway (email address below) for advice. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay processing of your referral. Note: the Minister may decide not to publish information that the Minister is satisfied is commercial-in-confidence.
Do I have to pay for my referral or assessment / what are the fees? Cost recovery for environmental assessment activities is currently scheduled for commencement on 1 July 2014. The commencement of cost recovery is subject to amendments to the EPBC Act being passed by the Commonwealth Parliament and the making of regulations. Cost recovery arrangements will only apply to proposed actions referred to the Department on or after 14 May 2014. The Department will inform you of your liability for potential fees prior to the introduction of cost recovery arrangements, currently scheduled for 1 July 2014. Fees will only apply to referrals and assessment work or stages of the assessment process undertaken by the Department after the commencement of cost recovery. Fees may also be applicable for certain activities such as the variation of conditions of approval. There will be no retrospective charging for the stages of assessment initiated before cost recovery commences or for projects that were referred to the department prior to 14 May 2014. Fees will only apply to those stages of the assessment that occur after cost recovery commences. Further details on the proposed cost recovery arrangements including frequently asked questions are available at http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/about-us/legislation/environment-protection-and- biodiversity-conservation-act-1999
How do I submit a referral? Referrals may be submitted by mail or email. Mail to: Referrals Gateway Environment Assessment Branch Department of Environment GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601
If submitting via mail, electronic copies of documentation (on CD/DVD or by email) are required.
Email to: [email protected] Clearly mark the email as a ‘Referral under the EPBC Act’. Attach the referral as a Microsoft Word file and, if possible, a PDF file. Follow up with a mailed hardcopy including copies of any attachments or supporting reports.
What happens next? Following receipt of a valid referral (containing all required information) you will be advised of the next steps in the process, and the referral and attachments will be published on the Department’s web site for public comment. The Department will write to you within 20 business days to advise you of the outcome of your referral and whether or not formal assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is required. There are a number of possible decisions regarding your referral:
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 3 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NOT NEED approval No further consideration is required under the environmental assessment provisions of the EPBC Act and the action can proceed (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements). The proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have a significant impact IF undertaken in a particular manner The action can proceed if undertaken in a particular manner (subject to any other Commonwealth, state or local government requirements). The particular manner in which you must carry out the action will be identified as part of the final decision. You must report your compliance with the particular manner to the Department. The proposed action is LIKELY to have a significant impact and does NEED approval If the action is likely to have a significant impact a decision will be made that it is a controlled action. The particular matters upon which the action may have a significant impact (such as World Heritage values or threatened species) are known as the controlling provisions. The controlled action is subject to a public assessment process before a final decision can be made about whether to approve it. The assessment approach will usually be decided at the same time as the controlled action decision. (Further information about the levels of assessment and basis for deciding the approach are available on the Department’s web site.) The proposed action would have UNACCEPTABLE impacts and CANNOT proceed The Minister may decide, on the basis of the information in the referral, that a referred action would have clearly unacceptable impacts on a protected matter and cannot proceed. Compliance audits If a decision is made to approve a project, the Department may audit it at any time to ensure that it is completed in accordance with the approval decision or the information provided in the referral. If the project changes, such that the likelihood of significant impacts could vary, you should write to the Department to advise of the changes. If your project is in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and a decision is made to approve it, the Authority may also audit it. (See “Is your action in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,” p.2, for more details).
For more information call the Department of the Environment Community Information Unit on 1800 803 772 or visit the web site http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/about-us/legislation/environment-protection- and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999 All the information you need to make a referral, including documents referenced in this form, can be accessed from the above web site.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 4 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Referral of proposed action
Project title:
1 Summary of proposed action NOTE: You must also attach a map/plan(s) and associated geographic information system (GIS) vector (shapefile) dataset showing the location and approximate boundaries of the area in which the project is to occur. Maps in A4 size are preferred. You must also attach a map(s)/plan(s) showing the location and boundaries of the project area in respect to any features identified in 3.1 & 3.2, as well as the extent of any freehold, leasehold or other tenure identified in 3.3(i).
1.1 Short description The Commonwealth Government has committed $38M to extend the Hobart Airport runway, Hobart Airport is contributing $2M. The proposed Hobart Airport runway extension project requires the installation of additional approach lights and footings in the Ramsar listed wetland of Barilla Bay, in order to accommodate an aircraft’s earlier approach to the runway. The Ramsar site is referred to as the Pitt Water and Orielton Lagoon Ramsar site (PWOL) and was first listed in 1982. The approach lighting system to date consists of a series of lighting masts extending on to the Barilla Bay sand flats which are intermittently spaced approximately 25 m apart in a northwest-southeast alignment of the runway. An additional four footings for the lights are required to be installed approximately 70m beyond the existing approach light footings within Barilla Bay. Minor works to the footings of the existing approach lights may also be required based on an integrity assessment. Works on existing footings are expected to be minor. Refer to Attachment 1.
1.2 Latitude and longitude Latitude Longitude location point degrees minutes seconds degrees minutes seconds 42 49’ 24.2”S 147 29’ 40.1”E
Refer to Attachment 1A.
Also attach the associated GIS-compliant file that delineates the proposed referral area. If the area is less than 5 hectares, please provide the location as a point layer. If greater than 5 hectares, please provide a polygon layer. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipeline) please provide a polyline layer (refer to GIS data supply guidelines at Attachment A).
Do not use AMG coordinates.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 1 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
1.3 Locality and property description PWOL lies in southern Tasmania and forms a component of the larger Derwent Estuary system. The site is located approximately 20kms east of Hobart in an area important for a range of primary and aquaculture industries and as a hub for tourism.
The surrounding lands were cleared for agriculture from the time of early settlement in the 1800s and PWOL lies in the path of major transportation routes used since colonial times. These factors have had an effect on PWOL, thereby altering the natural processes of the system for decades. In addition to changes to river flows and sediment transport, two causeways were constructed in 1874 across the upper parts of the estuary. Therefore at the time of listing, the site was already a modified system. PWOL lies in the driest area of Tasmania and has variable annual rainfall: therefore it is especially prone to the effects of loss of river flows (Australian Government ECD August 2012).
A series of approach lighting masts with existing approach lights are already in place in Barilla Bay from the shoreline. The area proposed for the installation of new footings and lights is an extension of the current lighting system. It is located directly north of the existing Hobart Airport runway within the foreshore area of Barilla Bay and approximately 70m from the existing lights. The distance from the Barilla Bay shoreline and proposed location of the new approach light footings is approximately 180-200m from the shoreline. The immediate area is positioned within a shallow embayment which is subject to tidal influence. A natural channel draining the sand flats runs perpendicular to the alignment of the runway to the north. The channel experiences varying current velocities and direction and different tidal states (Marine Solutions, 2014). The construction of the new footings will occur within this channel. Oysters are farmed throughout the upper and lower Pittwater area and harvested for general public consumption (Marine Solutions, 2014). The nearest oyster farm is located approximately 500m from the proposed footprint development (Marine Solutions, 2014). Refer to Attachment 2.
The birdlife of PWOL includes migratory and resident waterbirds, including shorebirds and seabirds (Latitude42, 2014). PWOL supports the biodiversity of the South-East Bioregion and Bruny Marine Bioregion. Orielton Lagoon is the most important site for migratory shorebirds in the Bruny Marine Bioregion (Latitude42, 2014). PWOL is also important as the most significant breeding area in southern Tasmania for the School shark and the Gummy shark and the habitat provides for a rare endemic sea star and rare bird species (Latitide42, 2014). A small proportion of the Ramsar site is classified as Nature Reserve and therefore managed by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service. The saltmarshes around Barilla Bay are one of the few recorded localities of the Tasmania endemic chequered blue butterfly which is currently listed as rare under state legislation (Latitude42, 2014). The PWOL area also contains a significant breeding population of Australian pied oystercatcher, which is not currently listed under commonwealth or state legislation. It has been estimated that 1% of the national population of this species occurs in the greater PWOL area (Latitude42, 2014).
Provide a brief physical description of the property on which the proposed action will take place and the project location (eg. proximity to major towns, or for off-shore projects, shortest distance to mainland).
1.4 Size of the development 0.9806 ha (which includes a buffer area for the movement of machinery and any footprint or work area repair work required on existing infrastructure) (hectares)
1.5 Street address of the site NA
1.6 Lot description NA
1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known) This project does not require local government approval or permit application under the Clarence Council Planning Scheme. Initial discussions were held with Dan Ford from the Clarence City Council and the project is exempt under Section 5.1.2 clause (b) and (d) of the planning scheme. A formal letter confirming the exemption is provided as an attachment. Refer to Attachment 3.
Dan Ford Senior Statutory Planner P: 03 6245 8622 E: [email protected]
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 2 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
1.8 Time frame Specify the time frame in which the action will be taken including the estimated start date of construction/operation.
The proposed timeframe for the construction of the approach lighting gantry is within a short period from early November 2014 with expected completion date no later than the end of December 2015. Construction timing will be coordinated with recommendations provided in environmental assessment reports to ensure minimal impact to environmental values and the local aquaculture industry. A timeline schedule outlining restrictions for these values is provided as an attachment. Refer to Attachment 5.
1.9 Alternatives to proposed X No action Were any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action (including not taking the action) Yes, you must also complete section 2.2 considered but are not proposed?
1.10 Alternative time frames etc X No Does the proposed action include alternative time frames, Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each alternative, locations or activities? location, time frame, or activity identified, you must also complete details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7 and 3.3 (where relevant). 1.11 State assessment X No Is the action subject to a state or territory environmental Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5 impact assessment? 1.12 Component of larger action X No Is the proposed action a component of a larger action? Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7 1.13 Related actions/proposals X No Is the proposed action related to other actions or proposals in the Yes, provide details: region (if known)? 1.14 Australian Government No funding Has the person proposing to X The Commonwealth Government has committed $38M to extend the take the action received any Hobart Airport runway by up to 500M. These works are an essential Australian Government grant part of this project. funding to undertake this The funding is being administered by DIRD project? 1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine X No Park Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e) Is the proposed action inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 3 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
2 Detailed description of proposed action NOTE: It is important that the description is complete and includes all components and activities associated with the action. If certain related components are not intended to be included within the scope of the referral, this should be clearly explained in section 2.7.
2.1 Description of proposed action This should be a detailed description outlining all activities and aspects of the proposed action and should reference figures and/or attachments, as appropriate.
Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (HIAPL) is planning infrastructure changes to the single runway at Hobart Airport. This is one step in increasing the capability of the Airport to facilitate longer range and larger flights to the Antarctic and Asian destinations. During the 2013 federal election the, now current government, pledged $38 million in support of this project, with a further $2 million from the airport owners.
The infrastructure changes for this project may include extensions of the existing runway, relocation of navigation equipment, new taxiway systems, pavement strengthening, infrastructure to cater for larger international flights and other associated infrastructure such as roadways. The runway extension project is currently in concept and investigation stage. As per the Airports Act and as a federally leased aerodrome, this project will require a Major Development Plan (MDP) of review and approval by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.
Regardless of the finalisation of plans for the runway extension, an extension to the approach lights in Barilla Bay will be required. It is estimated that the approach lights will need to be extended approximately 70m from the existing configuration into Barilla Bay to accommodate changes in aircraft approach due to the increase in runway length. Barilla Bay is a Ramsar listed wetland. The Ramsar site is referred to as the Pitt Water and Orielton Lagoon Ramsar site (PWOL). The existing approach lights are also located within the Barilla Bay foreshore area and are subject to routine inspections and repair.
The installation of the new approach lights requires the construction of footings within Barilla Bay on which to attach the approach lights to. The new footings will be in the same alignment as the existing footings, but will extend further into Barilla Bay (approx 70 m). In addition to this the footings of the existing approach lights will be assessed for integrity and where required will be improved or upgraded, however will remain within the existing alignment.
The method of installation of the footings will be done in such a manner that minimises disturbance to sediments, based on the recommendation from the marine environmental assessment. Should heavy machinery be required on site during the construction stage, care will be taken to avoid oil/fuel and other contaminant spills which have the potential to impact on oyster farms. These requirements will be specified within the project scope and will be a requirement of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
The construction period is likely to have the biggest impact on any fauna species in the area, although the level of impact will be minimal because construction time will not exceed one week. Timing of the construction will be timed in such a manner that all environmental considerations are taken into account and key bird breeding periods and oyster harvesting periods are avoided.
2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action This should be a detailed description outlining any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action (including not taking the action) that were considered but are not proposed (note, this is distinct from any proposed alternatives relating to location, time frames, or activities – see section 2.3).
There are no alternatives to the proposed action. The installation of additional footings is required to extend the runway and will need to remain within the same alignment of the existing approach lights.
2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action If you have identified that the proposed action includes alternative time frames, locations or activities (in section 1.10) you must complete this section. Describe any alternatives related to the physical location of the action, time frames within which the action is to be taken and alternative methods or activities for undertaking the action. For each alternative location, time frame or activity identified, you must also complete (where relevant) the details in sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7, 3.3 and 4. Please note, if the action that you propose to take is determined to be a controlled action, any alternative locations, time frames or activities that are identified here may be subject to environmental assessment and a decision on whether to approve the alternative.
The timeframes for this action are dependent on the breeding cycles of wetland and migratory bird species that have been identified as a potential concern within the area of the proposed construction and works. Construction may need to be timed so that any potential impacts caused by disturbance occur outside the breeding season of vulnerable species.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 4 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Consultation with Barilla Bay Oysters (the closest oyster farm to the project) has indicated that the months of January and February are the most ideal in terms of limited impact to oyster farming, as this period is the oyster spawning time and they cannot be harvested during this time. The critical months to avoid are from October through to the end of December when harvesting is at its peak.
There are no preferred construction timeframes recommended from the marine assessment report. This is due to the low perceived environmental impact as a result of construction (Marine assessment report attached). Refer to Attachment 5.
Given that the proposed development is to extend the existing approach lighting, any ongoing disturbance to fauna species is unlikely to be any more significant than the disturbances that already exist in the area (Latitude42, 2014). It is not considered that any additional lighting will have any long term impact on breeding or roosting habitats for listed species, nor will it have any significant long-term impact on the foraging habitat for listed species (Latitude42, 2014). Overall, it is unlikely that any of the listed species will be threatened by the proposed construction and installation of additional approach lights (Fauna assessment report attached). Refer to Attachment 5.
2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements Explain the context in which the action is proposed, including any relevant planning framework at the state and/or local government level (e.g. within scope of a management plan, planning initiative or policy framework). Describe any Commonwealth or state legislation or policies under which approvals are required or will be considered against.
The proposed works will occur on Crown Land within a Ramsar listed wetland and is therefore subject to assessment under the EPBC Act at the commonwealth level, and the consideration of additional state legislation. Relevant state and commonwealth legislation applicable to this project includes:
Airports (environment Protection) Regulations 1997 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 State Coastal Policy Validation Act 2006 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 Airport Act nor sure on year
A number of state government departments were consulted independently as part of this referral application. These departments included the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), Crown Land Services, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT), Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS), Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST) and Clarence City Council.
Outcomes of this consultation indicate the following: There are no Aboriginal heritage values within the proposed area, therefore no permit is required from AHT for works to commence There are no permit requirements from MAST. Coordinate details are to be provided on completion of construction and provided to MAST for mapping requirements There are no permit or approval requirements under the Clarence Council Planning Scheme. This project is exempt under Section 5.1.2 (b) and (d) of the Planning Scheme A works approval is required from Crown Land Services prior to any construction work commencing. Included in the works approval will be any conditions imposed on the construction method and/or timing. A proposed amendment to the existing license agreement to extend the existing approach lights is also required. There are no concerns raised by the PWS in relation to potential impacts to values within any State Reserves in vicinity to the project.
Refer to Attachment 6.
2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation If you have identified that the proposed action will be or has been subject to a state or territory environmental impact statement (in section 1.11) you must complete this section. Describe any environmental assessment of the relevant impacts of the project that has been, is being, or will be carried out under state or territory legislation. Specify the type and nature of the assessment, the relevant legislation and the current status of any assessments or approvals. Where possible, provide contact details for the state/territory assessment contact officer. Describe or summarise any public consultation undertaken, or to be undertaken, during the assessment. Attach copies of relevant assessment documentation and outcomes of public consultations (if available).
The Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (HIAPL) do not consider that the proposed works associated with the construction of additional approach light footings in Barilla Bay will require and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under state
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 5 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
legislation. This assessment is based on two environmental investigations that have been undertaken for the site and extensive stakeholder consultation with relevant government departments, businesses and community groups.
The two environmental studies initiated by HIAPL include a marine assessment and a migratory/wetland bird assessment.
Marine Solutions has undertaken an environmental assessment of the proposed area where the construction of the approach light footings will take place. The study encompassed a habitat characterisation, sediment characterisation, threatened and protected species study and introduced marine pests. Results of the study indicate that sediments throughout the study site appear well consolidated and were not observed to resuspend during tidal flows at the site. A 2.0 metre jet probe was used to penetrate the sediment to test for refusal depth. The jet probe penetrated the sub-surface sediment to it full length (2m) relatively easily at sites furthest from the existing light masts, but depth to refusal became shorter with approach to the shore. This may indicate the depth of a highly compacted clay later, cobbles or bedrock underlying the mobile surface layer of sand. Field and laboratory tests were undertaken, and the results indicate that the risks presented by sedimentary contaminants, turbidity plumes and toxic dinoflagellate cysts are all low. Overall, the project is considered to be a low risk to marine ecology and there are no contraventions to construction (Marine Solutions, 2014).
Latitude 42 Consulting has undertaken a desktop fauna assessment of the proposed area where the construction of the approach light footings will take place. The study encompassed a desktop investigation that took into account listed species, fauna values of the proposed construction and access area, and a list of fauna species that are protected under the relevant commonwealth and state legislation. Results of the desktop investigation indicate that the risk of any adverse impact on species or habitat is low. An additional species of interest (but not currently listed) was noted as the PWOL area contains a significant breeding population of the Australian pied oyster catcher. A total of 62 Australian pied oystercatcher nests and breeding territories have been recorded during surveys undertaken in 2012 (Latitude42, 2014). The highest concentration of breeding territories was in Barilla Bay, however this species occurs in the greater PWOL area. The proposed construction is unlikely to have a significant, long term impact on breeding, foraging or roosting habitat for this species. However care should be taken to avoid disturbance, particularly to breeding pairs during the construction phase of the light footings (Latitude42, 2014).
Stakeholder consultation for this project occurred with both state government agencies and key stakeholders. Outcomes of this consultation indicate the following:
Government consultation outcomes: There are no Aboriginal heritage values within the proposed area, therefore no permit is required from AHT for works to commence There are no permit requirements from MAST. Coordinate details are to be provided on completion of construction and provided to MAST for mapping requirements There are no permit or approval requirements under the Clarence Council Planning Scheme. This project is exempt under Section 5.1.2 (b) and (d) of the Planning Scheme A works approval is required from Crown Land Services prior to any construction work commencing. Included in the works approval will be any conditions imposed on the construction method and/or timing. A proposed amendment to the existing license agreement to extend the existing approach lights is also required.
Stakeholder engagement outcomes: Pied Oyster catchers are a threatened species that have known nesting sites along the foreshore of Barilla Bay. Construction should be managed in such a manner that the breeding/nesting of this species is not impacted on (Breeding cycle is from Oct-Apr) Oyster harvesting period is from Oct-Dec inclusive and any work in the bay should be avoided at this time. Optimal construction timing will be in Jan-Feb when the oysters are spawning. This is also an optimal time in terms of having maximum low tides which will allow for better access and with minimal impact.
2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) Your referral must include a description of any public consultation that has been, or is being, undertaken. Where Indigenous stakeholders are likely to be affected by your proposed action, your referral should describe any consultations undertaken with Indigenous stakeholders. Identify the relevant stakeholders and the status of consultations at the time of the referral. Where appropriate include copies of documents recording the outcomes of any consultations.
A TASI database search was undertaken for the area of the proposed works in order to determine whether there are any registered TASI sites in the vicinity. Outcomes of the database search indicate that there are no Aboriginal heritage values near to the site. There are no further permit or consultation requirements. A copy of the database search from AHT is provided as an attachment. Refer to Attachment 6.
Public consultation for the overall will occur as part of the Major Development Plan process required under the Airport’s Act. 2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project If you have identified that the proposed action is a component of a larger action (in section 1.12) you must complete this section. Provide information about the larger action and details of any interdependency between the stages/components and the larger action. You may also provide justification as to why you believe it is reasonable for the referred action to be
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 6 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
considered separately from the larger proposal (eg. the referred action is ‘stand-alone’ and viable in its own right, there are separate responsibilities for component actions or approvals have been split in a similar way at the state or local government levels).
While the installation of additional approach lights and footings is required as part of the larger runway extension project for the Hobart Airport, this action is being referred to as a “stand alone” action as there are no perceived environmental impacts associated with the runway extension within the airport boundaries. This is supported by comprehensive information that already exists on the environmental values on airport land. The runway extension project is required to undertake a Major Development Plan as per the Airports Act. The work associated with the installation of new approach lights is to occur within Crown Land and within a Ramsar wetland.
This action is being referred as the approach light footings are located in a Ramsar wetland area which is outside the existing airport boundary. It is therefore important for HIAPL to be able to engage with stakeholders and inform the community as soon as is practicable in order to alleviate any concerns and to ensure that best environmental practice is adopted when works are undertaken. This consultation will occur as part of the overall and extensive consultation required as part of the Major Development Plan. Key stakeholders have been consulted in relation to the approach light aspect of the project and include State and Commonwealth departments identified, local government and Birds Tasmania.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 7 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
3 Description of environment & likely impacts
3.1 Matters of national environmental significance Describe the affected area and the likely impacts of the proposal, emphasising the relevant matters protected by the EPBC Act. Refer to relevant maps as appropriate. The interactive map tool can help determine whether matters of national environmental significance or other matters protected by the EPBC Act are likely to occur in your area of interest.
Your assessment of likely impacts should refer to the following resources (available from the Department’s web site): specific values of individual World Heritage properties and National Heritage places and the ecological character of Ramsar wetlands; profiles of relevant species/communities (where available), that will assist in the identification of whether there is likely to be a significant impact on them if the proposal proceeds; Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance; and associated sectoral and species policy statements available on the web site, as relevant.
Your assessment of likely impacts should consider whether a bioregional plan is relevant to your proposal. The Minister has prepared four marine bioregional plans (MBP) in accordance with section 176. It is likely that the MBP’s will be more commonly relevant where listed threatened species, listed migratory species or a Commonwealth marine area is considered.
Note that even if your proposal will not be taken in a World Heritage area, Ramsar wetland, Commonwealth marine area, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or on Commonwealth land, it could still impact upon these areas (for example, through downstream impacts). Consideration of likely impacts should include both direct and indirect impacts.
3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties
Description
NA
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the World Heritage values of any World Heritage property.
NA
3.1 (b) National Heritage Places
Description
NA
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the National Heritage values of any National Heritage place. NA
3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)
When the PWOL was Ramsar listed in 1982 it was considered to meet four criteria, however since that time the Ramsar criteria has been modified and extended. While the site still supports the criteria under which it was originally listed, some loss in species diversity and abundance has been evident over time. The status of key environmental components and processes within PWOL and the wider estuary that support the system is now considered modified and is no longer considered representative of a wetland in “natural or near-natural condition”.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 8 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The Ecological Character Description (ECD) of PWOL indicates that this Ramsar site currently meets five criteria for Ramsar listing. The ECD is based on an assessment in August 2012. These include:
Group B of the Criteria. Sites of international importance for conserving biological diversity Criteria based on species and ecological communities Criterion 2: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities. Criterion 3: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region. Criterion 4: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions. Specific criteria based on fish Criterion 8: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is an important source of food for fishes, spawning ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, depend. Specific criteria based on other taxa Criterion 9: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 9 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Description The PWOL system supports important biodiversity values, including saltmarshes hosting different facies of vegetation communities and species with several saltmarsh, wetland and coastal plant and invertebrate species considered rare in Tasmania. The birdlife of PWOL includes migratory and resident waterbirds, including shorebirds, and seabirds. Orielton Lagoon is the most important site for migratory shorebirds in the Bruny Marine Bioregion. It is the most southerly area used by waders of the East Asian - Australasian Flyway. PWOL supports the biodiversity of the South-East Bioregion and Bruny Marine Bioregion. It is also important as the most significant shark breeding area in southern Tasmania and the habitat it provides for a rare endemic seastar and rare bird species.
A state and commonwealth database search on threatened species and ecological values was undertaken in order to determine whether any listed species had the potential to occur within the area proposed for the installation of the approach light footings. None of the species identified were recorded or were predicted to occur in the proposed area of works.
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the ecological character of any Ramsar wetlands. The nature and extent of any likely impacts from the construction activities are considered to be negligible. This assessment is based on the outcomes of two environmental assessments and consultation with relevant state and commonwealth agencies and key stakeholders. The site itself has altered over time as documented in the Ecological Character Description (ECD) for the PWOL wetland. The ECD documents a range of changes in the PWOL Ramsar site since the time of listing. These include the following changes: Alteration of flow regimes in the Coal River Increasing tidal exchange and improvement of water quality in Orielton Lagoon Changes in sediment deposition Decline in abundance and diversity of birds, fish and invertebrates Decline in the extent of seagrass beds Change in saltmarsh flora and condition.
The change in the hydrology and associated processes in Upper Pitt Water exceeds the limit of acceptable change for freshwater flows entering the upper estuary (Australian Government ECD August 2012). The changes in freshwater flows affect the salinity profile and sediment processes with consequences for the associated communities and species of Upper Pitt Water.
The decline in biodiversity and abundance of communities throughout the site can be measured for saltmarshes and seagrass. These show decline in area and changes in community composition in the period since listing considered to exceed limits of acceptable change, although in the case of seagrass, losses appear to be an ongoing trend that commenced prior to listing. Anecdotal evidence indicates loss of diversity and abundance across fish and invertebrate communities. These declines may be attributed to the (increasingly) modified condition of the site (Australian Government ECD August 2012).
The change in the water quality in Orielton Lagoon is a positive change in ecological character. At the time of listing, the lagoon was almost closed off from the sea and water quality was poor. In addition, discharge from a sewage treatment plant and stormwater brought nutrients and pollutants into the confined water body. Now culverts have been installed to allow some tidal flow, drainage channels encourage circulation within the lagoon and now grey water is not directly discharged. The system may not yet have achieved equilibrium (Australian Government ECD August 2012).
The extent of proposed works in Barilla Bay as part of this project is limited largely to the marine environment, with some vehicle access required from the shore via an existing track. The potential environmental impacts for this project are limited to those threatened species that are reliant on coastal habitat or the marine environment where construction is to occur. Environmental assessments undertaken for the marine environment and migratory/wetland birds indicate that the risk of impact to environmental values as a result of construction and site access is unlikely or rated as low.
The timing of the construction will be scheduled in accordance with recommendations and preferences provided in reports and through stakeholder engagement discussions. These measures include:
Timing construction and undertaking investigation methods prior to construction so that the breeding of the Pied Oyster catcher is not adversely affected Timing construction so that it occurs outside the oyster harvesting period ( Oct-Dec inclusive) Selecting an appropriate construction method and timeframe that minimises sediment dispersal
There are no other environmental concerns identified from the proposed construction activities.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 10 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities
Description A state and commonwealth database search on threatened species was undertaken. Reports indicate the following:
Five state listed species and one commonwealth listed species have been previously recorded within 500m of the proposed construction area, including the shoreline. Four of these species are plant species and two are fauna. The floristic species will not be impacted on as part of this project as all are land based. No construction work is proposed on land and access to the shoreline will be via existing tracks. The two fauna species include the Eastern barred bandicoot and the Eastern Curlew. The coastal habitat is not suitable for the Eastern barred bandicoot and therefore this species is unlikely to be encountered or impacted on as a result of construction activities. The Eastern Curlew migrates to Australia, including Tasmania, during the summer. This species is considered uncommon in the state however is known to the nearby Orielton Lagoon. This species is unlikely to be impacted on by construction activities as the immediate development area is small and construction works are expected to take less than a week (Latitude42, 2014). A fauna assessment has been undertaken and indicates that 38 bird species listed on the EPBC Act forage, live and/or breed on or within5km of the proposed footings. Of these, 6 species are currently listed as threatened and an additional 26 are listed on the migratory and marine species list. An additional 6 species are listed only on the marine list. Of the 6 EPBC listed species, 5 are also currently listed under the state Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 No threatened bird species or habitat will be impacted on as a result of the proposed construction (Latitude 42, 2014). Three threatened fish species were identified in the EPBC Protected Matters Report. The Marine environmental assessment report by Marine Solutions indicates that there are no threatened species present or likely to be affected by the construction activities associated with the approach light extension. This report also indicated that the threatened Tasmanian live-bearing sea star was not present, nor were any shark species listed within the Protected Matters Report (refer to attached Marine Solutions report). One frog species was identified in the EPBC Protected Matters Report. There is no suitable habitat for frog species within the proposed construction area. Five mammalian species were identified in the EPBC Protected Matters Report. Two of these were whale species and will not be impacted on as a result of construction activities. The remaining three species, Spotted tailed quoll, Eastern Barred Bandicoot and the Tasmanian Devil are all terrestrial species with no available habitat at the proposed site and will therefore not be impacted on by the proposed construction activities. Eight plant species were identified in the EPBC Protected Matters Report. One of these species are aquatic or coastal species that would occur in the proposed footprint of construction.
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the members of any listened threatened species (except a conservation dependent species) or any threatened ecological community, or their habitat.
The nature and extent of any likely impacts to threatened species from the construction activities is considered to be negligible. This assessment is based on the outcomes of two environmental assessments and consultation with relevant state and commonwealth agencies and key stakeholders.
The timing of the construction will be scheduled in accordance with recommendations and preferences provided in reports and through stakeholder engagement discussions. These measures include:
Timing construction and undertaking investigation methods prior to construction so that the breeding of the Pied Oyster catcher is not adversely affected Timing construction so that it occurs outside the oyster harvesting period ( Oct-Dec inclusive) Selecting an appropriate construction method and timeframe that minimises sediment dispersal
There are no other potential impacts to threatened species identified from the proposed construction activities.
3.1 (e) Listed migratory species
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 11 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Description A number of migratory species were also referenced within the Protected Matters Report and the fauna assessment prepared by Latitude42. A total of 30 species listed as migratory or marine only are identified as occurring or potentially occurring within 5km of the proposed construction area. The red-capped plover is the only species known to breed in this area (Latidude42, 2014). Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the members of any listed migratory species, or their habitat.
The nature and extent of any likely impacts to listed migratory species from the construction activities is considered to be negligible. The Latitude 42 report indicates that the proposed construction will not have a significant impact on the foraging or roosting habitat for these species and none of the identified species will be threatened by the proposed activity.
3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area (If the action is in the Commonwealth marine area, complete 3.2(c) instead. This section is for actions taken outside the Commonwealth marine area that may have impacts on that area.) Description NA
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth marine area.
NA
3.1 (g) Commonwealth land (If the action is on Commonwealth land, complete 3.2(d) instead. This section is for actions taken outside Commonwealth land that may have impacts on that land.)
NA Description If the action will affect Commonwealth land also describe the more general environment. The Policy Statement titled Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies provides further details on the type of information needed. If applicable, identify any potential impacts from actions taken outside the Australian jurisdiction on the environment in a Commonwealth Heritage Place overseas.
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth land. Your assessment of impacts should refer to the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies and specifically address impacts on: ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; natural and physical resources; the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas; the heritage values of places; and the social, economic and cultural aspects of the above things.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 12 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Description
NA Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on any part of the environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. NA
Note: If your action occurs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park you may also require permission under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). If so, section 37AB of the GBRMP Act provides that your referral under the EPBC Act is deemed to be an application under the GBRMP Act and Regulations for necessary permissions and a single integrated process will generally apply. Further information is available at www.gbrmpa.gov.au
3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development
Description If the action is a coal seam gas development or large coal mining development that has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on water resources, the draft Policy Statement Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments—Impacts on water resources provides further details on the type of information needed.
NA
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on water resources. Your assessment of impacts should refer to the draft Significant Impact Guidelines: Coal seam gas and large coal mining developments—Impacts on water resources.
NA
3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park You must describe the nature and extent of likely impacts (both direct & indirect) on the whole environment if your project: is a nuclear action; will be taken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency; will be taken in a Commonwealth marine area; will be taken on Commonwealth land; or will be taken in the Great Barrier Reef marine Park.
Your assessment of impacts should refer to the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies and specifically address impacts on: ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; natural and physical resources; the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas; the heritage values of places; and the social, economic and cultural aspects of the above things.
3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action? X No Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 13 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the X No Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a X No Commonwealth marine area? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))
3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on X No Commonwealth land? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))
3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the X No Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))
3.3 Other important features of the environment Provide a description of the project area and the affected area, including information about the following features (where relevant to the project area and/or affected area, and to the extent not otherwise addressed above). If at Section 2.3 you identified any alternative locations, time frames or activities for your proposed action, you must complete each of the details below (where relevant) for each alternative identified.
3.3 (a) Flora and fauna All potential flora and fauna values have been addressed in Section 3.1 of this referral.
3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows
Hydrology and water flow will not be impacted on as a result of construction activities proposed for this project.
3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics
Potential Acid Sulphate Soils (PASS) were assessed as part of the marine environmental assessment (Marine Solutions). Results of field testing did not support the high risk rating indicated by government databases. No samples met the criteria indicating that PASS was present. Although the risk of acid leaching has been assessed as low, risk mitigation measures will be adopted during the construction phase to ensure Acid Sulphate Soils do not become an issue during the construction phase. This includes periodic visual and odour monitoring throughout the duration of any sedimentary disturbance.
3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features
No additional natural values identified.
3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation NA
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 14 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area)
The deepest sections of the channel are 0.8m±, 0.2m at Chart Datum, and up to 2.2m ± 0.2m at high tide. This area is subject to tidal influence. The majority of the site is comprised of exposed tidal sandy flats during low tide.
3.3 (g) Current state of the environment Include information about the extent of erosion, whether the area is infested with weeds or feral animals and whether the area is covered by native vegetation or crops.
NA
3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values NA
3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values
There are no recorded indigenous heritage values within the proposed construction area (refer to AHT TASI database search report). Refer to Attachment 6.
3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment Describe any other key features of the environment affected by, or in proximity to the proposed action (for example, any national parks, conservation reserves, wetlands of national significance etc).
A nature reserve is located to the west of the area proposed for construction. This area will not be affected or impacted on as a result of construction activities.
3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold)
The tenure of the area where construction activities are proposed is on Crown Land.
3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area
The area is currently leased for oyster farming, with the nearest farm (Barilla Bay Oysters) approximately 500m away from the area proposed for construction activities.
3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area
NA
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 15 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
4 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts
Note: If you have identified alternatives in relation to location, time frames or activities for the proposed action at Section 2.3 you will need to complete this section in relation to each of the alternatives identified.
Provide a description of measures that will be implemented to avoid, reduce, manage or offset any relevant impacts of the action. Include, if appropriate, any relevant reports or technical advice relating to the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed measures.
For any measures intended to avoid or mitigate significant impacts on matters protected under the EPBC Act, specify: what the measure is, how the measure is expected to be effective, and the time frame or workplan for the measure.
Examples of relevant measures to avoid or reduce impacts may include the timing of works, avoidance of important habitat, specific design measures, or adoption of specific work practices.
Provide information about the level of commitment by the person proposing to take the action to implement the proposed mitigation measures. For example, if the measures are preliminary suggestions only that have not been fully researched, or are dependent on a third party’s agreement (e.g. council or landowner), you should state that, that is the case.
Note, the Australian Government Environment Minister may decide that a proposed action is not likely to have significant impacts on a protected matter, as long as the action is taken in a particular manner (section 77A of the EPBC Act). The particular manner of taking the action may avoid or reduce certain impacts, in such a way that those impacts will not be ‘significant’. More detail is provided on the Department’s web site.
For the Minister to make such a decision (under section 77A), the proposed measures to avoid or reduce impacts must: clearly form part of the referred action (eg be identified in the referral and fall within the responsibility of the person proposing to take the action), be must be clear, unambiguous, and provide certainty in relation to reducing or avoiding impacts on the matters protected, and must be realistic and practical in terms of reporting, auditing and enforcement.
More general commitments (eg preparation of management plans or monitoring) and measures aimed at providing environmental offsets, compensation or off-site benefits CANNOT be taken into account in making the initial decision about whether the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on a matter protected under the EPBC Act. (But those commitments may be relevant at the later assessment and approval stages, including the appropriate level of assessment, if your proposal proceeds to these stages).
While potential environmental impacts from construction activities are considered low, a number of measures will be put in place to further reduce any likelihood of impacts to the receiving environment and species utilising the area. Mitigation measures include the following:
Time construction so that it occurs outside the Pied Oyster catcher’s breeding cycle (Oct-Apr) Prior to construction the shoreline adjacent to the development is searched to identify any active nesting sites and where practical, a buffer of 200 metres be placed around the nest site. Nests containing eggs will be more sensitive to disturbance than pairs with dependent young Time construction so that it occurs outside the oyster harvesting period ( Oct-Dec inclusive) Select an appropriate construction method and timeframe that minimises sediment dispersal Time construction so that it occurs at low tide and therefore minimises sediment transfer caused by water flow through the existing channel Monitor marine water quality prior to and post construction and in consultation with Barilla Bay oyster farmers Undertake periodic visual and odour monitoring for Potential Acid Sulphate Soils (PASS) throughout the duration of any sedimentary disturbance Access the coastal environment via formed tracks that are already in place for the maintenance of the existing approach lights A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be prepared for the proposed works. All environmental requirements provided in specialist reports will be required for inclusion in the CEMP Onsite inspections during the construction phase will ensure that the environmental management measures within the CEMP are being adhered to.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 16 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
5 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts Identify whether or not you believe the action is a controlled action (ie. whether you think that significant impacts on the matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act are likely) and the reasons why.
5.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?
X No, complete section 5.2 Yes, complete section 5.3
5.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action. Specify the key reasons why you think the proposed action is NOT LIKELY to have significant impacts on a matter protected under the EPBC Act.
There are no threatened species located within the area where construction activities are proposed There are no perceived impacts to migratory bird species or their habitat Construction timing will reduce potential impacts to threatened species that may utilise the area for nesting/breeding Undertaking construction activities at low tide will also reduce the risk of sediment transfer within the channel There are no registered Aboriginal heritage sites in the area of proposed works There is no evidence of Acid Sulphate Soils in the area of proposed works Sediment settling rates are such that sediment dispersion is unlikely and will therefore have minimal impact to receiving waters beyond the immediate construction footprint area All potential environmental risks can be addressed through mitigation measures defined within the CEMP.
5.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action Type ‘x’ in the box for the matter(s) protected under the EPBC Act that you think are likely to be significantly impacted. (The ‘sections’ identified below are the relevant sections of the EPBC Act.)
Matters likely to be impacted World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A) National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C) Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B) Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A) Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A) Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A) Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E) Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A) Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28) Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)
Specify the key reasons why you think the proposed action is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the matters identified above.
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 17 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
6 Environmental record of the responsible party NOTE: If a decision is made that a proposal needs approval under the EPBC Act, the Environment Minister will also decide the assessment approach. The EPBC Regulations provide for the environmental history of the party proposing to take the action to be taken into account when deciding the assessment approach.
Yes No 6.1 Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible X environmental management?
Provide details
6.2 Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been X applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources?
If yes, provide details
6.3 If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance X with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?
If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework
In 2013 the Hobart International Airport integrated its policies on safety, security and environment into one as part of the development of an Integrated Management System (IMS). The revised policy for Hobart Airport includes HIAPL’s commitment in identifying and managing potential environmental impacts and minimising environmental risk for both development and operational aspects of airport activities.
A copy of the Airport’s Integrated Policy is provided as an attachment. Refer to Attachment 5.
6.4 Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?
Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known) x
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 18 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
7 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above)
7.1 References
Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) (2014), Aboriginal Heritage Desktop Assessment Approach Light Installation – Hobart Airport – Barilla Bay, July 2014
Australian Government, NRM South, NRM North, NRM Cradle Coast (August 2012), Pitt Water – Orielton Lagoon Tasmania Ecological Character Description, < http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/pitt-water-orielton-lagoon-ramsar-site- ecological-character-description>
Australian Government (2014). EPBC Act Protected Matters Report, 22 July 2014
City of Clarence (2013), Clarence Planning Scheme 2007, < http://www.ccc.tas.gov.au/page.aspx?u=1074>
Land Information Services Tasmania (LIST), Access to database for mapping and coordinate information, < http://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map>
Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd, (2014), Fauna assessment of the extended lighting area for the proposed Hobart International Airport airstrip extension development, Tasmania, Prepared for Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd, Barry Baker and Sheryl Hamilton, July 2014.
Marine Solutions Tasmania (2014), An Environmental Assessment of the Site of the Proposed construction of Additional Airstrip Approach Lighting Barilla Bay, Tasmania, July 2014
Natural Values Atlas (NVA) (2014), Desktop report generated for the Approach light extension project, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), Report Number 61081, Tuesday 22 July 2014
7.2 Reliability and date of information
All information provided in Section 3 of this referral is based on documented reports or derived from current information from relevant databases such as the Natural Values Atlas and the EPBC Protected Matters Report All information is recent or remains relevant to the current environmental values of the area since the date of publication All information has been prepared or provided by qualified specialists in the relevant environmental field
7.3 Attachments Indicate the documents you have attached. All attachments must be less than three megabytes (3mb) so they can be published on the Department’s website. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay the processing of your referral.
attached Title of attachment(s) You must attach figures, maps or aerial photographs Attachment 1A showing the project locality (section 1)
GIS file delineating the boundary of the referral area (section 1) Attachment 1 figures, maps or aerial photographs Attachment 2 showing the location of the project in respect to any matters of national environmental significance or important features of the environments (section 3)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 19 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
If relevant, attach copies of any state or local government Attachment 3 approvals and consent conditions (section 2.5) copies of any completed assessments to NA meet state or local government approvals and outcomes of public consultations, if available (section 2.6) copies of any flora and fauna investigations Attachment 4 and surveys (section 3) technical reports relevant to the Attachment 5 assessment of impacts on protected matters that support the arguments and conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4) report(s) on any public consultations Attachment 6 undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders (section 3)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 20 of 16
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
REFERRAL CHECKLIST NOTE: This checklist is to help ensure that all the relevant referral information has been provided. It is not a part of the referral form and does not need to be sent to the Department.
HAVE YOU: Completed all required sections of the referral form? Included accurate coordinates (to allow the location of the proposed action to be mapped)? Provided a map showing the location and approximate boundaries of the project area? Provided a map/plan showing the location of the action in relation to any matters of NES? Provided a digital file (preferably ArcGIS shapefile, refer to guidelines at Attachment A) delineating the boundaries of the referral area? Provided complete contact details and signed the form? Provided copies of any documents referenced in the referral form? Ensured that all attachments are less than three megabytes (3mb)? Sent the referral to the Department (electronic and hard copy preferred)?
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 23 of 16 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Attachment A
Geographic Information System (GIS) data supply guidelines
If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a point layer. If the area greater than 5 hectares, please provide as a polygon layer. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipline) please provide a polyline layer.
GIS data needs to be provided to the Department in the following manner: Point, Line or Polygon data types: ESRI file geodatabase feature class (preferred) or as an ESRI shapefile (.shp) zipped and attached with appropriate title Raster data types: Raw satellite imagery should be supplied in the vendor specific format. Projection as GDA94 coordinate system.
Processed products should be provided as follows: For data, uncompressed or lossless compressed formats is required - GeoTIFF or Imagine IMG is the first preference, then JPEG2000 lossless and other simple binary+header formats (ERS, ENVI or BIL). For natural/false/pseudo colour RGB imagery: o If the imagery is already mosaiced and is ready for display then lossy compression is suitable (JPEG2000 lossy/ECW/MrSID). Prefer 10% compression, up to 20% is acceptable. o If the imagery requires any sort of processing prior to display (i.e. mosaicing/colour balancing/etc) then an uncompressed or lossless compressed format is required.
Metadata or ‘information about data’ will be produced for all spatial data and will be compliant with ANZLIC Metadata Profile. (http://www.anzlic.org.au/policies_guidelines#guidelines).
The Department’s preferred method is using ANZMet Lite, however the Department’s Service Provider may use any compliant system to generate metadata.
All data will be provide under a Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/)
001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 24 of 16 DRAWN : DESIGNED : SCALE Originator : Section :
DRAWING No. REV TITLE
A4 Border LEGEND Existing Foundation
New Foundation
850 300
5th BAR 131.6 129.7 134.9 145.1 152.8 156 79.3 4th BAR 3rd BAR
2nd BAR
1st BAR
EXISTING THRESHOLD 26.6 26.6 26.6 25.8 26 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 26 25.8 25.9 25.8 28.8 28.6 28.7 28.6 28.5 30.2 29.2 29.3 29.2 27.5 32.3 34.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 30
4.9 5.9 7 8 9 RUNWAY 12
RELOCATED THRESHOLD
850 300
131.6 129.7 134.9 145.1 152.8 156 79.3 4th BAR 2nd BAR 5th BAR 3rd BAR 1st BAR
26.6 26.6 26.6 25.8 26 25.9 25.9 25.9 26.1 25.8 25.8 25.9 25.8 28.8 28.6 28.7 28.6 28.5 30.2 29.2 29.3 29.2 27.5 32.3 34.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 30 GRADIENT: 1:60 GRADIENT:1:66 GRADIENT: 1:1 FROM APP. LIGHT No.1 5 5.2 4.81 4.19 3.76 5.69 3.29 5.34 2.84 2.35 5.14 1.85 1.41 0.89 5.53 0.45 5.27 4.52 4.21 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.04 3.08 3.09 3.09 3.12 4.03 3.19 EXISTING THRESHOLD RELOCATED THRESHOLD
30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
SAFEGATE GROUP DESIGN OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THORN AIRFIELD LIGHTING PTY LTD SUITE 808, MBE DAMANSARA HEIGHTS LOT G.03, GROUND FLOOR, WISMA E&C NO.2, LORONG DUNGUN KIRI, DAMANSARA HEIGHTS 50490, KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA PHONE: +60 (3) 2011 3522 EMAIL: [email protected] www.safegate.com
Approach Light Extension Authoritative, comprehensive information on Tasmania's natural values.
Report number: 61081 Reference: Approach light extension - Hobart Airport Requested For: Kirsten Leggett Timestamp: 11:06:03 AM Tuesday 22 July 2014
The centroid for this query GDA94 540467,5258631 falls within: 1:25000 Map: 5425 CARLTON Property: 0
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Page 1 of 5 Threatened species within 500 metres 539695, 5259400 541239, 5259400
539695, 5257861 541239, 5257861 Legend: Parcels
Legend: Verified and Unverified observations
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Page 2 of 5 Threatened species within 500 metres Verified Records Species Common Name SS NS Aphelia gracilis slender fanwort r Cynoglossum australe coast houndstongue r Juncus amabilis gentle rush r Numenius madagascariensis eastern curlew e Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU Wilsonia rotundifolia roundleaf wilsonia r
Unverified Records No unverified records were found! Threatened species within 500 metres (based on Habitat Mapping) Species Common Name SS NS Potential Known Core Aquila audax wedge-tailed eagle pe PEN 1 0 0 Perameles gunnii eastern barred bandicoot VU 1 0 1 Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll r VU 1 0 0 Antipodia chaostola chaostola skipper e EN 1 0 0 Pseudemoia pagenstecheri tussock skink v 1 0 0 Litoria raniformis green and gold frog v VU 1 0 0 Aquila audax subsp. fleayi tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle e EN 1 0 0 Lathamus discolor swift parrot e EN 1 0 1 Sarcophilus harrisii tasmanian devil e EN 1 0 0 Prototroctes maraena australian grayling v VU 1 0 0 Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl pe PVU 1 0 1 Theclinesthes serpentata chequered blue pr 1 0 0 Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle v 2 0 0 Amelora acontistica chevron looper moth v 1 0 0 Pardalotus quadragintus forty-spotted pardalote e EN 1 0 0 Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk e 1 0 0
For more information about threatened species, please contact the Manager, Threatened Species and Marine Section. Telephone: (03) 6165 4340 Email: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 44, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 7000
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Page 3 of 5 Threatened Species Metadata
Habitat Mapping There are two levels of accuracy available for habitat mapping. For some species habitat maps were generated by combining existing location information with the 1:25000 map sheets, for example, where there is a record of a species on a given map sheet that map sheet is included in the habitat mapping for the species. For the majority of species, existing location information, species habitat descriptions and available spatial data such as land tenure and land use information have been used to develop more detailed maps of potential habitat for each species. These habitat maps have been developed in collaboration with species specialists and give a more accurate indication of the actual and potential range of a species. This information can be used in the assessment of proposed developments and to monitor impacts on species and species habitat. It is intended that the maps will be updated as and when new information becomes available. Known Range (or actual range) is the area of land within the minimum convex polygon encompassing all known localities where the species is known to occur. It is the area within which the species is most likely to occur. This term is synonymous with extent of occurrence as referred to in the Guidelines for eligibility for listing under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995. Core Range encompasses the area, within the known range, known to support the highest densities of the species and/or thought to be of greatest importance for the maintenance of breeding populations of the species. Potential Range includes the known range, but also includes the area within which the species has not been found but may occur based on environmental conditions. Range Scale: 1->100 indicates Threatened Fauna observations occur in the habitat range. Range Scale: 0 indicates Threatened Fauna observations do not occur in the habitat range. Habitat mapping has only been created for certain species and not every species has all range types available.
National Schedule Metadata Code Description Notes EX Extinct Where a taxon has not been located in the wild for the past 50 years. EW Extinct in the Wild This is when a taxon can not be found living in the wild despite exhaustive surveys, but is still know to exist in captivity. CR Critically Endangered In this case a taxon is in extreme danger of becoming extinct in the immediate future. A taxon is placed in this category if : * it has undergone, is suspected to have undergone or is likely to undergo in the immediate future a very severe reduction in numbers; * its geographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the taxon and is very restricted; * the estimated total number of mature individuals is very low and (a) evidence suggests that the number will continue to decline at a very high rate or (b) the number is likely to continue to decline and its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival; * the estimated total number of mature individuals is extremely low; * the probability of its extinction in the wild is at least 50% in the immediate future. EN Endangered A taxon at very high risk of becoming extinct in the near future. A taxon is placed in this category if : * it has undergone, is suspected to have undergone or is likely to undergo in the immediate future a severe reduction in numbers; * its geographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the species and is restricted; * the estimated total number of mature individuals is low and (a) evidence suggests that the number will continue to decline at a high rate or (b) the number is likely to continue to decline and its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival; * the estimated total number of mature individuals is very low; * the probability of its extinction in the wild is at least 20% in the immediate future. VU Vulnerable A taxon is facing a high risk of extinction in the medium term future. A taxon is placed in this category if : * it has undergone, is suspected to have undergone or is likely to undergo in the immediate future a substantial reduction in numbers; * its geographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the taxon and is limited; * the estimated total number of mature individuals is limited and (a) evidence suggests that the number will continue to decline at a substantial rate or (b) the number is likely to continue to decline and its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival; * the estimated total number of mature individuals is low; * the probability of its extinction in the wild is at least 10% in the immediate future.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Page 4 of 5 Threatened Species Metadata Code Description Notes CD Conservation Dependent A native species is eligible to be included in the Conservation Dependent category at a particular time if, at that time: (a) 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; or (b) the following subparagraphs are satisfied: (i) the species is a species of fish; (ii) the species is the focus of a plan of management that provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, the species so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised; (iii) the plan of management is in force under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; (iv) cessation of the plan of management would adversely affect the conservation status of the species. PEX Extinct (Unofficial) This taxon is protected as presumed extinct. It is either a component of a presumed extinct taxon, or the name has changed from that which appears in the official legislation. PCR Critically Endangered (Unofficial) This taxon is protected as Critically Endangered. It is either a component of a Critically Endangered taxon, or the name has changed from that which appears in the official legislation. PEN Endangered (Unofficial) This taxon is protected as Endangered. It is either a component of a Endangered taxon, or the name has changed from that which appears in the official legislation. PVU Vulnerable (Unofficial) This taxon is protected as Vulnerable. It is either a component of a Vulnerable taxon, or the name has changed from that which appears in the official legislation. P Parent Species (Unofficial) This taxon is protected as a threatened species as all taxa (species, subspecies or varieties) derived from this entity are listed as threatened species.
State Schedule Metadata Code Description Notes x extinct Those taxa presumed extinct. e endangered Those taxa in danger of extinction because long term survival is unlikely while the factors causing then to be endangered continue operating. v vulnerable Those taxa likely to become endangered while the factors causing them to become vulnerable continue operating. r rare Those taxa with a small population in Tasmania that are at risk. px extinct (unofficial) This taxon is protected as presumed extinct. It is either a component of a presumed extinct taxon, or the name has changed from that which appears in the official legislation. pe endangered (unofficial) This taxon is protected as endangered. It is either a component of an endangered taxon, or the name has changed from that which appears in the official legislation. pv vulnerable (unofficial) This taxon is protected as vulnerable. It is either a component of a vulnerable taxon, or the name has changed from that which appears in the official legislation. pr rare (unofficial) This taxon is protected as rare. It is either a component of a rare taxon, or the name has changed from that which appears in the official legislation. p parent species (unofficial) This taxon is protected as a threatened species as all taxa (species, subspecies or varieties) derived from this entity are listed as threatened species. pp pending (unofficial) A final decision has been made to list this taxon on schedules of the Tasmania Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 though the listing is awaiting gazettal.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Page 5 of 5 EPBC Act Protected Matters Report
This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.
Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.
Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details.
Report created: 22/07/14 11:28:02
Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgements
This map may contain data which are ©Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010
Coordinates Buffer: 0.5Km Summary
Matters of National Environmental Significance
This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.
World Heritage Properties: None National Heritage Places: None Wetlands of International Importance: 1 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None Commonwealth Marine Areas: None Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: None Listed Threatened Species: 41 Listed Migratory Species: 49
Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act
This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.
The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place and the heritage values of a place on the Register of the National Estate.
This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.
A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.
Commonwealth Land: 1 Commonwealth Heritage Places: None Listed Marine Species: 65 Whales and Other Cetaceans: 9 Critical Habitats: None Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial: None Commonwealth Reserves Marine None Extra Information
This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.
Place on the RNE: 2 State and Territory Reserves: None Regional Forest Agreements: 1 Invasive Species: 32 Nationally Important Wetlands: None Key Ecological Features (Marine) None
Details
Matters of National Environmental Significance Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR) [ Resource Information ] Name Proximity Pittwater - orielton lagoon Within Ramsar site
Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Birds Aquila audax fleayi Wedge-tailed Eagle (Tasmanian) [64435] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern [1001] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Diomedea epomophora epomophora Southern Royal Albatross [25996] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea epomophora sanfordi Northern Royal Albatross [82331] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans antipodensis Antipodean Albatross [82269] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans exulans Tristan Albatross [82337] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Diomedea exulans gibsoni Gibson's Albatross [82271] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) Wandering Albatross [1073] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Fregetta grallaria grallaria White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White- Vulnerable Species or species bellied Storm-Petrel (Australasian) [64438] habitat likely to occur Name Status Type of Presence within area Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744] Endangered Breeding likely to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel [1060] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Macronectes halli Northern Giant-Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Gould's Petrel [26033] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Sternula nereis nereis Australian Fairy Tern [82950] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross [64460] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche cauta cauta Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross [82345] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche cauta salvini Salvin's Albatross [82343] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche cauta steadi White-capped Albatross [82344] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey-headed Albatross [66491] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche melanophris impavida Campbell Albatross [82449] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Tyto novaehollandiae castanops (Tasmanian population) Masked Owl (Tasmanian) [67051] Vulnerable Breeding known to occur within area Fish Brachionichthys hirsutus Spotted Handfish, Spotted-hand Fish [64418] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling [26179] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Thymichthys politus Red Handfish [83756] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Frogs Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Frog, Southern Bell Frog, Green Vulnerable Species or species and Golden Frog, Warty Swamp Frog [1828] habitat may occur within area Mammals Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Tasmanian population) Spotted-tail Quoll, Spot-tailed Quoll, Tiger Quoll Vulnerable Species or species (Tasmanian population) [75183] habitat likely to occur Name Status Type of Presence within area Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale [40] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Perameles gunnii gunnii Eastern Barred Bandicoot (Tasmania) [66651] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Sarcophilus harrisii Tasmanian Devil [299] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Other Parvulastra vivipara Tasmanian Live-bearing Seastar [85451] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Plants Caladenia caudata Tailed Spider-orchid [17067] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Caladenia saggicola Sagg Spider-orchid [64859] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Carex tasmanica Curly Sedge [9101] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Dianella amoena Matted Flax-lily [64886] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine, Purple Clover [13910] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Lepidium hyssopifolium Basalt Pepper-cress, Peppercress, Rubble Pepper- Endangered Species or species cress, Pepperweed [16542] habitat likely to occur within area Prasophyllum milfordense Milford Leek-orchid [64950] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Rytidosperma popinensis Roadside Wallaby Grass [84360] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Sharks Carcharodon carcharias Great White Shark [64470] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean Albatross [64458] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely Name Threatened Type of Presence to occur within area Diomedea dabbenena Tristan Albatross [66471] Endangered* Species or species habitat may occur within area Diomedea epomophora (sensu stricto) Southern Royal Albatross [1072] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) Wandering Albatross [1073] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea gibsoni Gibson's Albatross [64466] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea sanfordi Northern Royal Albatross [64456] Endangered* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel [1060] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Macronectes halli Northern Giant-Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Puffinus carneipes Flesh-footed Shearwater, Fleshy-footed Foraging, feeding or Shearwater [1043] related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross [64460] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche cauta (sensu stricto) Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross [64697] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey-headed Albatross [66491] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Thalassarche impavida Campbell Albatross [64459] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche salvini Salvin's Albatross [64463] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche steadi White-capped Albatross [64462] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Migratory Marine Species Caperea marginata Pygmy Right Whale [39] Species or species habitat may occur within area Carcharodon carcharias Great White Shark [64470] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale [40] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur Name Threatened Type of Presence within area Lagenorhynchus obscurus Dusky Dolphin [43] Species or species habitat may occur within area Lamna nasus Porbeagle, Mackerel Shark [83288] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Orcinus orca Killer Whale, Orca [46] Species or species habitat may occur within area Migratory Terrestrial Species Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Migratory Wetlands Species Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone [872] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris alba Sanderling [875] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint [860] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot [862] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover [895] Species or species Name Threatened Type of Presence habitat known to occur within area Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover [879] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel [882] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Heteroscelus brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler [59311] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit [844] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit [845] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew [847] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel [849] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover [25545] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover [865] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper [59300] Species or species habitat known to occur within area
Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Commonwealth Land [ Resource Information ] The Commonwealth area listed below may indicate the presence of Commonwealth land in this vicinity. Due to the unreliability of the data source, all proposals should be checked as to whether it impacts on a Commonwealth area, before making a definitive decision. Contact the State or Territory government land department for further information. Name Commonwealth Land -
Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Birds Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone [872] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris alba Sanderling [875] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint [860] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot [862] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover [895] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover [879] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Charadrius ruficapillus Red-capped Plover [881] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel [882] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean Albatross [64458] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea dabbenena Tristan Albatross [66471] Endangered* Species or species habitat may occur within area Diomedea epomophora (sensu stricto) Southern Royal Albatross [1072] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) Wandering Albatross [1073] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Diomedea gibsoni Gibson's Albatross [64466] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea sanfordi Northern Royal Albatross [64456] Endangered* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Heteroscelus brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler [59311] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt [870] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744] Endangered Breeding likely to occur within area Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit [844] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit [845] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel [1060] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Macronectes halli Northern Giant-Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew [847] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel [849] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Philomachus pugnax Ruff (Reeve) [850] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover [25545] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover [865] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Puffinus carneipes Flesh-footed Shearwater, Fleshy-footed Foraging, feeding or Name Threatened Type of Presence Shearwater [1043] related behaviour likely to occur within area Recurvirostra novaehollandiae Red-necked Avocet [871] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross [64460] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche cauta (sensu stricto) Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross [64697] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey-headed Albatross [66491] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area Thalassarche impavida Campbell Albatross [64459] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche salvini Salvin's Albatross [64463] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche steadi White-capped Albatross [64462] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thinornis rubricollis Hooded Plover [59510] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis Hooded Plover (eastern) [66726] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper [59300] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Fish Hippocampus abdominalis Big-belly Seahorse, Eastern Potbelly Seahorse, Species or species New Zealand Potbelly Seahorse [66233] habitat may occur within area Hippocampus breviceps Short-head Seahorse, Short-snouted Seahorse Species or species [66235] habitat may occur within area Histiogamphelus briggsii Crested Pipefish, Briggs' Crested Pipefish, Briggs' Species or species Pipefish [66242] habitat may occur within area Maroubra perserrata Sawtooth Pipefish [66252] Species or species habitat may occur within area Mitotichthys mollisoni Mollison's Pipefish [66260] Species or species habitat may occur within area Mitotichthys semistriatus Halfbanded Pipefish [66261] Species or species habitat may occur within area Mitotichthys tuckeri Tucker's Pipefish [66262] Species or species Name Threatened Type of Presence habitat may occur within area Phyllopteryx taeniolatus Common Seadragon, Weedy Seadragon [66268] Species or species habitat may occur within area Solegnathus spinosissimus Spiny Pipehorse, Australian Spiny Pipehorse Species or species [66275] habitat may occur within area Stigmatopora argus Spotted Pipefish, Gulf Pipefish [66276] Species or species habitat may occur within area Stigmatopora nigra Widebody Pipefish, Wide-bodied Pipefish, Black Species or species Pipefish [66277] habitat may occur within area Urocampus carinirostris Hairy Pipefish [66282] Species or species habitat may occur within area Vanacampus phillipi Port Phillip Pipefish [66284] Species or species habitat may occur within area Mammals Arctocephalus forsteri New Zealand Fur-seal [20] Species or species habitat may occur within area Arctocephalus pusillus Australian Fur-seal, Australo-African Fur-seal Species or species [21] habitat may occur within area Whales and other Cetaceans [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Mammals Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke Whale [33] Species or species habitat may occur within area Caperea marginata Pygmy Right Whale [39] Species or species habitat may occur within area Delphinus delphis Common Dophin, Short-beaked Common Species or species Dolphin [60] habitat may occur within area Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale [40] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area Grampus griseus Risso's Dolphin, Grampus [64] Species or species habitat may occur within area Lagenorhynchus obscurus Dusky Dolphin [43] Species or species habitat may occur within area Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Orcinus orca Killer Whale, Orca [46] Species or species habitat may occur within area Tursiops truncatus s. str. Bottlenose Dolphin [68417] Species or species Name Status Type of Presence habitat may occur within area
Extra Information Places on the RNE [ Resource Information ] Note that not all Indigenous sites may be listed. Name State Status Natural Frederick Henry Bay Geoheritage Site TAS Indicative Place Pitt Water (Part) TAS Registered
Regional Forest Agreements [ Resource Information ] Note that all areas with completed RFAs have been included. Name State Tasmania RFA Tasmania
Invasive Species [ Resource Information ] Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001. Name Status Type of Presence Birds Acridotheres tristis Common Myna, Indian Myna [387] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Alauda arvensis Skylark [656] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Anas platyrhynchos Mallard [974] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch [403] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch [404] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Columba livia Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Passer domesticus House Sparrow [405] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Name Status Type of Presence Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove [780] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling [389] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Turdus merula Common Blackbird, Eurasian Blackbird [596] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Mammals Canis lupus familiaris Domestic Dog [82654] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Felis catus Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Lepus capensis Brown Hare [127] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Mus musculus House Mouse [120] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat, Norway Rat [83] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Rattus rattus Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Sus scrofa Pig [6] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Vulpes vulpes Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Plants Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine, Jalap, Lamb's-tail, Mignonette Vine, Species or species Anredera, Gulf Madeiravine, Heartleaf habitat likely to occur Madeiravine, Potato Vine [2643] within area Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper, Bridal Veil Creeper, Smilax, Species or species Florist's Smilax, Smilax Asparagus [22473] habitat likely to occur within area Asparagus scandens Asparagus Fern, Climbing Asparagus Fern Species or species [23255] habitat likely to occur within area Chrysanthemoides monilifera Bitou Bush, Boneseed [18983] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera Boneseed [16905] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Cytisus scoparius Broom, English Broom, Scotch Broom, Common Species or species Broom, Scottish Broom, Spanish Broom [5934] habitat likely to occur Name Status Type of Presence within area Genista monspessulana Montpellier Broom, Cape Broom, Canary Broom, Species or species Common Broom, French Broom, Soft Broom habitat likely to occur [20126] within area Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn, Boxthorn [19235] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Nassella neesiana Chilean Needle grass [67699] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock, Yass River Tussock, Yass Species or species Tussock, Nassella Tussock (NZ) [18884] habitat likely to occur within area Rubus fruticosus aggregate Blackberry, European Blackberry [68406] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Salix spp. except S.babylonica, S.x calodendron & S.x reichardtii Willows except Weeping Willow, Pussy Willow and Species or species Sterile Pussy Willow [68497] habitat likely to occur within area Ulex europaeus Gorse, Furze [7693] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Coordinates -42.824491 147.495935,-42.824577 147.495903,-42.823342 147.493767,-42.823137 147.494046,-42.824412 147.496096,-42.824483 147.495935,-42.824491 147.495935
Caveat The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report. This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World Heritage and Register of National Estate properties, Wetlands of International Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.
Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.
For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.
For species where the distributions are well known, maps are digitised from sources such as recovery plans and detailed habitat studies. Where appropriate, core breeding, foraging and roosting areas are indicated under 'type of presence'. For species whose distributions are less well known, point locations are collated from government wildlife authorities, museums, and non-government organisations; bioclimatic distribution models are generated and these validated by experts. In some cases, the distribution maps are based solely on expert knowledge.
Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped: - migratory and - marine The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database: - threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants - some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed - some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area - migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species: - non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites - seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment. Acknowledgements This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice: -Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, New South Wales -Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria -Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania -Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia -Parks and Wildlife Service NT, NT Dept of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts -Environmental and Resource Management, Queensland -Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia -Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water -Birds Australia -Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme -Australian National Wildlife Collection -Natural history museums of Australia -Museum Victoria -Australian Museum -SA Museum -Queensland Museum -Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums -Queensland Herbarium -National Herbarium of NSW -Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria -Tasmanian Herbarium -State Herbarium of South Australia -Northern Territory Herbarium -Western Australian Herbarium -Australian National Herbarium, Atherton and Canberra -University of New England -Ocean Biogeographic Information System -Australian Government, Department of Defence -State Forests of NSW -Geoscience Australia -CSIRO -Other groups and individuals
The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.
Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.
© Commonwealth of Australia Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia +61 2 6274 1111
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AIRSTRIP APPROACH LIGHTING,
BARILLA BAY, TASMANIA
July 2014
www.marinesolutions.net.au
© Marine Solutions 2014. This document should only be used for the specific project and purposes for which it was commissioned. Version Author Date Reviewed by reviewed
1 of 2 Laura Smith 8/7/14 Sam Ibbott
2 of 2 Laura Smith 10/7/14 Sam Ibbott
3 of 3 Laura Smith 16/7/14 Sam Ibbott
All satellite imagery used throughout is sourced from The Land Information System Tasmania (LIST).
1 Table of Contents
1 Table of Contents ...... 3
2 Table of Figures ...... 4
3 Executive Summary ...... 5
4 Introduction ...... 6
4.1 Purpose ...... 6
4.2 Legislation ...... 6
4.3 Study Site ...... 6
4.4 Proposed Development ...... 8
5 Habitat Characterisation ...... 9
5.1 Intertidal Environment ...... 10
5.2 Subtidal Environment ...... 12
6 Sediments ...... 13
6.1 Sediment Core Stratigraphy ...... 13
6.2 Jet Probing ...... 13
6.3 Acid Sulphate Soils ...... 14
6.4 Contaminants ...... 16
6.5 Particle Settlement Rates ...... 16
6.6 Toxic Dinoflagellate Survey ...... 17
7 Aquatic Flora and Fauna ...... 18
7.1 Threatened and Protected Species ...... 18
7.2 Introduced Marine Pests ...... 19
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 3
8 Risk Summary and Proposed Mitigations ...... 20
9 References ...... 21
10 Appendices ...... 22
2 Table of Figures
Figure 1 The location of the study site, showing approximation of airstrip (dotted red rectangle), terminal (dashed red rectangle) and study area (solid red rectangle)...... 7
Figure 2 Images showing the existing High Intensity Approach Lighting System in Barilla Bay...... 8
Figure 3 Photo showing sand flat, channel and part of the foundation of the most northerly lighting mast...... 9
Figure 4 Photo demonstrating the relatively high current flow in the channel...... 10
Figure 5 Sampling locations for sediment testing and intertidal quadrat surveying. Note: exact GPS locations are provided in Appendix 3...... 11
Figure 6 Bivalve shells that have accumulated on the shoreward side of the last existing light mast’s foundations...... 12
Figure 7 Photo showing the substrate on the bed of the channel...... 12
Figure 8 Photographs of cores at each site, showing core stratigraphy and core description ...... 13
Figure 9 Probability map of the occurrence of Acid Sulphate Soils = high risk (intertidal); = high risk (subtidal). Source: LISTmap 2014...... 15
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 4
3 Executive Summary
As part of the Hobart International Airport runway extension program the construction, and alteration, of lighting in Barilla Bay has been proposed. Marine Solutions conducted an environmental assessment of the proposed construction site in June 2014, the scope of which encompassed:
Habitat characterisation Sediment characterisation Threatened and protected species study Introduced marine pests
The study area is on the south-eastern shoreline of Barilla Bay, where a line of existing light masts are positioned on the tidally affected sand flat. The proposed extension footprint for the construction of new lighting foundations extends into a channel that runs perpendicular to the runway.
Sediments throughout the study site appear well consolidated and were not observed to resuspend during tidal flows at the site.
A 2.0 metre jet probe was used to penetrate the sediment to test for refusal depth. The jet probe penetrated the sub-surface sediment to its full length (i.e. 2m) relatively easily at sites furthest from the existing light masts, but depth to refusal became shorter with approach to the shore. This may indicate the depth of a highly compacted clay layer, cobbles or bedrock underlying the mobile surface layer of sand.
Field and laboratory tests were undertaken, and the results indicate that the risks presented by sedimentary contaminants, turbidity plumes and toxic dinoflagellate cysts are all low.
This appears to be a low risk project with no marine ecological contraventions to construction.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 5
4 Introduction
4.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to characterise the environmental risk posed by the construction and reconfiguration of airstrip approach lights in Barilla Bay, to ensure that appropriate risk mitigation measures can be adopted.
The information presented in this report includes:
A site description A preliminary overview of the proposed development Methods and results of tests conducted Summary of environmental risks posed by the proposed development Summary of proposed risk mitigation measures
4.2 Legislation All development planning within Tasmania is governed by Tasmania’s Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). The seven main statutes that lend legislative effect to the RMPS are:
- Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA); - Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997; - Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal Act 1993; - State Policies and Projects Act 1993; - Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA); - Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995; and - Major Infrastructure Development Approvals Act 1999.
4.3 Study Site Hobart airport is located in Cambridge, an outer suburb of Hobart, approximately 15km east of Hobart CBD. The surrounding land is important in terms of transport, urban development, and agriculture including livestock grazing. The Hobart International Airport is located just east of the main commercial centre (Figure 1).
Barilla Bay is located in the Pitt Water region immediately north-west of the Hobart Airport airstrip. It is a large, shallow embayment that is tidally affected. Oysters are farmed throughout upper and
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 6
lower Pittwater, and harvested from these farms for human consumption. The closest oyster production area is in Barilla Bay, approximately 500m from the proposed development footprint.
Located within the bay at the north-western approach of the runway is a High Intensity Approach Lighting System (HIAPL 2009), that aids flight navigation. The system consists of a series of lighting masts extending on to the Barilla Bay sand flats, each spaced approximately 25 metres apart along the northwest - southeast alignment (i.e. approximately 315° - 135°) of the airstrip (Figure 2).
Figure 1 The location of the study site, showing approximation of airstrip (dotted red rectangle), terminal (dashed red rectangle) and study area (solid red rectangle).
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 7
Figure 2 Images showing the existing High Intensity Approach Lighting System in Barilla Bay.
4.4 Proposed Development The construction of additional infrastructure to the approach lights in Barilla Bay has been proposed as part of the Hobart Airport runway extension project. Additional approach lights will be located up to 70 metres further into the water along the same alignment as the existing approach lights (i.e. ~315° NW) (K. Leggett, pers. comm.).
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 8
5 Habitat Characterisation
To characterise the study area, a general visual investigation was conducted. The existing light masts are located on a tidally affected sand flat. A natural channel draining the sand flats runs perpendicular to the alignment of the runway through the north of the study area (Figure 3). This channel experiences varying current velocities and direction at different tidal states (Figure 4).
Figure 3 Photo showing sand flat, channel and part of the foundation of the most northerly lighting mast.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 9
Figure 4 Photo demonstrating the relatively high current flow in the channel.
5.1 Intertidal Environment To characterise the intertidal habitat and its associated ecology, a quadrat survey was conducted
2 along the foreshore, whereby 1m quadrats (see Figure 5 below and Appendix 3) were placed haphazardly throughout the study area where accessible (i.e. dry). The substrate and any biota present were identified and recorded for each quadrat. A photographic record of each quadrat is presented in Appendix 4.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 10
Figure 5 Sampling locations for sediment testing and intertidal quadrat surveying. Note: exact GPS locations are provided in Appendix 3.
The intertidal environment was characterised by a firm sand substrate. The sand was sufficiently supportive for field scientists to stand and walk on it without sinking, indicating that the use of vehicles and machinery on the sand flat at low tide may be feasible during construction. This is supported by the fact adjoining oyster farms harvest by driving a tractor and trailer on similar sand flats. Corrugations in the sand indicate that sediments are mobile and reworked across the sand flat (Figure 3). Current movement around the base of the light masts has caused the deposition of material including a collection of empty bivalve shells, as depicted in Figure 6 below.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 11
Figure 6 Bivalve shells that have accumulated on the shoreward side of the last existing light mast’s foundations.
5.2 Subtidal Environment The subtidal environmental of the channel is characterised by a firm sand substrate with shell fragments throughout (Figure 7). A video showing the underwater environment across the channel is presented in Appendix 1.
Figure 7 Photo showing the substrate on the bed of the channel.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 12
6 Sediments
To characterise the sediments, and subsequent environmental risk of the proposed development, sediments were tested at f 3 sampling sites (see Figure 5 and Appendix 3). Tests included AASS/PASS risk analysis, core stratigraphy, sediment contaminants (sites S1 and S2), and jet probe depth.
6.1 Sediment Core Stratigraphy Intact sediment cores were examined in order to construct a picture of spatial stratigraphic variation over the proposed development area. 1.5m-coring tubes were used to collect cores at 3 sites (Figure 5). Each core was examined for colour, odour, textural or other differences, both within and between cores, and a photographic record of each core was obtained.
Photos and descriptions of cores at each site are given in Figure 8 below.
Photo Site Comments [Bottom ------> Surface] No odour detected. Refusal at ~35cm and very difficult to extract core. S1 Compacted clay. Slate grey in colour at
surface grading to sandy colour at bottom of core. No odour detected. No refusal to 1.5m. S2 Dark grey sediment. Shell grit near surface, grading to finer compact sediment near bottom. No odour detected. Refusal at ~1 m and difficult to extract S3 core. Gritty wet sediment at surface grading to compacted clay at bottom of core. Figure 8 Photographs of cores at each site, showing core stratigraphy and core description
6.2 Jet Probing A 2.0 metre jet probe was used to assess the sub-surface sediment depth at S1, S2 and S3, as well as an additional 15 locations chosen haphazardly within the study area. The jet probe penetrated the sub-surface sediment to its full length (i.e. 2m) relatively easily at sites furthest from the existing light masts (i.e. S3 and surrounds), but depth to refusal became shorter with approach to S1 (Table
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 13
1). The ease in which the jet probe penetrated the sediment is indicative of the depth of mobile sediments. At four of the sites tested, refusal was found shallower than 2m into the sediments indicating a hard or compacted substrate underlying the sediments. This technique does not allow confirmation, but given the observations of the stratigraphic cores, this is likely to be the depth of a highly compacted clay layer underlying the mobile surface layer of sand.
Table 1 Jet probing depths to refusal at three sites Approx. depth to Site refusal S1 10 cm S3 1 m S2 none
6.3 Acid Sulphate Soils Acid sulphate soils (ASS) are sediments that occur naturally in waterlogged environments (Thornton 2010). These sediments contain iron sulphides, most commonly in the form of iron pyrite (Thornton 2010). ASS occur in two main forms: potential acid sulphate soils (PASS), where the pyrite is retained in a reduced state (not oxidised), and actual acid sulphate soils (AASS), where the pyrite is oxidised by exposure to air. The oxidation of ASS results in the formation of sulphuric acid (Thornton 2010). ASS are harmless when undisturbed on the seafloor (DEP 2009), however, activities that expose PASS to air can result in destructive leaching of acid into the environment (DEP 2009; Thornton 2010).
The probability of occurrence of ASS within the study area has been assessed as high (LISTmap 2014;
Figure 9). To characterise the ASS-related risk of disturbing this site, field pH (pHF) and field pH peroxide (pHFOX) ASS Screening Tests was conducted at all sampling sites. These tests assist in determining the likelihood of soils being AASS or PASS and are simple and low-cost. PASS/AASS testing was conducted at the depths of the cores that appeared most likely to be PASS or AASS, as determined by field-based examination including a visual/odour assessment of sediments in each core.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 14
Figure 9 Probability map of the occurrence of Acid Sulphate Soils = high risk (intertidal); = high risk (subtidal). Source: LISTmap 2014.
To conduct the pHF tests a half-teaspoon of sediment was placed in a glass jar. Approximately 2ml of deionised water was added to sediment samples and vigorously mixed with a stirrer to a smooth paste. The pH of the sediment paste was immediately measured (once stabilised) using a pH spear point probe and recorded. The pHFOX tests were conducted simultaneously using a half-teaspoon of sediment from exactly the same core position as the pHF tests. Approximately 2ml of buffered hydrogen peroxide was added to sediment samples and mixed to a smooth paste. The reaction of the sediment with the hydrogen peroxide was rated using a scale of 0-4 (0 being no reaction and 4 being a vigorous reaction; see Appendix 8 for soil reaction rating scale). Once any reaction had visibly slowed (between 1 and 10 minutes since hydrogen peroxide addition), the pH was recorded.
The difference between the pHFOX and pHF was recorded as pH. Results of the peroxide field tests are given in Appendix 7.
A combination of three factors is required to constitute a positive field sulphide identification (Ahern et al 1998):
1) A relatively strong soil reaction with hydrogen peroxide, i.e. a soil reaction rating > 3 (see Appendix 8); 2) A pH of at least 1 unit; and
3) A pHFOX of < 3.0.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 15
The results of field testing did not support the high risk rating indicated by LISTmap; no samples met all three criteria in the field peroxide tests, indicating that PASS nor AASS were not present in levels warranting concern. Considering the mobility (and therefore oxygenation) of surface sediments, and the amounts of calcified substances observed throughout sediment cores (i.e. acidification buffer), this result is not surprising.
Although the risk of acid leaching has been assessed as low, it would be prudent to adopt risk mitigation measures. Periodic visual and odour monitoring throughout the duration of any sedimentary disturbance is recommended to ensure ASS problems are not occurring
6.4 Contaminants To characterise the sediments for contaminant load, a series of contaminants were tested for at sites S1 and S2 (Figure 5). These included;
- Organochlorine (OC) and organophosphorous (OP) pesticides - Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)
Sediments were collected directly into a glass sample jar from the surface of the seabed and sent to Analytical Services Tasmania for analysis. Results of laboratory analysis can be found in Appendix 5. Contaminant analysis of the sediments shows that, of the contaminants tested, none were found in levels warranting concern. No contaminants tested exceeded the laboratory levels of detection.
6.5 Particle Settlement Rates Physical disturbance of the seabed caused by construction activities has the potential to cause increased turbidity around the construction area by re-suspending sediments in the water column. Increased turbidity can lead to a reduction in the amount of light reaching the seabed and is a common direct cause of decline in seagrass beds.
To assess the magnitude of potential sediment resuspension, sediments were collected from site S3 (see Figure 5), and analysed for sediment settling times. This involved suspending a volume of sediment in water by vigorously shaking in a container for approximately one minute, and then recording the settling rates over a 4.5 hour period. Photos were taken periodically during the settling trial to obtain a visual record of settlement rates (Appendix 9).
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 16
The results of this analysis indicated that sediments were comprised mostly of dense fractions, but that some fine particulates are also present. Thirty seconds post-agitation, ~80% of the sediment had settled out and visible as a layer on the bottom of the container. Some layering was apparent after ~4minutes, indicating the settlement of a lighter sediment fraction. After 15 minutes, the water overlying the settled sediment appeared relatively clean.
Sediments at the site of the proposed construction of additional light masts settled readily post- disturbance, therefore disturbance of sediments during construction is not likely to produce a persistent plume.
6.6 Toxic Dinoflagellate Survey Toxic dinoflagellates bloom in response to a range of known and unknown variables, including temperature, salinity, light intensity and nutrient concentration. Cell counts in marine waters can increase rapidly, causing a risk of poisoning in humans who eat organisms contaminated with dinoflagellate-produced biotoxins.
Part of the dinoflagellate lifecycle is to produce a resting cyst or spore stage which may lay dormant in marine sediments for months or years. There is a risk that disturbance of sediments may resuspend dinoflagellate cysts which then precipitates a toxic bloom. These cysts are denser than sea water, but less dense than marine sediments; therefore tend to accumulate only in areas with very low wave or current action (G Hallegraeff pers. comm.).
Three cores were collected from sites S1, S2 and S3 (Figure 5) and analysed for toxic dinoflagellate cysts/cells. No toxic dinoflagellate resting stages detected in top 10-15 cm of material (C. Bolch, pers. comm.). A variety of other benthic diatoms and dinoflagellates were identified, none of which are concerning (C. Bolch, pers. comm.). Sediments of the cores were identified as sand with some organic riverine debris.
These results confirm that disturbance of sediments is low risk in relation to potential toxic algal blooms, primarily as it is not a depositional environment. The high velocity of tidal currents across the area of sand at Barilla Bay causes the marine sediments to be re-suspended and reworked during each tidal cycle, as evidenced by the pronounced sand “corrugations” observed onsite (Figure 3).
Testing of sediments has confirmed that the presence of toxic dinoflagellate species is highly unlikely in these sediments.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 17
7 Aquatic Flora and Fauna
7.1 Threatened and Protected Species There are a number of marine species listed as threatened that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed construction. Threatened species are protected under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSPA, Tasmanian state legislation) and/or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 2000 (EPBCA, Australian Government legislation). In addition to threatened species legislation, the Fisheries (General and Fees) Regulations 2006 under the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995 (LMRMA) prohibits the taking/possession of a number of marine species, including Syngnathids (seahorses, seadragons and pipehorses), Handfish, Threefin Blennies, Limpets/False Limpets of three superfamilies, and five species of shark. Additional species are protected by the schedules of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010 (Regulations under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NCA)), under which a person must not take, buy, sell or have possession of any protected wildlife or any product of any protected wildlife without a permit.
Under the TSPA, listed species cannot be collected, disturbed, damaged or destroyed without a permit. Under the EPBCA, any action with significant impact on a listed threatened species and/or community is prohibited without approval (EPBCA Section 18 and 18A).
A Natural Values Atlas (NVA) search identified verified records of two threatened species occurring within a 2000 m radius of Barilla Bay: the Yellow Sea-Lavender Limonium australe (listed as Vulnerable under the EBPC Act 2000) and the Southern Elephant Seal Mirounga leonina (listed as Rare under the TSP Act 1995) (DSEWPC 2014). No verified records of any threatened species were identified within a 500m radius, however, potential habitat of the Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena (listed as Vulnerable under the EBPC Act 2000) may be found within this radius. The main threat to Australian Grayling is barriers to migration, which is not a foreseen consequence of this project. The results of the NVA search are identified in Table 2 below.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 18
Table 2 Summary of threatened aquatic species identified in a search of the Natural Values Atlas. Note that the scope does not extend to terrestrial or avian biota.
Species EPBC Act listing Verified records none -
Based on habitat Australian grayling 500m 500m radius
Within Within Vulnerable mapping Prototroctes maraena
Yellow sea-lavender * Limonium australe radius
Verified records Southern elephant seal Vulnerable Mirounga leonina 2000m Based on habitat Australian grayling Vulnerable mapping Prototroctes maraena Within Within
* Not listed in the EPBC, but listed as Rare under Tasmanian state law Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
7.2 Introduced Marine Pests An introduced species is a species that is not native to an area. While many introduced species do not have appreciable detrimental impacts, others can have a significant impact on human health, fisheries and aquaculture, infrastructure, tourism, biodiversity and ecosystem health. Such species are referred to as introduced pests. Marine pests are introduced into Australian waters and translocated by a variety of vectors (e.g. ballast water, biofouling, aquaculture operations, and ocean current movements). Once introduced, they often thrive as they may lack predators and/or competitors in their new environment (Whitehead 2008).
Four species known to occur within the greater Hobart region have been declared as pests under State legislation1 (northern Pacific sea star (A. amurensis), European shore crab (Carcinus maenas), European fan worm (Sabella spallanzanii) and Japanese Wakame (Undaria pinnatifida)). An additional three marine/estuarine species are formally legislated as pest species in Tasmania but are not known to occur in the region. These are the black striped mussel (Mytilopsis sallei), European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and green algae (Caulerpa taxifolia). Many more have been declared as pests by the National Introduced Marine Pest Information System (NIMPIS 2014).
1 Fisheries (General and Fees) Regulations 1996, Part 20: Noxious fish, outlined in the Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 19
No introduced pest species were noted at this site throughout surveying. Should marine construction equipment or other materials be sourced from, or be travelling to areas outside Barilla Bay, then it should be ensured that no marine species are translocated during this period by adopting a thorough cleaning protocol. This is particularly pertinent in light of the importance of Barilla Bay as an oyster growing region. Existing regulations (prohibiting the translocation of pests or the collection of protected species under the Living Marine Resources Act 1995 – Part 10, Division 1) provide appropriate controls by which to prevent translocation of pest species or removal of protected species.
8 Risk Summary and Proposed Mitigations
Arguably the most pressing environmental consideration for the type of activity proposed is the potential effects on nearby oyster farms, which are located in close proximity to the proposed extension footprint. Sediment disturbance, which may be caused by proposed construction activities, could catalyse toxic algae production, which when ingested by shellfish can result in closures of aquaculture production. We have addressed this potential issue by testing sediments for dinoflagellate cysts, and have determined this risk to be low.
Other potential risks, including resuspension of sediment contaminants, production of AASS, and resuspending grit into farmed oysters, have been assessed as low on the basis of sediment contaminant testing, field AASS/PASS testing, and particle settling time testing.
We suggest timing works to co-incide with low tides. As well as being logistically practical, this will also serve to minimise any potential sediment resuspension that may cause temporary increased turbidity in Barilla Bay.
To mitigate against the potential threat of introducing a pest species to the region, it is strongly recommended that any equipment or materials sourced from a marine/estuarine environment other than Pitt Water be thoroughly cleaned before entering or leaving the bay, as per existing regulations under the Living Marine Resources Act 1995 to ensure no marine species are translocated.
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 20
9 References
DSEWPC (2014) EPBCA Act List of Threatened Fauna,
Marine Solutions Environmental risk assessment of proposed airport approach lighting 21 Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd ______
Fauna assessment of the extended lighting area for the proposed Hobart International Airport airstrip extension development, Tasmania
Final Report
Prepared for
Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd
by Barry Baker & Sheryl Hamilton
August 2014 Executive Summary
Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd has proposed a development which includes extending the runway approach lighting in Barilla Bay by a further 70 m. For the application process of the proposed development, Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd was tasked with completing a fauna assessment of the proposed lighting extension (hereafter referred to as the ‘proposed lighting development site’).
This report presents the findings of a fauna assessment to: document whether any species listed on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act ) or on Tasmania’s Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) are likely to occur on or near the proposed lighting development site; assess the fauna values of the proposed lighting development site; and provide a list of fauna species, particularly species protected by legislation, which may occur or are known to occur within a 5 km radius of the proposed lighting development site.
The desktop assessment revealed that 38 bird species listed on the EPBC Act forage, live and/or breed on or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development. Of these 38 species, 6 are on the threatened species list, an additional 26 are on the Migratory and Marine list and an additional 6 are listed only on the Marine list. Of the 6 EPBC-listed threatened species, 5 are also on the Tasmanian TSP Act threatened species list. In addition, the eastern curlew, which is listed as Migratory and Marine on the EPBC Act, is listed as Endangered on the TSP Act and the white-bellied sea-eagle, which is listed as Migratory/Marine on the EPBC Act, is listed as Vulnerable on the TSP Act. The great crested grebe is not listed on the EPBC Act but is Vulnerable on the TSP Act.
The assessment also showed that three mammals (all on the EPBC Act threatened species list), one reptile (on the Tasmanian TSP Act threatened species list), one frog (on the EPBC Act threatened species list) and three fish (all on the EPBC Act threatened species list) occur or may occur on or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site.
The desktop study and site visit assessment assessed that it is unlikely that any of the Commonwealth or State listed fauna species will be threatened by the proposed lighting development site, and therefore there will be no significant impact on matters of National Environmental Significance defined under the EPBC Act.
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Methods ...... 5 3. Results and Discussion ...... 9 4. Summary...... 15 References ...... 16 Appendix 1 - Fauna species known to occur or potentially occurring in or near the proposed HIAPL lighting development site...... 18
List of Figures
Figure 1: Pitt Water Orielton Ramsar site and Pitt Water Nature Reserve (map from PWS 2009)...... 4 Figure 2: Indicative migratory bird habitat in western part of Pitt Water Orielton Lagoon (map from PWS 2013)...... 14 Figure 3: Indicative resident bird habitat in western part of Pitt Water Orielton Lagoon (map from PWS 2013)...... 14
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Bird species recorded as occurring or habitat that may occur at or within 5 km of the coastal reserve area of the proposed Cape Wickham golf course lighting development site...... 18 Table 1-2. Other fauna species recorded as occurring or habitat that may occur for the area within a 5 km radius of the proposed lighting development site. Note that marine mammals identified from these searches are not included in this table as they would not occur within the lagoon complex. NB: fish species identified on the PMST as “species or species habitat may occur” were not included in this table...... 27 Table 1-3. Birds recorded in the Pitt Water Nature Reserve (list from PWS 2013)...... 29
2
1. Introduction
Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (hereafter referred to as "HIAPL") has proposed a development which includes extending the runway approach lighting in Barilla Bay by a further 70 m. For the application process of the proposed development, Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd were tasked with completing a fauna assessment of the proposed lighting extension (hereafter referred to as the ‘proposed lighting development site’.
The purpose of this assessment is to identify fauna species that may occur on or near the proposed lighting development site, with a focus on identifying species that may be of conservation significance and which may affect future development and/or use of the site. This report, prepared by Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd., presents the findings of the fauna assessment, based on a desktop review and site visit in June 2014, which aimed to: document whether any species listed on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act ) or on Tasmania’s Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) are likely to occur on or near the proposed lighting development site; assess the fauna values of the proposed lighting development site; and provide a list of fauna species, particularly species protected by legislation, which may occur or are known to occur within a 5 km radius of the proposed lighting development site.
The proposed lighting development site lies within Barilla Bay which is part of the Pitt Water and Orielton Lagoon Ramsar site (PWOL) (Figure 1). The PWOL lies in southern Tasmania and forms a component of the larger Derwent Estuary system. The site is located approximately 20 km east of Hobart in an area important for a range of primary industries and as a hub for tourism (Dunn 2012). The land surrounding the estuary was some of the earliest developed by settlers for agriculture and was an important route to the Tasman Peninsula and the East Coast (Dunn 2012).
3
Figure 1: Pitt Water Orielton Ramsar site and Pitt Water Nature Reserve (map from PWS 2009).
4
2. Methods
Desktop assessment The desktop assessment entailed searches of fauna species potentially using the proposed lighting development site by accessing the following databases and online tools:
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Protected Matters Search Tool (hereafter referred to as PMST) (DOE 2014). This search tool determines whether matters of national environmental significance or other matters protected by the EPBC Act are likely to occur in the area of interest but the information is indicative only and local knowledge and information should be sought where possible (DOE 2014). A database search was carried out for the species or species habitats that are known to occur, likely to occur or may occur on the proposed lighting development site with both a 500 m and a 5 km buffer;
Tasmania’s Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act) Natural Values Atlas (hereafter referred to as NVA) (DPIPWE 2011). The NVA is Tasmania's comprehensive database for flora and fauna information including threatened species and contains information and locations on more than 20,000 species from Tasmania (DPIPWE 2011). A database search was carried out for the species or species habitat that are known to occur or have the potential to occur on the proposed lighting development site with a 500 m and a 5 km buffer;
Atlas of Australian Birds database (hereafter referred to as the Atlas), which has been developed and maintained by BirdLife Australia, a non-government organisation dedicated to the conservation of Australian birds. The Atlas is one of the largest continent-wide, wildlife databases in the world. The new Atlas has been running since 1998, contains more than seven million records from over 400,000 surveys, and is continuously updated with additional survey sheets accumulating at the rate of 700– 1,000 per week (Barrett et al. 2003; Dunn and Weston 2008). The Atlas data have been collected in a standardised manner through a well-established network of volunteers. A search of these data was undertaken (BirdLife Australia 2014) based on a 5 km radius circle centred on the northern end of the Hobart International Airport landing strip (point 42°49'47.98"S 147°30'3.57"E) and encompassing the proposed lighting development site.
5
Threatened species categories A fauna species is described as threatened if it is at risk of becoming extinct through a range of factors that may be natural or human induced. Species may be listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act and/or the Tasmanian TSP Act. The EPBC Act categorises species into: i. Extinct; ii. Extinct in the wild: species that can no longer be found in the wild, but still exist in captivity; iii. Critically Endangered: species in extreme danger of becoming extinct in the immediate future; iv. Endangered: species in danger of extinction, while the factors causing them to be endangered continue operating; v. Vulnerable: species which are at risk of becoming endangered; vi. Conservation Dependent: species whose survival is dependent on conservation activities. Species in the Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable categories are considered ‘threatened species’.
The TSP Act categorises threatened species into: i. Endangered: species is in danger of extinction because long-term survival is unlikely while factors causing it to be endangered continue operating. Within this category a species may be presumed extinct if it has not been recorded in the wild within the past 50 years; ii. Vulnerable: species likely to become endangered while factors causing it to be vulnerable continue operating; iii. Rare: species that have a small population or distribution within Tasmania that is not endangered or vulnerable but is at risk.
Migratory species In addition species can be listed as ‘migratory’ species if they are listed under one or more of the following international migratory agreements: the Japan – Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (JAMBA), the China – Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (CAMBA), the Republic of Korea – Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (ROKAMBA), or the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)). The migratory species list is established under the EPBC Act to ensure Australia fulfils its obligations to protect migratory species listed under international agreements to which it is a Party.
6
Marine species Species may also be listed as ‘marine” species, which are species that occur in Commonwealth marine areas. The Commonwealth marine area is any part of the sea, including the waters, seabed, and airspace, within Australia's exclusive economic zone and/or over the continental shelf of Australia, that is not State or Northern Territory waters. The Commonwealth marine area stretches from 3 to 200 nautical miles from the coast.
Matters of environmental significance Matters of environmental significance to which the EPBC Act applies in the PWOL area are: listed threatened species and ecological communities listed migratory species, and wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites).
Matters of environmental significance to which the EPBC Act does not apply in the PWOL area are: Commonwealth marine areas. There is no Commonwealth marine area in the PWOL and hence listed Marine species are not considered further in this assessment.
The EPBC Act comes into effect when a proposal is made which may have a significant impact upon any matter of environmental significance. “A significant impact is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts” (http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/glossary.html#significant).
The EPBC Act has guidelines to define ‘significant impact’ for each of the matters of international significance (DoE 2013).
For threatened species an action is likely to have a significant impact if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population reduce the area of occupancy of the species fragment an existing population into two or more populations adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species disrupt the breeding cycle of a population modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
7
result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere with the recovery of the species.
For migratory species the significant impact criteria are: substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species; result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an areas of important habitat for the migratory species; or seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species (Dunn 2012).
For Ramsar sites the significant impact criteria are: areas of wetland being destroyed or substantially modified; a substantial and measurable change in the hydrological regime of the wetland, for example a substantial change to the volume, timing, duration and frequency of ground and surface water flows to and within the wetland; the habitat or lifecycle of native species, including invertebrate fauna and fish species, dependent upon the wetland being seriously affected; a substantial and measurable change in the water quality of the wetland– for example, substantial change in the level of salinity, pollutants or nutrients in the wetland, or water temperature which may adversely impact on biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity or human health; or an invasive species that is harmful to the ecological character of the wetland being established (or an existing invasive species being spread) in the wetland (Dunn 2012).
Limitations of desktop assessment There are limitations when species lists are derived from database searches such as those described above. In particular, searches may:
- include species that have been recorded in the specified buffer zone (e.g. a 5 km radius) on only one or two occasions; - include species that are vagrant and have been recorded at the site but are not normally residents i.e. vagrants can be recorded almost anywhere; - include species that are now locally extinct but still appear because these databases are historic records;
8
- include species that have specific habitat requirements that may be present in the surrounding region but not on the actual site; - include species that have complex life histories or are not well understood, so that deciding whether they frequent the site or are vagrants is difficult; - result in database lists that are underwritten by observations from spatially or temporally limited surveys such that unsubstantiated observations can appear as fact; and/or, - result in an amalgamation of long-term observations so that an area can appear to have a more diverse fauna than is actually present from year to year.
As a consequence of the above limitations, some species included in the lists produced from database searches may not be present on the site. However, in the absence of data obtained from systematic surveys of species at the site, database searches are an invaluable tool for producing species lists for a particular location. From the desktop search lists, any marine-based bird species (e.g. albatrosses, petrels) that would not forage on the shoreline and/or are rarely seen over land were not considered further.
There are a number of fauna surveys that have been undertaken for the Pitt Water Orielton Ramsar site. As well as counts of migratory and some resident shorebirds that have been undertaken in Barilla Bay and Orielton Lagoon since the mid-1960s by BirdLife Tasmania (formerly Bird Observers’ Association of Tasmania - BOAT and Birds Tasmania), a significant survey of the area was recently undertaken in November/December 2012 (Woehler, 2013).
On-site visit An on-ground visit of the proposed lighting development site was carried out by Barry Baker and Sheryl Hamilton of Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd on 17 June 2014 although no on-ground surveys were undertaken.
3. Results and Discussion The birdlife of PWOL includes migratory and resident waterbirds, including shorebirds, and seabirds. It is the most southerly area used by waders of the East Asian - Australasian Flyway. PWOL supports the biodiversity of the South-East Bioregion and Bruny Marine Bioregion and Orielton Lagoon is the most important site for migratory shorebirds in the Bruny Marine Bioregion (Dunn 2012). PWOL is also important as the most significant breeding area in southern Tasmania for school shark Galeorhinus galeus and gummy shark Mustelus antarcticus,and the habitat it provides for a rare endemic seastar and rare bird species (Dunn 2012). The site was listed under the Ramsar Convention in 1982, largely on account of its importance for bird life, especially as a feeding ground for migratory waders. A small proportion of the Ramsar site is classified as Nature Reserve and subject to a Parks and Wildlife Service
9
Management Plan (PWS 2013; Figure 1). The saltmarshes around Barilla Bay are one of the few recorded localities of the Tasmanian endemic chequered blue butterfly Theclinesthes serpentata lavara listed as rare under the TSP Act (Dunn 2012).
Fauna lists were obtained using the NVA and PMST (Appendix 1, Tables 1.1 and 1.2). These sources represent the majority of the available records on the fauna of the proposed lighting development site and surrounding area. The list of bird species from the Pitt Water Nature Reserve Management Plan (PWS 2013) are also provided in Appendix 1, Table 1.3. However, PWS (2013) do not provide any information on these records e.g. located within PWOL, nature of record (verified record, assumed species occurs etc).
Birds Based on the results of the database searches, a total of 133 species of birds (native and introduced) have been recorded or may potentially occur on or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site (Appendix 1, Table 1.1). This includes 107 species obtained from the BirdLife Australia Atlas database, an additional 3 species obtained from records on the PMST and/or NVA, an additional 22 species based on habitat mapping from the PMST and/or NVA, and a further one species recorded by Woehler (2013) (Appendix 1, Table 1.1). The surveys undertaken by Woehler (2013) included sites within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site although only records for Barren Island and Barilla Bay (i.e. within the 5 km buffer) are included in Appendix 1, Table 1.1.
The desktop assessment revealed that 38 bird species listed under the EPBC Act may forage, live and/or breed on or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development. Of these 38 species, 6 are on the threatened species list, an additional 26 are on the Migratory and Marine list and an additional 6 are listed only on the Marine list. Of the 6 EPBC-listed threatened species, 5 are also on the Tasmanian TSP Act threatened species list. In addition, the eastern curlew, which is listed as Migratory and Marine on the EPBC Act, is listed as Endangered on the TSP Act and the white-bellied sea-eagle, which is listed as Migratory/Marine on the EPBC Act, is listed as Vulnerable on the TSP Act. The great crested grebe is not listed on the EPBC Act but is Vulnerable on the TSP Act.
Each of the State or Commonwealth listed species identified by the above processes is discussed below:
Eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis). Listed as Migratory and Marine on the EPBC Act and Endangered on the TSP Act. This species has been recorded within 500 m of the proposed lighting development site. This species is unlikely to be threatened by
10
the proposed development because the impact area is extremely small and construction works are expected to take less than a week.
Swift parrot (Lathamus discolour). Listed as Endangered and Marine on the EPBC Act and Endangered on the TSP Act. This species has been recorded within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. The swift parrot inhabits dry sclerophyll eucalypt forests and woodlands. It is mostly an arboreal forager that feeds mainly on nectar from eucalypts, but also psyllid insects and lerps, seeds and fruit (Higgins 1999). There was no evidence, based on the site visit, to indicate that the area around the proposed lighting development site contains important foraging or roosting habitat for this species. This species is therefore unlikely to be threatened by the proposed development.
Forty-spotted pardalote (Pardalotus quadragintus). Listed as Endangered on both the EPBC Act and TSP Act. The NVA identified this species as potentially occurring within 500m of proposed lighting development site based on habitat mapping. There was no evidence, based on the site visit, to indicate that the area around the proposed lighting development site contains important foraging or roosting habitat for this species. This species is unlikely to be threatened by the proposed development.
Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus). Listed as Vulnerable on the TSP Act. This species has been recorded within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site, and could be expected to occur at the development site occasionally. However, it is unlikely to be threatened by the proposed development because the impact area is extremely small and construction works are expected to take less than a week.
Fairy tern (Sterna nereis nereis). Listed as Vulnerable on both the EPBC Act and TSP Act. This species has been recorded within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. This species is unlikely to be threatened by the proposed development because the impact area is extremely small and construction works are expected to take less than a week.
Masked owl (Tasmanian) (Tyto novaehollandiae castanops). Listed as Vulnerable on both the EPBC Act and TSP Act. Listed as Vulnerable on the EPBC Act and Endangered on the TSP Act. This species has been recorded within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site and a nest has been recorded within 5 km of the site. There was no evidence, based on the site visit, to indicate that the area around the proposed lighting
11
development site contains important foraging or roosting habitat for this species. This species is unlikely to be threatened by the proposed development.
Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audas fleayi). Listed as Endangered on both the EPBC Act and the TSP Act. This species has been recorded within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. There was no evidence, based on the site visit, to indicate that the area around the proposed lighting development site contains important foraging or roosting habitat for this species. This species is unlikely to be threatened by the proposed development.
Australasian bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus). Listed as Endangered on the EPBC Act. The PMST identified this species or species habitat likely to occur within 500 m buffer of proposed lighting development site This species is unlikely to be threatened by the proposed development because the impact area is extremely small and construction works are expected to take less than a week.
White-bellied sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster). Listed as Vulnerable on the TSP Act and Migratory and Marine on the EPBC Act. The PMST identified this species or species habitat likely to occur within 500 m buffer of proposed lighting development site. It is considered that this species may irregularly visit the coast line near the proposed lighting development site but there is no suitable breeding habitat on site. Based on the NVA search, there were no raptor nests recorded within 500 m of the proposed lighting development site. This species is unlikely to be threatened by the proposed development.
Red-capped plover (Charadrius ruficapillus). Listed as Marine on the EPBC Act. The PMST identified this species or species habitat likely to occur within 500 m buffer of proposed lighting development site. However, Woehler (2013) identified this species as breeding within the PWOL Ramsar site. However, it is considered that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the breeding, foraging or roosting habitat for this species and that this species will not be threatened by the proposed development because the impact area is extremely small and construction works are expected to take less than a week.
A further 30 species listed as Migratory and Marine or Marine only on the EPBC Act are identified as occurring or potentially occurring within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. Other than the red-capped plover, none of these species breed in the
12
area. It is considered that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on the foraging or roosting habitat for these species and that none of these species will be threatened by the proposed activity.
Other species of interest:
In addition to the above species, the PWOL contains a significant breeding population of Australian pied oystercatcher. A total of 62 Australian pied oystercatcher nests and breeding territories were recorded by Woehler (2013) during the surveys undertaken in 2012. The highest concentration of breeding territories was in Barilla Bay, with five nests with eggs, five territories with nest scraps and a further four territories (see Figure 3 in Appendix 1 of Woehler, 2013). Although it has been identified that 1% of the national (=global) population of this species occurs in the greater PWOL area, this species is not listed on either the EPBC Act or the TSP Act. It is considered that the proposed development will not have a significant, long-term impact on the breeding, foraging or roosting habitat for this species. However, care should be taken to avoid disturbance, particularly to breeding pairs, during the construction phase of the development. It is recommended that prior to construction the shoreline adjacent to the development is searched to identify any active nesting sites and, where practical, a buffer of 200 metres be placed around the nest site. Nests containing eggs will be more sensitive to disturbance than pairs with dependent young.
The sooty oystercatcher, caspian tern, silver gull, kelp gull and pacific gull have all been recorded breeding within the Pitt Water Orielton Lagoon Nature Reserve and Ramsar Site (Woehler, 2013). However, no breeding sites for these species occurred in Barilla Bay (Figure 1) and none of these species is listed in relevant legislation.
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the indicative migratory bird and resident bird habitat (respectively) in the western part of Pitt Water Orielton Lagoon. These figures indicate that some feeding habitat for bird species occurs in Barilla Bay and in the general area of the proposed lighting development site.
13
Figure 2: Indicative migratory bird habitat in western part of Pitt Water Orielton Lagoon (map from PWS 2013).
Figure 3: Indicative resident bird habitat in western part of Pitt Water Orielton Lagoon (map from PWS 2013).
14
Mammals The assessment also showed that three mammals (all on the EPBC Act threatened species list) occur or may occur on or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. None of these species are aquatic mammals and the proposed development will not have a significant impact on these species.
Amphibians The assessment also showed that one frog (on the EPBC Act threatened species list), the green and golden frog (Litoria raniformis) occurs or may occur on or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. The species lives in or near permanent or temporary freshwater waterbodies and requires a permanent waterbody to breed. The ideal breeding habitat includes shallow parts of lagoons or dams where there is underwater or emergent vegetation. The immediate site contains brackish water that is not suitable for any amphibian and this species was not considered further.
Fish The assessment also showed that three fish (all on the EPBC Act threatened species list) occur or may occur on or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. Suitable habitat for the two handfish species doesn not occur on the site. Potential habitat of the Australian grayling Prototroctes maraena (listed as Vulnerable under the EBPC Act 2000) may be found on the site. The main threat to Australian grayling is barriers to migration, which is not a foreseen consequence of this project (Marine Solutions 2014).
Reptiles The assessment showed that one reptile (on the Tasmanian TSP Act threatened species list) occur or may occur on or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. The tussock skink (Pseudemoia pagenstecheri) is not an aquatic reptile and, as the development is to occur within Barilla Bay, was not considered further.
4. Potential impacts and assessment of impacts
Construction: The construction period is likely to have the biggest impact on any fauna species in the area although the level of impact will be minimal because construction time will not exceed one week. It is recommended that the breeding season for any resident seabirds be avoided if possible.
15
Noise and lighting disturbance: Given that the proposed development is to extend the existing approach lighting, any ongoing disturbance is unlikely to be any more significant than the disturbances that already exist in this area. Breeding and roosting habitat: It is not considered that the proposed lighting development will have any long-term impact on breeding or roosting habitats for listed species. Foraging habitat: During the construction stage, the proposed lighting development will impact on the foraging habitat of the Barilla Bay area although, the scale of this impact will be minimal and very short term. The approach lighting already extends into Barilla Bay. It is considered that the proposed lighting construction will not have any significant long-term impact on the foraging habitat for listed species. : The above desktop and site visit assessment revealed that it is unlikely that any of the Commonwealth or State listed fauna species will be threatened by the proposed lighting development site.
References Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R. and Poulter, R. 2003. The New Atlas of Australian Birds. Birds Australia, Melbourne. BirdLife Australia. 2014. Records of the Australian Bird Atlas for an area within a 5 km radius of Hobart International Airport. Birds Australia data request, information provided 3 July 2014. Department of the Environment (DoE). 2013. Matters of National Environmental Significance. Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/42f84df4-720b-4dcf- b262-48679a3aba58/files/nes-guidelines_1.pdf Accessed 25/7/2014. Department of the Environment (DoE). 2014. Protected matters search tool. http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf Accessed 25/6/2014. DPIPWE. 2011. Natural Values Atlas https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au/pls/apex/f?p=200:101:6516281568329045 Accessed 25/6/2014. Dunn, H 2012, Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon, Tasmania, Ecological Character Description, Hobart. Dunn, A.M. and Weston, M. 2008. A review of terrestrial bird atlases of the world and their application. Emu, 108, 42–67.
16
Higgins, P.J. (ed.). 1999. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume Four - Parrots to Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Marine Solutions. 2014. An environmental assessment of the site of the proposed construction of additional airstrip approach lighting, Barilla Bay, Tasmania. Report to Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (unpublished). Marine Solutions, Hobart. Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS). 2009. Pitt Water Nature Reserve fact sheet. Pitt Water Orielton Ramsar Site. PWS. 2013. Pitt Water Nature Reserve Management Plan, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart. Woehler, E.J. 2013. Resident Shorebirds and Seabirds of the Pitt Water Orielton Lagoon Nature Reserve and Ramsar Site. BirdLife Tasmania, February 2013 report to Natural Resource Management (NRM) South.
17
Appendix 1 - Fauna species known to occur or potentially occurring in or near the proposed HIAPL lighting development site. PMST = identified by the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool for the proposed lighting development site with a 5 km buffer; NVA = identified by the Natural Values Atlas search for the proposed lighting development site including a 5 km buffer; Atlas = recorded on the Atlas of Australian Birds (BirdLife Australia 2014) in a 5 km radius circle centred on northern end of landing strip, Hobart International Airport; EPBC Act status: VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, CR = Critically Endangered, EX = Presumed Extinct, M = migratory, Ma = marine. TSP Act status: R = rare, VU = vulnerable, EN = endangered, X = presumed extinct Woehler (2013): species records for Barilla Bay or Barren Island (i.e. within 5 km of proposed lighting development site). Endemic/Native/Introduced: whether the species is endemic, native or introduced to Tasmania.
Table 1-1. Bird species recorded as occurring or habitat that may occur at or within 5 km of the proposed lighting development site. PWOL = Pitt Water Orielton Lagoon. Note that although the Protected Matters Search Tool identified some Marine-listed species occurring in or near the development site, there is no Commonwealth marine area in the PWOL.
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155) eastern curlew Numenius NVA, M, Ma EN 0.07 yes Native Recorded within 500m buffer of site and within madagascariensis PMST 5km buffer of site (NVA). Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). swift parrot Lathamus discolor NVA, EN, Ma EN 0.01 Native Identified as potentially occurring within 500m of PMST site based on habitat mapping (NVA). Recorded within 5km buffer of site (NVA). Breeding and species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). forty-spotted Pardalotus NVA EN EN Endemic Identified as potentially occurring within 500m of pardalote quadragintus site based on habitat mapping (NVA). great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus NVA VU 0.08 Native Recorded within 5km buffer of site (NVA). fairy tern Sterna nereis NVA, VU VU Native Recorded within 5km buffer of site (NVA). Species subsp. nereis PMST or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST).
18
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155) masked owl Tyto NVA, VU EN Endemic Recorded within 5km buffer of site (NVA). Nest (Tasmanian) novaehollandiae PMST subspecies recorded within 5km buffer in the 1980s (NVA). subsp. castanops Breeding known to occur Tasmanian wedge- Aquila audax NVA, EN EN Endemic Recorded within 5km buffer of site (NVA). Species tailed eagle subsp. fleayi PMST subspecies or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST).
Australasian bittern Botaurus PMST EN Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within poiciloptilus 500m buffer of site (PMST). fork-tailed swift Apus pacificus PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). white-bellied sea- Haliaeetus PMST M, Ma VU 0.01 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within eagle leucogaster 500m buffer of site (PMST). white-throated Hirundapus PMST M, Ma 0.01 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within needletail caudacutus 500m buffer of site (PMST). satin flycatcher Myiagra PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within cyanoleuca 500m buffer of site (PMST). common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). great egret Ardea alba PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). cattle egret Ardea ibis PMST M, Ma 0.01 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). sharp-tailed Calidris acuminata PMST M, Ma 0.01 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within sandpiper 500m buffer of site (PMST). sanderling Calidris alba PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST).
19
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155) red knot Calidris canutus PMST M, Ma 0.06 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). curlew sandpiper Calidris ferruginea PMST M, Ma 0.10 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). red-necked stint Calidris ruficollis PMST M, Ma 0.07 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). great knot Calidris tenuirostris PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). double-banded Charadrius PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within plover bicinctus 500m buffer of site (PMST). lesser sand plover Charadrius PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within mongolus 500m buffer of site (PMST). oriental plover Charadrius veredus PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). Latham's snipe Gallinago PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within hardwickii 500m buffer of site (PMST). grey-tailed tattler Heteroscelus PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within brevipes 500m buffer of site (PMST). bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica PMST M, Ma 0.23 yes Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). whimbrel Numenius PMST M, Ma 0.01 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within phaeopus 500m buffer of site (PMST). Pacific golden plover Pluvialis fulva PMST M, Ma yes Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). One seen in Barilla Bay near processing facilities (Woehler 2013). grey plover Pluvialis squatarola PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST).
20
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155)
Terek sandpiper Xenus cinereus PMST M, Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos PMST Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). red-capped plover Charadrius PMST Ma 0.06 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within ruficapillus 500m buffer of site (PMST). Breeding records for PWOL but none of these records were in Barilla Bay (Woehler 2013). black-winged stilt Himantopus PMST Ma 0.01 Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within himantopus 500m buffer of site (PMST). ruff Philomachus PMST Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within pugnax 500m buffer of site (PMST). red-necked avocet Recurvirostra PMST Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within novaehollandiae 500m buffer of site (PMST). hooded plover Thinornis rubricollis PMST Ma Native Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). Australasian grebe Tachybaptus 0.03 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). novaehollandiae Australasian pipit Anthus 0.06 Native novaeseelandiae Australasian shoveler Anas rhynchotis 0.02 Native Australian hobby Falco longipennis 0.02 Native Australian magpie Cracticus tibicen 0.17 Native Australian pelican Pelecanus 0.01 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). conspicillatus Australian pied Haematopus 0.39 yes Native Barren Island record. Known to breed in Barilla oystercatcher longirostris Bay (Woehler 2013). Australian shelduck Tadorna 0.05 yes Native Single large flock roosting on low tide mudflats in tadornoides Barilla Bay (Woehler 2013).
21
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155)
Australian wood Chenonetta jubata 0.02 Native duck banded lapwing Vanellus tricolor 0.01 Native banded stilt Cladorhynchus 0.01 Native leucocephalus black currawong Strepera fuliginosa 0.01 Native black swan Cygnus atratus 0.18 Native black-faced Phalacrocorax 0.01 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). cormorant fuscescens black-faced cuckoo- Coracina 0.09 Native shrike novaehollandiae black-fronted Elseyornis 0.03 Native dotterel melanops blue-winged parrot Neophema 0.02 Native chrysostoma brown falcon Falco berigora 0.12 Native brown goshawk Accipiter fasciatus 0.03 Native brown thornbill Acanthiza pusilla 0.08 Native caspian tern Hydroprogne 0.04 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). caspia chestnut teal Anas castanea 0.39 Native common blackbird Turdus merula 0.13 Native common bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera 0.03 Native common greenfinch Chloris chloris 0.05 Introduced common greenshank Tringa nebularia 0.23 yes Native Barren Island record and one seen at Barilla Bay (Woehler 2013).
22
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155) common starling Sturnus vulgaris 0.24 Introduced crescent honeyeater Phylidonyris 0.07 Native pyrrhopterus crested tern Thalasseus bergii 0.12 yes Native Barren Island record, including breeding (Woehler 2013). dusky woodswallow Artamus 0.05 Native cyanopterus eastern great egret Ardea modesta 0.03 Native eastern rosella Platycercus eximius 0.12 Native eastern spinebill Acanthorhynchus 0.03 Native tenuirostris Eurasian coot Fulica atra 0.04 Native Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis 0.07 yes Introduced Barren Island record (Woehler 2013).
European goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 0.16 yes Introduced Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). fan-tailed cuckoo Cacomantis 0.02 Native flabelliformis flame robin Petroica phoenicea 0.03 Native forest raven Corvus tasmanicus 0.29 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). galah Eolophus 0.08 Introduced roseicapillus golden whistler Pachycephala 0.03 Native pectoralis great cormorant Phalacrocorax 0.17 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). carbo
23
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155) green rosella Platycercus 0.06 Endemic caledonicus grey butcherbird Cracticus torquatus 0.12 Native grey currawong Strepera versicolor 0.01 Native grey fantail Rhipidura albiscapa 0.12 Native grey goshawk Accipiter 0.01 Native novaehollandiae grey shrike-thrush Colluricincla 0.01 Native harmonica grey teal Anas gracilis 0.03 Native hardhead Aythya australis 0.01 Native hoary-headed grebe Poliocephalus 0.12 Native poliocephalus Horsfield's bronze- Chalcites basalis 0.01 Native cuckoo house sparrow Passer domesticus 0.16 yes Introduced Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). kelp gull Larus dominicanus 0.29 yes Native Barren Island record, including breeding (Woehler 2013). laughing kookaburra Dacelo 0.06 Introduced novaeguineae little black cormorant Phalacrocorax 0.02 Native sulcirostris little egret Egretta garzetta 0.05 Native little pied cormorant Microcarbo 0.13 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). melanoleucos little wattlebird Anthochaera 0.16 Native
24
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155)
chrysoptera long-billed corella Cacatua 0.01 Introduced tenuirostris lttle corella Cacatua sanguinea 0.01 Introduced masked lapwing Vanellus miles 0.40 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). musk duck Biziura lobata 0.17 Native musk lorikeet Glossopsitta 0.12 Native concinna New Holland Phylidonyris 0.10 Native honeyeater novaehollandiae noisy miner Manorina 0.26 Native melanocephala Pacific black duck Anas superciliosa 0.05 Native Pacific gull Larus pacificus 0.08 yes Native Barren Island record, including breeding (Woehler 2013). pallid cuckoo Cacomantis 0.03 Native pallidus peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). rock dove Columba livia 0.01 Introduced royal spoonbill Platalea regia 0.01 Native scarlet robin Petroica boodang 0.08 Native silver gull Chroicocephalus 0.54 yes Native Barren Island record, including breeding (Woehler novaehollandiae 2013). silvereye Zosterops lateralis 0.06 Native
25
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155) sooty oystercatcher Haematopus 0.01 yes Native Barren Island record and known to breed in PWOL fuliginosus but no breeding records for Barilla Bay (Woehler 2013). spotted pardalote Pardalotus 0.13 Native punctatus striated fieldwren Calamanthus 0.01 Native fuliginosus striated pardalote Pardalotus striatus 0.06 Native sulphur-crested Cacatua galerita 0.02 Native cockatoo superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus 0.17 Native swamp harrier Circus approximans 0.10 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). Tasmanian native- Tribonyx mortierii 0.03 Endemic hen tawny frogmouth Podargus strigoides 0.02 Native tree martin Petrochelidon 0.01 Native nigricans wedge-tailed eagle Aquila audax 0.03 Native welcome swallow Hirundo neoxena 0.09 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). whistling kite Haliastur 0.01 Native sphenurus white-faced heron Egretta 0.21 yes Native Barren Island record (Woehler 2013). novaehollandiae white-fronted chat Epthianura 0.07 Native albifrons yellow wattlebird Anthochaera 0.03 Endemic paradoxa yellow-rumped Acanthiza 0.08 Native
26
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Atlas Woehler Endemic/ Comments Source Act Act surveys (2013) Native/ status status reporting Introduced rate (n=155) thornbill chrysorrhoa yellow-tailed black- Calyptorhynchus 0.02 Native cockatoo funereus yellow-throated Lichenostomus 0.10 Endemic honeyeater flavicollis * ‘likely to occur’, ‘may occur’ or ‘unlikely to occur’ assessment based on habitat and distribution information DPIPWE (2011) and Woehler (2013).
Table 1-2. Other fauna species recorded as occurring or habitat that may occur for the area within a 5 km radius of the proposed lighting development site. Note that marine mammals identified from these searches are not included in this table as they would not occur within the lagoon complex. NB: fish species identified on the PMST as “species or species habitat may occur” were not included in this table.
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Comments* Source Act Act status status Mammals eastern barred Perameles gunnii NVA, VU Recorded within 500m buffer of site and within 5km buffer of site (NVA). Species bandicoot PMST or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus NVA, VU R Identified as potentially occurring within 500m of site based on habitat mapping PMST (NVA). Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii NVA, EN EN Identified as potentially occurring within 500m of site based on habitat mapping PMST (NVA). Recorded within 5km buffer of site (NVA). Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). Reptiles tussock skink Pseudemoia NVA R Identified as potentially occurring within 500m of site based on habitat mapping pagenstecheri (NVA). Recorded within 5km buffer of site (NVA).
27
Common Name Scientific Name Data EPBC TSP Comments* Source Act Act status status Frogs green and gold frog Litoria raniformis NVA, VU VU Identified as potentially occurring within 500m of site based on habitat mapping PMST (NVA). Recorded within 5km buffer of site (NVA). Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). Fish Australian grayling Prototroctes NVA VU VU Identified as potentially occurring within 500m of site based on habitat mapping maraena (NVA). Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). spotted handfish Brachionichthys PMST CR Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). hirsutus red handfish Thymichthys politus PMST CR Species or species habitat likely to occur within 500m buffer of site (PMST). * ‘likely to occur’, ‘may occur’ or ‘unlikely to occur’ assessment based on habitat and distribution information DPIPWE (2011).
28
Table 1-3. Birds recorded in the Pitt Water Nature Reserve (list from PWS 2013). Note that no information on location and nature of record is provided.
29
30
31
Activity Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Pied Oyster Catcher breeding Oyster harvesting Works approval from the Crown Highest tides Optimal construction phase MANAGING OUR AIRPORT RESPONSIBLY Our commitment to Safety, Security & the Environment Airport safety, security and the wellbeing of our environment requires the commitment of Hobart Airport, our staff and partners.
Hobart Airport is committed to making the Airport a prosperous centre for aviation, business and society while maintaining a safe, secure and environmentally responsible work site for our staff, partners, customers and community.
Hobart Airport is committed to minimising our safety, security and environmental risks by ensuring that: The safe and efficient operation of the Airport is our core focus
Our people and partners fully understand how their actions contribute to the safety, security and environment of the Airport
We develop and implement responsible and achievable management objectives that are regularly measured.
We foster and maintain a culture of safety and security.
We recognise our responsibility to the Airport’s environment and actively manage this in order to minimise impacts from our operations.
We nurture a ‘work safe—home safe’ ethos.
We provide our people with the necessary training, resources and support to ensure they have the knowledge, skills and competence to undertake their roles.
We undertake to implement a continual learning/improvement environment throughout the organisation.
Our people and partners directly contribute to ensuring Hobart Airport is safe, secure and environmentally responsible by: Making the safe, secure and efficient operation of Hobart Airport their number one priority.
Working Together to assist in building collaborative relationships, being proactive and innovative, acting with integrity and commitment, and providing service excellence
Working responsibly to achieve compliance with relevant legislation and other standards and conformance to our business policies, processes and procedures.
Being responsible and reporting all incidents and near misses relating to safety, security and environment for the purposes of identifying learning/improvement opportunities.
Rod Parry Chief Executive Officer July 2013
From: Marshall, Adam (Heritage) To: Kirsten Leggett Subject: AHTP1770 - Aboriginal Heritage Desktop Assessment - Approach Light Installation - Hobart Airport - Barilla Bay Date: Wednesday, 16 July 2014 11:59:50 AM Attachments: image001.jpg Unanticipated Discovery Plan official (SeptemberV2).pdf
RE: ABORIGINAL HERITAGE DESKTOP ASSESSMENT Approach Light Installation - Hobart Airport - Barilla Bay
Dear Kirsten
Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) has completed a search of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index (TASI) regarding the proposed Hobart Airport approach light installation at Barilla Bay and can advise that there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within or close to the works area. Due to a review of previous reports it is believed that the area has a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present.
Accordingly there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and AHT have no objection to the project proceeding.
Please be aware that all Aboriginal heritage is protected under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. If at any time during works you suspect Aboriginal heritage, cease works immediately and contact AHT for advice. Attached is an Unanticipated Discovery Plan, which you should have on hand during ground disturbing works, to aid you in meeting your requirements under the Act should Aboriginal Heritage be uncovered.
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact AHT.
Kind Regards,
adam
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission. Date HIAPL representatives Stakeholder representatives Discussion HIAPL Response MDP Section Process for assessing Major Development Plans under the EPBC Act. Determination on whether an EPBC Referral is still HIAPL have opted to proceed with the EPBC Referral required if environmental matters are being addressed under process to ensure that any environmental matters of the MDP assessment process. Melissa Maly confirmed via concern are addressed early in the project and discussions email (22/5/2014) that an action that is the subject of a MDP can occur with the Department of Environment. Leaving and is referred to the Minister for advice and approved by the assessment to the MDP assessment process may result the Transport Minister, is exempt from the Section 26 in delays later in the project stage and adversely effect the Department of Environment - Mark Hall prohibition. MNES protected under the EPBC Act are proejct schedule. Whilst no significant impacts are Department of Environment - Melissa Maly afforded the same level of protection through this process anticipated, HIAPl will coordinate the necessary studies to Department of Environment - Frances Daniels since one of the triggers for a MDP under Section 89 of the support this case, with particular reference to the Mel Percival Department of Industry - Ann Bray Airports Act is, in effect, the same trigger as that in Section installation of additional approach lights in Barilla Bay. 22/05/2014 Kirsten Leggett Department of Industry - Josephine Kwok 26. Barilla Bay is currently registered as a Ramsar wetland. HIAPL's approach to addressing environmental matters associated with the installation of additional approach lights within Barilla Bay, and outcomes of discussions with the Department of Environment. Identification of any approval HIAPL indicated supporting studies that would be requirements from a State level to ensure that these are undertaken as part of the EPBC Referral process and addressed in a timely manner. DPIPWE confirmed that the included within the MDP. DPIPWE indicated that the risk Mel Percival DPIPWE - John Whittington area lies outside the Nature Reserve area and is within land of signficant environmental impact is very low based on 28/05/2014 Kirsten Leggett DPIPWE - Penny Wells owned by the Crown. environmental condition and extent of works proposed.
General briefing on the project and discussion on timelines. Support for the process to be undertaken concurrently to Mel Percival avoid extended and confusing community consultation 28/05/2014 Rod Parry Kim Evans - Secretary State Growth processes.
General briefing on the project and discussion on timelines and studies currently underway regarding potential impacts to bird nesting sites. Birds Tas provided background information on the reasons for Ramsar listing, and potential issues to consider. The Pied Oyster catcher population in this HIAPL indicated that preferred construction methods will area represents 1% of the global population and nesting sites be identified following the marine study and any other are known to occur along the foreshore of the proposed area supporting studies undertaken. Consideration of the for works. Important to consider breeding season and avoid breeding cycle of the Pied Oyster Catcher will be works where possible during this time (October - April). No incorporated into the project's CEMP, with mitigation Mel Percival other signficant impacts perceived as a result of this work, measures identified. The potential impact will also be 25/06/2014 Kirsten Leggett Birds Tasmania - Eric Woehler but is dependent on construction methods. identified and discussed within the EPBC referral process.
General briefing on the project with reference to the proposed approach light extension in Barilla Bay. A summary of the environmental studies being undertaken and key areas of concern that will be addressed in the design and construction phases. MAST indicated that they had no issues HIAPL have had preliminary discussions with Barilla Bay with the new approach lights or any remediation and repair oyster farm and have scheduled in consultation with work to the existing approach lights. MAST recommended oyster lease holders following the receipt of consultation with local oyster lead holders which has already environmental reports. Construction method been scheduled. MAST will also require the GPS coordinates recommendations will be reviewed and discussed by lease once light footings are constructed and in place so a Notice holders during the consultation phase. HIAPL will provide to Mariners can be issued. This information is sent to the GPS coordinates to MAST on completion of the 8/07/2014 Kirsten Leggett Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST) - Peter Hopkins Commonwealth hydrographer for reference. construction phase. General briefing on the project with reference to the proposed approach light extension in Barilla Bay. A summary of the environmental studies being undertaken and key areas of concern that will be addressed in the design and construction phases. Barilla Bay Oysters identified optimal HIAPL will include timing recommendations in timeframes for construction, that is outside the harvesting construction brief with the aim to select a timeframe that time (Oct-Dec). Construction in Jan-Feb would be preferred is optimal for all environmental areas (bird nesting and while oysters are spawning. This will also faciliate oysters). Water quality testing wil lbe undertaken prior to construction due to extremely low tides that are experienced and post construction to determine whether any at this time. Barilla Bay Oysters would like to be informed on contaminants are mobilised. Barilla Bay Oysters will also selected construction method once finalised but providing test this by placing oysters close to the site and then construction occurs at the preferred timing, they perceive no monitoring for any change in uptake of any contaminants. real issues. Access can be provided for machinery if required. Preferred construction method and estimated duration of Water quality testing to be undertaken prior to and post construction will be provided to Barilla Bay Oysters once 15/07/2014 Kirsten Leggett Barilla Bay Oysters - Justin construction. finalised. General briefing on the project with reference to the proposed approach light extension in Barilla Bay. A summary of the environmental studies being undertaken to support a low environmental risk approach. Confirmation that there are no further information or application requirements from a local government perspective. Council indicated that they have no concerns or further requirements regarding the HIAPL will address a formal letter to Clarence City Council approach light installation project and would be exempt summarising discussions held with Dan Ford and confirm under Section 5.1.2 (b) and (d) of the Planning Scheme. that the project will be exempt from any Planning Scheme Council suggested writing a formal letter in order to receive requirements in accordance with Section 5.1.2 (b) and (d) confirmation of this exemption. Maps and supporting designs of the Clarence City Council Planning Scheme. Supporting 17/07/2014 Kirsten Leggett Clarence City Council - Dan Ford Strategic Planner to be included. maps and designs will accompnay the letter.
General briefing on the project with reference to the proposed approach light extension in Barilla Bay. A summary of the environmental studies being undertaken to support a low environmental risk approach. Requirements with the Crown include seeking to amend the current HIAPL-Crown license agreement for the installation of new approach lights. A works approval is to be sought from the Crown prior to any HIAPL will seek to amend the existing license agreement construction commencing. HIAPL to include all relevant with the Crown for the installation of additional approach reports, reference to stakeholder engagement. Crown will lights in Barilla Bay. Any conditions provided in the permit also need to know how the site will be accessed when at the application from the Crown will be included in the tender construct phase. If all relevant information provided the brief for the construction of the approach lights. HIAPL will DPIPWE - PWS, Andrew Roberts, Director, Commercial Crown assessment should take no longer than 1-2 weeks at advise the Crown of the method of construction once 21/07/2014 Kirsten Leggett and Business Services which time any conditions required will be advised. known.