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 20150210 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 20150210 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 20150210 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 20150210 4 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Referral of proposed action
The Gold Coast Airport Instrument Landing System Project 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 Use 2 or 3 sentences to uniquely identify the proposed action and its location. Airservices Australia (Airservices) is proposing to install an Instrument Landing System (ILS) at Gold Coast Airport to improve the reliability of landings in adverse weather conditions and to improve regularity of service. The ILS is a standard precision approach landing aid adopted by many airports and airlines worldwide. The physical on ground infrastructure associated with the ILS project, on both Commonwealth airport land and NSW State land, are the subject of this referral, including: Glidepath antenna and associated infrastructure (referred to in this referral as the glidepath footprint) to be located adjacent to the aircraft touchdown point of runway 14, on Commonwealth airport land; A localiser antenna array and associated infrastructure (referred to in this referral as the localiser footprint) to be located on NSW State Land to the south of the runway; and Widening of the existing runway 150 metre runway strip to 300 metres (150 metres each side of the runway centreline), on Commonwealth airport land.
The proposed changes to flight paths arising from installation of the ILS are the subject of a separate EPBC Act referral (described in Section 2.7). The ground components of the ILS project are shown in Figure 1 and further described in Section 2. The description of the proposed project in this referral is based on currently available design information and investigations. Further design will be undertaken at detailed design stage to inform the development of appropriate mitigation and management measures.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 5 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
1.2 Latitude and longitude Latitude and longitude details are used to accurately map the boundary of the proposed action. If these coordinates are inaccurate or insufficient it may delay the processing of your referral.
The latitude and longitude for the works on Commonwealth land are: Point No. Latitude Longitude 1 -28 ° 10 ' 36.36862” 153 ° 30 ' 42.61842” 2 -28 ° 10 ' 35.17165” 153 ° 30 ' 45.01434” 3 -28 ° 9 ' 21.22317” 153 ° 29 ' 58.03615” 4 -28 ° 9 ' 22.41988” 153 ° 29 ' 55.64049” 5 -28 ° 10 ' 32.77893” 153 ° 30 ' 49.80696” 6 -28 ° 10 ' 31.58081” 153 ° 30 ' 52.20210” 7 -28 ° 9 ' 17.63299” 153 ° 30 ' 5.22296” 8 -28 ° 9 ' 18.82974” 153 ° 30 ' 2.82738”
The latitude and longitude for the works on NSW State land are: Point No. Latitude Longitude 1 -28° 10’ 36.24783” 153° 30' 42.81200'' 2 -28° 10' 33.80693'' 153° 30' 54.34817'' 3 -28° 10' 34.88321'' 153° 30' 53.99452'' 4 -28° 10' 35.26874 '' 153° 30 ' 53.13552'' 5 -28° 10' 36.50501'' 153° 30 ' 52.54742'' 6 -28° 10' 37.28871'' 153° 30 ' 53.04563'' 7 -28° 10' 38.71325'' 153° 30 ' 56.81602'' 8 -28° 10' 39.47128'' 153° 30 ' 56.39915'' 9 -28° 10' 40.75454'' 153° 30 ' 57.36623'' 10 -28° 10' 45.60322'' 153° 30 ' 47.65236'' 11 -28° 10' 43.36469'' 153° 30 ' 46.22798'' 12 -28° 10' 40.62754'' 153° 30 ' 46.09489''
The Interactive Mapping Tool may provide assistance in determining the coordinates for your project area.
If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a single pair of latitude and longitude references. If the area is greater than 5 hectares, provide bounding location points.
There should be no more than 50 sets of bounding location coordinate points per proposal area.
Bounding location coordinate points should be provided sequentially in either a clockwise or anticlockwise direction.
If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipeline), provide coordinates for each turning point.
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 pipline) 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 20150210 Page 6 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
1.3 Locality and property description 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).
As described in Section 1.1, the physical on ground infrastructure associated with the ILS project, the subject of this referral, is located on both Commonwealth airport land and NSW State land. The glidepath and 300 metre runway strip component of the ILS will be located on the Commonwealth land and the localiser footprint will be located on the two NSW lots (Lots 1 and 2 DP1092051). The locality and property descriptions for each are provided below. The ILS project also straddles the border between New South Wales and Queensland within the local government areas of Tweed Shire Council and the City of Gold Coast respectively. The project footprint and surrounds is located on a coastal plain and includes the Cobaki Broadwater to the south and west. The Gold Coast Highway and Pacific Ocean lie to the east. The Tugun Bypass section of the Pacific Motorway traverses the western portion of the Airport site with a tunnel section under the southern portion of the existing runway and through the centre of the localiser footprint. Existing infrastructure at the Airport includes the main 14/32 runway (2,492 metres) and a general aviation 17/35 runway (582 metres), with associated taxiway and apron areas. The ILS project applies to the main runway only. Runway 14 is used for landings from the north and runway 32 is used for landings from the south (refer Figure 1). Aviation related facilities and infrastructure at the Airport include terminal buildings, apron parking bays, runways, public car parks, ground transportation service area, air freight facilities, in-flight catering facilities, general aviation and helicopter facilities, aviation fuel facilities, an air traffic control tower, navigational aids and an Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting complex. The major surface water features are the Cobaki Broadwater and the drainage reserve that is tidal towards the southern end of the Airport. Lot 1 DP 1092051 is generally undeveloped with partial use by the Tweed Heads Pony Club. The licensed area over Lot 2 is located over the Tugun Bypass tunnel. Figure 2 shows that the NSW State land was once used for agriculture, and remnants of this use are still visible in aerial photography. South of the Pony Club, there is a large vacant parcel zoned industrial, for which an industrial subdivision was approved around 2004, but has not yet proceeded. Adjoining to the west of that property, and directly beyond and in line with the runway centreline, is the Tweed Shire Council sewage treatment plant and depot. Airservices is in the process of securing a sublease/licence for relevant components of the ILS project footprint from Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd (GCAPL) who is the Airport-Lessee company for Gold Coast Airport and holds the head lease over New South Wales State Crown Land Lot 1 DP1092051 (see Figure 1). GCAPL also holds a licence over part of Lot 2 DP1092051 land owned by New South Wales Transport, Roads and Maritime Services.
1.4 Size of the development On Commonwealth Land: footprint or work area 39.2 hectares, being the widening for the 300 metre wide (hectares) runway strip which encompasses the glidepath footprint. On NSW State Land: 7.5 hectares
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 7 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
1.5 Street address of the site The Airport address is: Eastern Avenue, Bilinga QLD 4225
The address of Lot 1 and 2 DP 109251 south of the airport is: Parkes Drive, Tweed Heads 1.6 Lot description Describe the lot numbers and title description, if known. Commonwealth Land Lot 100 DP 1120061 Commonwealth land, within the airport boundary, leased to GCAPL
Lot 1 RP 225692 Commonwealth land, within the airport boundary, leased to GCAPL
Lot 222 RP839951 Commonwealth land, within the airport boundary, leased to GCAPL NSW State Land Lot 1 DP 1092051 NSW State Crown land owned and administered by the NSW State Government. This lot is currently leased to GCAPL. Airservices is in the process of acquiring a sublease/licence for relevant components of the ILS project footprint from GCAPL.
Lot 2 DP 1092051 Road reserve managed by NSW Roads and Maritime Services. Airservices hold a sublease/licence for relevant components of the ILS project footprint from GCAPL. GCAPL has a licence for land above the Tugun Bypass tunnel as part of Lot 2.
1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known) If the project is subject to local government planning approval, provide the name of the relevant council contact officer. Airservices, the proponent of the works, is exempt from State land use laws pursuant to section 19 of the Air Services Act 1995 (Cth) (this is described further in Section 2.4). Furthermore, components of the ILS located on Commonwealth Airport land are regulated under the planning framework prescribed in the Airports Act 1996 (Cth). The Airports Act and associated Regulations are the statutory controls for ongoing regulation of activities on airport land for both aeronautical and non-aeronautical purposes. Developments on the Airport are therefore not subject to local government planning approval. Although the ILS project is not subject to local government zoning restrictions the following Local Government Contacts have been consulted regarding the project: David Hood, Executive Coordinator Strategic Land Use Planning, Gold Coast City Council; Roger Sharpe, Executive Coordinator Planning Assessment, Gold Coast City Council; and Mr Vince Connell, Director Planning & Regulation, Tweed Shire Council.
1.8 Time frame Specify the time frame in which the action will be taken including the estimated start date of construction/operation. Works are planned to commence in September 2015 with a view to being operational by September 2016 1.9 Alternatives to proposed action No Were any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action (including not taking the action) considered but are not proposed?
Yes, you must also complete section 2.2
1.10 No
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 8 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Alternative time frames etc Yes, you must also complete Does the proposed action include alternative time frames, locations or Section 2.3. For each alternative, 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 No Is the action subject to a state or territory environmental impact assessment? Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5 1.12 Component of larger action No Is the proposed action a component of a larger action? Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7 1.13 Related actions/proposals No Is the proposed action related to other actions or proposals in the Yes, provide details: region (if known)? See Section 2.7. 1.14 Australian Government funding No Has the person proposing to take the action received any Australian Government grant funding to undertake this project? Yes, provide details: 1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park No Is the proposed action inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e)
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 9 of 92
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. As outlined in Section 1.1, this referral relates to the ground impacts associated with installation of an ILS at Gold Coast Airport. The ILS project footprint spans both Commonwealth airport land and NSW State land to the south of the airport. Installation of an ILS and the associated proposed flight paths are described in the 2011 Gold Coast Airport Master Plan as a project to be investigated by Airservices Australia (Airservices), a Commonwealth corporation with functions and powers relating to aviation and related purposes as established under Air Services Act 1995 (Cth). Under Part 171 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth) Airservices is the only organisation (aside from the Department of Defence) that is authorised to commission and maintain the ILS. Airservices proposes to install an ILS at Gold Coast Airport and is the proponent for the purposes of this referral. Options for the installation of an ILS system on runways 32 and 14 were both considered (see Section 2.2). The prevailing wind at Gold Coast Airport (from the south east) results in runway 14 being the preferred runway for landings approximately two thirds of the time. The ILS is therefore proposed to be installed on runway 14 due to operational benefits from the prevailing wind direction. Figure 1 shows the components of the ILS project that are included in this referral, including: The proposed glidepath footprint on Commonwealth airport land; The proposed localiser footprint on NSW State land; and Widening of the existing runway 150 metre runway strip to 300 metres (from 75 meters to 150 metres each side of the runway centreline), on Commonwealth airport land. The ILS project will also result in changes to flight paths at the airport. This aspect of the project is the subject of a separate referral as described in Section 2.7. The development objectives of the ILS project are: To improve reliability of landings in adverse weather conditions; and To improve regularity of service. Some of the associated benefits realised as a result of the ILS installation include: Reduction in the frequency of diversions to other airports (currently around 50 diversions per year from Gold Coast Airport to alternative airports have been recorded since October 2010 largely due to adverse weather conditions); Reduction in associated disruptions to passenger journeys; Improved customer experience; Reduction in the workload on the Air Traffic Control system; Equipping Gold Coast Airport with the same level of technology as other airports of a similar size and capacity; and Attraction of new international airlines to the Gold Coast. The installation of an ILS will allow aircraft to approach and land in weather conditions that would otherwise have resulted in a missed approach and possible diversion to another airport. The installation of an ILS will increase runway efficiency and reduce workload and complexity for flight crews.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 10 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Description of ILS Components An ILS is a precision, radio navigation, ground based aid comprising of two antennae. One antenna is located adjacent to the aircraft touchdown point of the runway (glidepath footprint) and the other located off the end of the runway (localiser footprint). These two antennae respectively provide vertical and lateral guidance to landing aircraft and lower the minimum altitude required for a pilot to sight the runway end before making a decision to land or divert to an alternate airport. The following points describe the two antennae: The glidepath antenna is located abeam of (at right angles to and directly opposite) the runway touchdown location, approximately 300 metres from the start of the runway, which emits two UHF beams to a distance of 10 nautical miles. The UHF beams provide a lower and upper range of slope upon which the aircraft is to track to enable it to land at the required touchdown location on the runway. The localiser antenna is located on the extended runway centreline approximately 300 metres beyond the southern runway end. It emits a VHF beam to a distance of 25 nautical miles that aligns the aircraft to the centreline of the runway commencing from a distance between 8 and 12 nautical miles from the start of the runway. The ILS project will also establish the 300m wide runway strip required by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for a Code 4E precision approach runway. A communications ring system and mains power feeder lines will also be installed. The method for installation of services will be determined in detailed design, however will likely be installed by trenching or, where required under the runway, by under boring. The schematic layout of these services is shown in Figure 10, however the final alignments will be selected to be within areas of past disturbance to avoid impacts to cultural heritage or vegetation. A typical glidepath installation is shown in Photo 1 below, and typical localiser shown in Photo 2. ILS components are described in Table 1 and the location of these ILS components is shown in Figure 1.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 11 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Photo 1: Typical Glidepath Installation
Photo 2: Typical Localiser Installation
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 12 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 1: Proposed ILS components subject to this referral See Figure 1 for the location of ILS components Component Description Glidepath footprint on Commonwealth land
Glidepath antenna A glidepath antenna located 122 metres west of runway 14 centreline and backset 305 metres from the runway 14 threshold. An earth mat forward of the glidepath antenna for a distance of 90 metres and a width of 12 metres to provide a reflective surface for the signal. A monitor aerial is located at the end of the earth mat. The area forward of the antenna will be levelled and grassed. An open earth drain will require relocation and alterations to fencing and hardstand areas will be undertaken to facilitate the installation.
Glidepath near field A glidepath near field monitor antenna located 90 metres forward of the glidepath monitor antenna antenna
Glidepath building A glidepath building of 3.5 metre by 5.5 metres adjacent to the glidepath antenna.
Access Roads on Relocation of the access road within the glidepath footprint. This will provide the Commonwealth required clearances for the glidepath ‘vehicle critical area’ from which all vehicles land are prohibited when the runway is in use.
Communications A communications ring system and mains power feeder lines in trenched conduit. and power (A schematic layout of these services is shown in Figure 10).
Localiser footprint on NSW State land
Localiser antenna The localiser and associated infrastructure is located on State land to the south of the runway. The localiser antenna includes: - A localiser antenna located 300 metres from runway 14 end (see Figures 1 & 3), 3.2 metre high, on a raised earth platform, fixed to a concrete pad (40 metre wide by 5 metre long) with a level of approximately 4.0 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD). Fill will be required to achieve the necessary design level; and - A stable ground pad forward of the localiser antenna for a distance of 200 metres and a width of 90 metres, at a level of no lower than 0.5 metres above highest astronomical tide, to provide a reflective surface for the localiser signal. The open earth drains traversing the site will be diverted either to the north or south of the earth pad. All vegetation will be cleared within the localiser footprint for signal protection and/or maintenance requirements (see Figures 1 & 3).
Near field monitor A near field monitor antenna will be located 120 metres forward of the localiser antenna antenna and will be fixed to a 10 metre by 10 metre concrete pad at a pad level of approximately 4.0 metres AHD.
Localiser building A localiser building of 6 metres by 3 metres will be erected approximately 90 metres abeam of the localiser antenna.
Access roads on An access road approximately 4 metres wide will be constructed within State land State land to provide access to the localiser building and associated facilities. A minor amount of fill may be required to achieve the necessary design levels. The area in front (i.e. towards to end of the runway) of the localiser antenna, to 45 metres both sides of the runway centreline and 200 metres forward of the localiser antenna is defined as the localiser vehicle critical area from which all vehicles are prohibited when the runway is in use. The access road will be located adjacent to the perimeter fence for security patrol.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 13 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Component Description Perimeter fence A perimeter fence will be erected to the airport security standard.
Communications A communications ring system and mains power feeder lines in trenched conduit. and power (A schematic layout of these services is shown in Figure 10).
300 metre wide runway strip widening on Commonwealth land
300 metre wide The ILS project will establish the 300m wide runway strip required by the Civil runway strip Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for a Code 4E precision approach runway. The widening current published width of the Gold Coast Airport’s runway strip is 150 metres. Management of the vegetation within the runway strip is required to ensure compliance to CASA standards. Figure 4 shows a cross-sectional representation of the 300 metre runway strip. The required 300 metre wide strip terminates 60 metres beyond each of the runway ends and comprises: - A 75 metre wide graded area either side of the centre line of the runway; and - A further 75 metre flyover area either side of the graded area. Within the flyover area, the ground surface and any object on it must not project above a plane surface, originating from the outer edge of the graded area, and sloping upwards and outwards, at a gradient of 5 percent (flyover plane). Figure 5 shows vegetation impacted by the proposed 300 metre runway strip widening. There are four patches of vegetation within the 300m runway strip, referred to in this report as Impact Areas A to D. In some cases, vegetation trimming and selective plant removal will occur in preference to clearing, as a mitigation measure for potential impacts to threatened frog habitat, as described in this report.
Communications A communications ring system and mains power feeder lines in trenched or under and power bored conduit. (A schematic layout of these services is shown in Figure 10). 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). The Do-Nothing Option Twenty year aviation traffic activity forecasts have been developed as part of the 2011 Gold Coast Airport Master Plan. The forecasts indicate a growth in the number of arriving and departing passengers per annum from 6 million in 2011 to 16.3 million in 2031 and a growth in aircraft movements per annum from 39,276 in 2011 to 82,660 in 2031. With the Gold Coast and Northern Rivers tourist destinations attracting more and more visitors annually and when this forecast in growth is realised, the number of diversions will increase proportionally, if the existing landing minima is not improved. When a diverted aircraft does not return to Gold Coast Airport, there are adverse economic impacts to businesses in a number of areas. These include loss of income from landing fees by the airport, terminal retailers have loss of income from retail spend, airlines have additional costs relating to bussing of passengers and increased fuel burn and aircraft usage to the airlines. In addition, aircraft diversion results in increased workload for air traffic controllers. Currently on average 50 flights per annum are diverted from Gold Coast Airport to alternative airports largely due to adverse weather conditions. This affects approximately 8,000 passengers annually with the majority of aircraft diverted to Brisbane Airport. Airlines are therefore required to either disembark its passengers at Brisbane Airport or to return to Gold Coast Airport when the weather conditions improve. If passengers disembark at Brisbane Airport, then the airlines arrange for the passengers to be bussed to Gold Coast Airport in order to complete their journey and vice versa for departing passengers. Friends and families of passengers are also affected.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 14 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The loss of an existing service or the failure to attract an additional service due to relatively high number of diversions that would otherwise not occur if an ILS was in place can be estimated when considering the value to the regional economy (Gold Coast/Northern Rivers) of each domestic and international service into the airport. The value to the regional economy by expenditure of a daily domestic service is $30 million per annum and a daily international service is $46 million per annum. If the risk of losing a service or not attracting a new service is (an estimated) 10 percent higher by the airport continuing to not have ILS capability, then the economic loss to the region is $7.6 million per annum. The existing non-precision navigation aids used at Gold Coast Airport have limitations with respect to their use in adverse weather conditions and low visibility. The recently introduced Required Navigational Performance (RNP) procedures have improved landing minima, however, not to the extent that a precision, ground based navigational aid such as an ILS can. An ILS is therefore the preferred navigational aid due to its reliability, widespread use and proven success. Other landing systems Other landing systems such as a Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) are currently being developed and are expected to provide minima similar to an ILS. However, as the technology for these systems is not fully developed, they are not expected to be widely adopted for a number of years. When technology permits and systems such as GBAS are implemented, the ILS is expected to be maintained as a separate, alternate landing aid. Installation of an ILS on Runway 32 From an operational perspective, runway 14 is preferred over runway 32 due to the prevailing wind direction being from the south east. In addition, the benefit of an ILS installation is greater on runway 14 as opposed to runway 32 due to an increased reduction in decision height (the height at which a pilot assesses whether or not there is sufficient visibility of the runway end to attempt a landing). An environmental assessment was undertaken for both runway options. The assessment identified that installation of an ILS on Runway 32 was likely to result in the clearance of acid frog habitat, including the Wallum Sedge Frog (Litoria olongburensis), listed as vulnerable under State and Commonwealth legislation. 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. N/A
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 15 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
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. Air Services Act 1995 (Cth) The Air Services Act 1995 (Cth) (Air Services Act) establishes Airservices Australia (Airservices) as a Commonwealth corporation with functions and powers relating to aviation and related purposes. Under Part 171 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth) Airservices is the only organisation (aside from the Department of Defence) that is authorised to commission and maintain the ILS. Airservices proposes to install an ILS at Gold Coast Airport and is the proponent for the purposes of this referral. Section 19 of the Air Services Act provides Airservices with an exemption from the application of State and Territory land use laws when carrying out its functions. Section 19 of the Air Services Act will be relied upon by Airservices to overcome any land use zoning restrictions or regulations that may otherwise apply on the NSW State land where the localiser antenna array and associated infrastructure are to be installed. Commonwealth Airport Planning Framework Components of the ILS project situated on Commonwealth Airport Land are subject to the planning framework prescribed in the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) (Airports Act). The Airports Act and associated Regulations are the statutory controls for ongoing regulation of activities on airport land for both aeronautical and non-aeronautical purposes. As the project triggers section 89 of the Airports Act, a Major Development Plan (MDP) is required to be prepared. The relevant MDP triggers under section 89 for the ILS project include the following: (n) a development which affects an area identified as environmentally significant in the environment strategy; and (na) a development of a kind that is likely to have a significant impact on the local or regional community Although Airservices is the proponent of the project, section 88 of the Airports Act requires MDP’s to be prepared by the airport-lessee company which is GCAPL for Gold Coast Airport. GCAPL has commenced preparation of an MDP for the ILS project in consultation with Airservices for submission to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD). The MDP contains information on all components of the project (including those on Commonwealth airport land, NSW State land and the changes to flight paths) to allow public consultation to occur on the one assessment document. Public consultation on the draft MDP will occur following the decision on this referral. Although the MDP will include information on all elements of the ILS project it will only seek approval under the Airports Act for the components on Commonwealth land. The MDP may also be used as an accredited assessment process under section 87 of the EPBC Act, should the Federal Department of the Environment (DoE) deem the works on NSW State land and/or Commonwealth land to have a significant impact resulting in a controlled action. The MDP will not seek approval under the Airports Act for the new flight paths required for the ILS on runway 14 nor will it seek approval under the Airports Act for any noise impacts associated with these flight paths. Proposed changes to flight paths and potential noise impacts will be the subject of separate approvals obtained by Airservices in parallel to the MDP process, taking into account the comments received on the draft MDP during public consultation regarding the new flight paths.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 16 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) This referral under the EPBC Act has been prepared due to: Potential impacts on threatened species and ecological communities (section 18 of the EPBC Act); The requirement for approval of actions undertaken on Commonwealth land that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment (section 26[1] of the EPBC Act); and The requirement for approval of actions of Commonwealth agencies significantly affecting the environment (section 28 of the EPBC Act). As Airservices is the proponent, section 28(1) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) provides that a Commonwealth agency (which includes a body corporate established for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth) must not take an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. Further, section 26(1) of the EPBC Act provides that a person must not take on Commonwealth land an action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. This referral therefore considers impacts and mitigation measures for the works in relation to the whole of the environment as described in the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2, including matters protected under both Commonwealth and State law. The assessment conducted for this referral identified that the action, the subject of this referral, is not likely to result in significant impacts to matters protected under the EPBC Act (see Section 5). However, if the action is deemed by DoE to be a controlled action the MDP process may be accredited as the assessment process by DoE under section 87 of the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act process as it applies to the ILS project is shown in Flowchart 1 below.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 17 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Flowchart 1: Assessment of the Key Components of the ILS Project under the EPBC Act
State and Local Legislation As described in preceding sections of this referral, section 19 of the Air Services Act will be relied upon by Airservices to overcome any State land use zoning restrictions or regulations that may otherwise apply to works on NSW State land. In respect of the works to take place on Commonwealth land – these are governed by the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) and State and local government legislation do not apply With Airservices as the proponent, sections 26(1) and 28(1) of the EPBC Act apply to the Commonwealth land works and the NSW State land works respectively. Therefore this referral considers environmental impacts and mitigation measures in relation to the whole of the environment as described in the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2, including matters protected at the State and local level.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 18 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
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). No EIS has been previously completed or is currently being undertaken for the project. 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.
Airservices is committed to ongoing and proactive communication and engagement with the stakeholders and the local community as the project progresses. Community and stakeholder engagement has or will occur in collaboration with GCAPL during the following key project phases: Consultation during MDP preparation As required by the Airports Act, GCAPL (the airport-lessee company), has begun preparation of the MDP for the project which contains information on all aspects of the project, including the works on Commonwealth land, NSW State land and the changes to flight paths. A range of key stakeholders have been engaged during preparation of the MDP, including local, State and Federal Government, airlines, business and external consultancies. The focus of engagement thus far has been to: Explain how the ILS will operate and its benefits; Discuss and confirm the approach being taken with the proposed implementation of an ILS; and Seek support for the ILS. Specifically the key Government stakeholders that have been consulted during this stage of development of the MDP have included: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development; and Department of the Environment; Other stakeholders also consulted in the preparation of the MDP included: New South Wales Government; City of Gold Coast; Tweed Shire Council; Federal members of parliament; State members of parliament (NSW and Qld); Local Councillors; Civil Aviation Safety Authority; Community including interest groups such as Community Aviation Consultation Group (CACG) and the Airport Noise Abatement Consultative Committee (ANACC); and Airlines. Consultation during EPBC Referral Public Comment Period The EPBC referral for the project (for ground impacts) will be subject to a 10-day public comment period under the EPBC Act, during which time they will be available for review and comment through the DoE website.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 19 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
MDP Public Comment Period In developing an MDP, airports must publish a preliminary draft MDP and invite public comment. Consultation is to occur with State and Local governments, airport stakeholders and the general public, through a 60 business-day public comment period as required by the Airports Act. Although works at the localiser footprint in NSW State land and the new flight paths are not subject to approval under the Airports Act via the MDP process, all elements of the ILS project will be detailed in the MDP and included in the consultation process to be conducted jointly by Airservices and GCAPL. During the 60 business-day MDP public comment period for the project, Airservices and GCAPL intend to undertake the following consultation activities: Public displays; Copies of the MDP document (hard copies) available at Gold Coast Airport reception and at various locations; Copies of the MDP document available for down load from the Gold Coast Airport website; Media releases and fact sheets to be available; Media briefings; Online information; Advertisements in local newspapers outlining the community consultation period and inviting members of the public to give written comments about the draft document; Stakeholder presentations and face to face briefings. Comments received during the MDP public consultation will be considered by GCAPL, with the assistance of Airservices, in preparing the draft MDP prior to being submitted to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development for consideration. Any comments received relating to the new flight paths may also be considered by Airservices in obtaining approval for the new flight paths. Indigenous Consultation A due diligence cultural heritage assessment has been conducted for the ILS project guided by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects (2011) and the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) Duty of Care Guidelines. Aboriginal community stakeholder where invited to take part in the site meeting and walk over associated with the due diligence assessment including the Tweed Byron Local Aboriginal Land Council, Jabree Ltd and other Aboriginal community stakeholders. Those Stakeholders who opted to participate in the cultural heritage survey and associated meetings (Tweed Byron LALC, Jackie McDonald, Aunty Joyce Summers and Ngarang-Wal) expressed that they were satisfied that the Project had a low potential to impact on significant cultural heritage.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 20 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
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 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). The ground components of the ILS project, on Commonwealth and NSW State Land, are the subject of this referral. The proposed change of flight paths arising from installation of the ILS will be the subject of a separate Airservices referral (s.161/160) under the EPBC Act.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 21 of 92
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 There are no World Heritage Properties within or adjacent to the project area. Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the World Heritage values of any World Heritage property. The nearest World Heritage Property to the project site is Fraser Island which is more than 300 kilometres north of Gold Coast Airport. The project will not have any impacts to Fraser Island.
3.1 (b) National Heritage Places
Description The Gold Coast Airport Aboriginal Site is identified in the Australian Heritage Database as an ‘indicative place’ on the Commonwealth Heritage List (ID Number 105484), and is also listed as a ‘registered place’ (ID Number 16588).
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the National Heritage values of any National Heritage place.
The Gold Coast Airport Aboriginal Site is fenced and is located west of the runway and the Pacific Motorway (Tugun Bypass). The project is not expected to have any direct or indirect impacts on this heritage site. A cultural heritage assessment, including archaeological survey, has been conducted for the ILS project, in conjunction with Indigenous stakeholders. This is described in Section 3.2(d).
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 22 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)
Description There are no Ramsar Wetland sites within or adjacent to the project site. Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the ecological character of any Ramsar wetlands. The nearest Ramsar Wetland is Moreton Bay, the southern extent of which is approximately 30 kilometres north of the Gold Coast Airport. The project is not expected to have any direct or indirect impacts on this wetland site.
3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities This section addresses the different on-ground footprints of the ILS project separately as the areas have differing environmental values and therefore the likely presence of threatened species or ecological communities is different in each area. Section 5.2 provides an assessment of the significance of the impact of the project as a whole. The environmental assessment described in this referral considers impacts to threatened species and ecological communities under Section 18 the EPBC Act, in addition to the ‘whole environment’ as required by Sections 26(1) and 28 of the EPBC Act, due to the project being partially on Commonwealth land and being conducted by a Commonwealth agency (Airservices). Impacts to the ‘whole environment’, including matters protected under State or local legislation, are described in Sections 3.2d and 3.3. An EPBC Act Protected Matters Search (Appendix 1) was undertaken in June 2014 covering the project footprint and surrounds to identify federally-listed threatened flora and fauna species that are likely to occur in in the project area. State-listed species that are known or likely to occur on the site are identified in Section 3.3. As outlined in Table 1, the four patches of vegetation which are impacted by the 300m runway strip widening are referred to in this assessment as Impact Areas A to D. Summary of nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities within project footprint The following points summarise the nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities in the project footprint. Further detail is provided after these points. No species of EPBC Act listed threatened flora or fauna are known or likely to inhabit the glidepath footprint due to the lack of suitable habitat. The 300 metre runway strip provides habitat value for two EPBC Act listed threatened fauna species. These include: • Litoria olongburensis (Wallum Sedge Frog): Impact Areas B to D (see Figure 5) are known or are likely to support this species. Results of the Significant Terrestrial Fauna Monitoring Program (Ecosure 2012; 2013b) show that this species has been observed in all of these areas in recent years. Note that the above does not include the area of vegetation in Impact Area A (see Figure 5). See below for why Area A is not considered to be suitable habitat for Litoria olongburensis. • Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-Fox): This species is known to occur in the area, though habitat available in the runway strip would be of minor value to the species due to habitat patch size and the species’ large home range / patterns of migration. No species of EPBC Act listed threatened flora or fauna are known or likely to inhabit the localiser footprint area, however the Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Ecological Community is present, which is considered a Vulnerable Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) under the EPBC Act. State listed endangered ecological communities (EECs) are also present in the localiser footprint as described in Section 3.2d.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 23 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Assessment detail Description of EPBC Act listed threatened flora or fauna in the Glidepath Footprint Land within the glidepath footprint is mown grassland or hardstand managed as part of the Runway Precinct. This provides clear zones for safe aircraft landing, take off and taxiing. The land is also managed to reduce the occurrence of wildlife as per GCAPL’s Bird and Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (2014). As such, this area is not considered to provide suitable habitat for threatened flora or fauna species.
Description of EPBC Act listed threatened flora or fauna in the 300 metre Runway Strip The proposed 300 metre runway strip overlaps with the existing 150 metre wide runway strip which is managed primarily for the purpose of aircraft landing, take off and taxing operations. The area encompassed by the widening of the runway strip is largely mown grassland; however it overlays small patches of heath and sedgeland which are described in this referral as Impact Areas A, B, C and D (see Figure 5). It is also subject to the Bird and Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (GCAPL 2014). This means that fauna in this area would be subject to active management, directly removing or reducing the numbers of birds and other fauna where they pose a risk to operations. Although the plan limits the occurrence of some species, heath and sedgeland vegetation in the area provides habitat for some fauna.
Table 3 and Table 4 show the EPBC Act listed threatened flora and fauna species identified in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search and the likelihood of their occurrence in the 300m runway strip. The likelihood of occurrence has been determined through desktop literature review and with reference to survey work undertaken for the project (see Appendix 2). Table 2 provides an explanatory key for each level of likelihood used within the assessment.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 24 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 2: Key to Likelihood of Occurrence
Likelihood of Occurrence Criteria Suitable habitat present in the study area. Recently recorded (less than 20 years) and/or extant within and/or immediately adjacent Known to the Study Area. Suitable habitat exists within or adjacent to the Study Area, though there are no records within or immediately adjacent the area. Likely Study area occurs within the known distribution of the species and recent records exist in close proximity (in the context of the species’ mobility). Not recorded within or in close proximity to the Study Area, though suitable habitat exists. Study area is within the known or predicted Possible distribution of the species. Alternatively, if marginal habitat exists in the study area, recent records are known in close proximity to the study area. No suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the Study Area. Study area is not within the known or predicted distribution of the species. Unlikely OR, with consideration of the size of impact area and species ecology, targeted surveys (or several other ecology surveys) have not detected the species despite suitable habitat being present. Species considered to be a rare visitor to the area. Species is considered highly mobile (i.e. large home ranges). Species is unlikely to Transient be permanently established in the area.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 25 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 3: Nationally Significant Flora Species that Potentially Occur within the 300 metre Runway Strip (Flora species identified in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool)
Note that the species information in the table below is generally sourced from the Species Profile and Threats Database and/or other government datasets and likelihood of occurrence at the site has been determined from previous literature reviews and studies at the site, as well as survey observations. Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Name Status Acronychia Scented Endangered From Fraser Island in Queensland to Transition zones between littoral Unlikely as habitat requirements not littoralis Acronychia Port Macquarie in New South Wales. rainforest and swamp sclerophyll present in this area. forest; between littoral and coastal cypress pine communities; and margins of littoral forest and cleared land. Allocasuarina Dwarf heath Endangered The Dwarf Heath Casuarina is confined Coastal areas of wet to dry, dense, low, Unlikely due to distribution of the species defungens casuarina to the north coast region of New South closed heath land. in this area. Wales, between Raymond Terrace and Port Macquarie. There are 32 sites recorded from six general localities over a geographic range of about 40 kilometres. Arthraxon Hairy-joint grass Vulnerable In Australia, the species has been Hairy-joint Grass is found in or on the Unlikely as habitat requirements not hispidus recorded from scattered locations edges of rainforest and in wet eucalypt present in this area. throughout Queensland and on the forest, often near creeks or swamps. northern tablelands and north coast of New South Wales. Baloghia Marbled Balogia, Vulnerable Geographically disjunct distribution Found in subtropical Unlikely as habitat requirements not marmorata Jointed Baloghia confined to the Lismore district, in rainforest/notophyll vine forest and wet present in this area. north-east NSW, and the Tamborine sclerophyll forest (brush box woodland) Mountains and Springbrook, in south- with rainforest understorey east Queensland. Cryptocarya Stinking Vulnerable Coastal SE Qld from Fraser Island to Stinking Cryptocarya grows in littoral Unlikely as habitat requirements not foetida Cryptocarya, border and then into Northern New rainforest, usually on sandy soils, with present in this area. Stinking Laurel South Wales down as far as Iluka. mature trees also growing on basalt soils. Cryptostylis Leafless Tongue- Vulnerable Has been recorded from as far north as Does not appear to have well defined Unlikely as habitat requirements not hunteriana orchid Gibraltar Range National Park south habitat preferences and is known to present in this area. into Victoria around the coast as far as inhabit a range of communities, Orbost. including swamp-heath and woodland. Diploglottis Small-leaved Endangered Currently known from <25 locations Warm subtropical rainforests of north- Unlikely as habitat requirements not campbellii Tamarind within an area from the coastal eastern New South Wales and south- present in this area. lowlands of the Richmond River on the eastern Queensland. far north coast of NSW, to the Nerang River on the Gold Coast of Queensland.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 26 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Name Status Gossia Sweet Myrtle, Endangered South-east Queensland and in north- Dry subtropical and riverine rainforest. Unlikely due to distribution and as habitat fragrantissima Small-leaved east New South Wales south to the requirements not present in this area Myrtle Richmond River. Hicksbeachia Monkey Nut Vulnerable From Tamborine Mountain, south-east In and on the margins of subtropical Unlikely as habitat requirements not pinnatifolia Queensland, to the Bellinger and rainforest and sometimes extends into present in this area. Nambucca Valleys, in north-east New wet sclerophyll forest. South Wales. Macadamia Rough-shelled Vulnerable North-east New South Wales-south- Endemic to rainforest and wet Unlikely as habitat requirements not tetraphylla Bush Nut east Queensland coastal region. sclerophyll forest communities present in this area. Phaius australis Lesser Swamp- Endangered The Lesser Swamp-orchid is endemic Commonly associated with coastal wet Unlikely. Although suitable habitat exists, orchid to Australia and occurs in southern heath/sedgeland wetlands, swampy extensive surveys in the area have not Queensland and northern New South grassland or swampy forest and often identified the species there it is unlikely to Wales where Broad-leaved Paperbark or be present. Swamp Mahogany are found. Phaius Lady Tankerville’s Endangered Swamp Lily occurs in north-east and Swamp forest ecotones. Associated Unlikely as habitat requirements not tancarvilleae Swamp Orchid south-east Queensland and north-east vegetation includes swamp sclerophyll present in this area. New South Wales. forest (Melaleuca quinquinervi- Eucalyptus robusta-Lophostemon suaveolens), swampy rainforest (often with sclerophyll emergents), or fringing open forest. Randia moorei Spiny Gardenia Endangered Lismore on the north coast of New Subtropical, riverine, littoral and dry Unlikely as habitat requirements not South Wales, northwards to the Logan rainforest and sometimes along moist present in this area. River, southern Queensland. scrubby watercourses. Streblus Siah’s Backbone Endangered Cape York Peninsula to Milton, south- Warmer rainforests, chiefly along Unlikely as habitat requirements not pendulinus east New South Wales, as well as watercourses. present in this area. Norfolk Island. Syzygium Smooth-bark Rose Vulnerable Richmond River in New South Wales to Riverine rainforest on rich alluvial or Unlikely as habitat requirements not hodgkinsoniae Apple Gympie, Queensland, with a disjunct basaltic soils. present in this area. occurrence in north Queensland. Syzygium Rose Apple Vulnerable Sections of the Richmond, Brunswick Warm, protected, fertile soils in riverine Unlikely as habitat requirements not moorei and Tweed Rivers in New South Wales, and gully rainforests at low present in this area. as well as at three sites in Upper Altitudes. Mudgeeraba Creek and Upper Tallebudgera Creek in south-east Queensland.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 27 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 4: Nationally Significant Fauna Species that potentially occur within the 300m Runway Strip (Fauna species identified in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool) The assessment has excluded pelagic fauna (e.g. sea birds, cetaceans) and other birds (e.g. shorebirds) that require saltmarsh, beaches, mudflats or large coastal wetlands. This is due to the absence of suitable habitat for these species. Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence as assessed Name Status by this and previous studies
Birds
Anthochaera Regent Endangered Mainly inland slopes of the Great Box-ironbark eucalypt associations and it Unlikely due to distribution and as habitat phrygia Honeyeater Dividing Range. At times significant seems to prefer wetter, more fertile sites requirements not present in this area. numbers also occur in coastal forests in within these associations, such as along New South Wales and eastern Victoria. creek flats, broad river valleys and lower slopes. Along streams in New South Wales, riparian forests of River She-oak Casuarina cunninghamiana are also important for feeding and breeding.
Botaurus Australasian Endangered In Australia, the species occurs from Water in tall reedbeds, sedges, rushes, Unlikely as habitat requirements not poiciloptilus Bittern south–east Queensland to south–east cumbungi, lignum. Also found in drains present in this area. South Australia, Tasmania and in the and tussocky paddocks. south–west of Western Australia.
Cyclopsitta Coxen's Fig- Endangered Queensland and New South Wales. Occurs in rainforest habitats including Unlikely as habitat requirements not diophthalma Parrot subtropical rainforest, dry rainforest, present in this area. coxeni In New South Wales, recent credible littoral and developing littoral rainforest, records have been obtained from and vine forest (up to approximately 900 Border Ranges National Park, Tweed metres above sea level). Also in, open River valley, Nightcap Range and the woodland or other types of cleared or Hastings River area. partially-cleared habitat; and isolated stands of fig or other trees on urban, agricultural or cleared land. Erythrotriorchis Red Goshawk Vulnerable Coastal and sub-coastal areas in Coastal and sub-coastal areas in wooded Transient. Right at southern end of its radiatus wooded and forested lands of tropical and forested lands of tropical and warm range and substantial suitable habitat and warm temperate temperate Australia. does not occur. Likely to be foraging Australia. habitat only.
Lathamus Swift Parrot Endangered Endemic to south-eastern Australia. Dry sclerophyll eucalypt forests and Unlikely as habitat requirements not discolor woodlands, especially box/ironbark present in this area. stands.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 28 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence as assessed Name Status by this and previous studies
Poephila cincta Black-throated Endangered Two general locations: in the Grassy woodland dominated by Unlikely due to species distribution and cincta Finch (southern) Townsville region, where it is eucalypts, paperbarks or acacias, where habitat preferences. considered to be locally common at a there is access to seeding grasses and few sites around Townsville and water Charters Towers; and at scattered sites in central-eastern Queensland.
Rostratula Australian Endangered Endemic to Australia and has been Wet pastures, marshy areas, vegetated Unlikely - based on the survey data australis Painted Snipe recorded at wetlands in all states and margins of wetlands and dams. dating back 13 years and personal territories. Scattered locations observations by specialist consultants at throughout much of Queensland. Avisure, (who undertake monthly bird surveys at the airport). Over the past seven years there have not been any records of Painted Snipe on Gold Coast Airport. Based on discussions with Avisure's ornithological team, it seems unlikely that GCA contains suitable permanent habitat for this species as they are non-migratory and attracted to shallow, grassy wetlands. Turnix Black-breasted Vulnerable Eastern Queensland and New South Vine thickets and rainforest vegetation Unlikely as habitat requirements not melanogaster Button-quail Wales from the Byfield region in the types, low thickets or woodlands. present in this area. north, to the Border Ranges rainforests in the south, generally east of the Great Dividing Range. Frogs
Litoria Wallum Sedge Vulnerable Narrow coastal area between Fraser Wallum swamps and surrounding Known to occur in parts of the 300 metre olongburensis Frog Island, Queensland, and Woolgoolga, vegetation types runway strip (see discussion below this New South Wales table). This species has been recorded in the area as part of the Significant Fauna Monitoring Program.
Insects
Phyllodes Pink Underwing Endangered From Nambour, south-east Undisturbed subtropical rainforest in Unlikely as habitat requirements not imperialis Moth Queensland, to Dorrigo in northern association with the vine Carronia present in this area. smithersi New South Wales. multisepalea.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 29 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence as assessed Name Status by this and previous studies
Mammals Chalinolobus Large-eared Pied Vulnerable Much of the known distribution is Sandstone cliffs and fertile woodland Unlikely as habitat requirements not dwyeri Bat, Large Pied within New South Wales. Available valley habitat including box-gum present in this area. Bat records suggest that the largest woodlands or river/rainforest corridors. concentrations of populations appear to be in the sandstone escarpments of the Sydney basin and the north-west slopes (Coolah Tops, Mt Kaputar, Warrumbungle National Park and Pilliga Nature Reserve. Dasyurus Northern Quoll Endangered Confined to a set of disjunct A variety of habitats across their range. Unlikely due to species distribution. hallucatus populations across the north of Australia. Dasyurus Spot-tailed Quoll, Endangered South eastern Queensland through Primarily occurs in rainforest and wet Unlikely. Given large home ranges maculatus Spotted-tail New South Wales to Victoria. sclerophyll forest. required and residential and maculatus (SE Quoll, Tiger infrastructure development surrounding mainland Quoll the airport. population) (southeastern mainland population) Petrogale Brush-tailed Vulnerable Isolated rocky escarpments along the Rock faces or outcrops. Unlikely as habitat requirements not penicillata Rock-wallaby Great Dividing Range from south- present in this area. eastern Queensland through eastern New South Wales to eastern Victoria. Phascolarctos Koala (combined Vulnerable Cairns to the New South Wales-Victoria Range of temperate, sub-tropical and Unlikely. Important tree species such as cinereus populations of border, and includes some island tropical forest, woodland and semi-arid Eucalyptus spp. and related genera are (combined Queensland, populations. The koala’s distribution is communities dominated by eucalypts. not abundant in this area. populations of New South not continuous across this range, with There has been a recent recording of a Qld, NSW and Wales and the some populations isolated by cleared koala in vegetation directly adjacent (to the ACT) Australian Capital land or unsuitable habitat. the west) of the area, though there is Territory) limited habitat values within the 300 metre runway strip. Prior to sighting of this koala, there has been no confirmed sightings of koalas east of the Tugun Bypass, with limited and dated records in the Cobaki Environment Precinct. Physical barriers such as fencing and daily monitoring of the aerodrome are preventative measures that reduce potential risks from fauna impacts on aviation operations.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 30 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence as assessed Name Status by this and previous studies
Potorous Long-nosed Vulnerable Sparsely distributed along the coast Restricted to isolated populations in Unlikely. Occurs to the north-west, near tridactylus Potoroo (SE and Great Dividing Range of south-east coastal heaths and forests east of the Stewart Road, Tugun. And to the north- tridactylus mainland) Queensland through New South Wales. Great Dividing Range west of the Cobaki Environment Precinct. Previous surveys undertaken as part of the Significant Fauna Monitoring Program have not detected this species despite extensive trapping effort over many years. Pseudomys New Holland Vulnerable In New South Wales, the New Holland Heath, particularly when regenerating Unlikely. Essential habitat requirements novaehollandiae Mouse, Pookila Mouse is known from: Royal National after fire. not on site (Ecosure 2013). Previous Park and the Kangaroo Valley; Kuringai surveys undertaken as part of the Chase NP and Port Stephens to Evans Significant Fauna Monitoring Program Head near the Queensland border. have not detected this species despite extensive trapping effort. Pteropus Grey-headed Vulnerable Bundaberg in Queensland to Found to favour rainforests, open forests, Possible. Limited foraging or roosting poliocephalus Flying-fox Melbourne in Victoria and from the closed and open woodlands as well as habitat available on site and recorded coast inland to the western slopes of Melaleuca swamps and Banksia throughout the locality. Despite this, the New South Wales. woodlands. Also found throughout urban species has been recorded in other parts and agricultural areas where food trees of the airport and there is continued exist. standardised monitoring of the flying-fox hazard via nightly monitoring by safety offices during peak flying-fox periods. It is worth noting that there are only small patches of suitable habitat for this species in the study area and no roosts are located in the runway strip area. Xeromys Water Mouse, Vulnerable Northern Territory, Queensland and Coastal saltmarsh, mangrove and Unlikely as suitable habitat does not myoides False Water Rat, New Guinea. In Queensland, the adjacent freshwater wetland habitats occur in this area. Yirrkoo species is known from the Proserpine area south to near the Queensland/New South Wales border. Other Thersites Mitchell's Critically Rainforest species Unlikely as suitable habitat does not mitchellae Rainforest Snail Endangered occur in this area.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 31 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Results of the Habitat Assessment for Litoria olongburensis in Impact Area A of the 300m Runway Strip As identified in Table 4, potential habitat for the Wallum Sedge frog, Litoria olongburensis, exists in parts of the 300m runway strip. Results of surveys undertaken as part of the Significant Terrestrial Fauna Monitoring Program (Ecosure 2012; 2013c) show that Litoria olongburensis has been observed in Impact Areas B to D in recent years, however not in Impact Area A, despite abundant rainfall prior to monitoring. Therefore a targeted habitat assessment and survey of Area A was undertaken for the project, in accordance with the methodology described in Appendix 2, to determine its suitability for Litoria olongburensis. Area A was largely found to be unsuitable habitat for Litoria olongburensis as outlined below. The targeted survey in Impact Area A was undertaken during sub-optimal detection conditions, as no rain had fallen on the site in the previous 7 days and there had been very little rain in the previous month. At the time of the survey, no freestanding water was present at the site. This is one important indicator of habitat suitability as Litoria olongburensis is mostly observed in areas that are low lying and have freestanding water. The methodology for the targeted survey of Impact Area A for Litoria olongburensis is described in Appendix 2. No frog species were heard calling during the survey and only one species was visually observed during the survey. This was Litoria nasuta (Striped Rocket Frog), which was visually observed in the mown sedge area that borders Impact Area A. Litoria nasuta is not listed as a threatened species under State or Commonwealth legislation. The Draft Referral Guidelines for Litoria olongburensis states surveys should be undertaken during optimal conditions, and this is: 1. During the warmer months of the year, especially from September to April (minimum of 15 degrees Celsius air temperature); 2. When ephemeral or semi-permanent wetlands are widely inundated with water; and 3. When wind strength is minimal and relative humidity is maximal. Although no freestanding water was present, suitable vegetation for Litoria olongburensis breeding habitat was observed. Figure 6 shows the approximate extent of suitable vegetation. The shaded area of Figure 6 is not considered as having homogenous habitat value however, as pockets of habitat with varying suitability occurred throughout this area. The location of these patches aligns with the previous Litoria olongburensis records reported as part of GCAPL’s Significant Fauna Monitoring Program. Previous records are also shown in Figure 6. Based on quarterly frog surveys undertaken as part of the Significant Fauna Monitoring Program since 2006, and data provided by Ecosure (2014), there are three previous records of the species in Impact Area A: 1. One record in the mid-north of Impact Area A recorded in the early 2000’s (actual date is unknown). 2. Two records on the southern tip of the patch (although on Figure 6 it appears as one point). These were recorded on the 10th of October 2011 and the 18th of January 2012. Two Litoria olongburensis were heard on each date; however this indicates presence only, not population numbers. It appears that the 2011 and 2012 records of Litoria olongburensis in Impact Area A came at a time when the population was increasing. The 2011-2012 Significant Fauna Terrestrial Monitoring Program Report (Ecosure 2012) states that: “A total of 78 Wallum Sedge Frog (Litoria olongburensis) calls were recorded in spring and summer. This total is more than in the previous reporting period (2010-11) when only 41 were recorded.” and
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 32 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
“The highest number of calls (66 individuals) was heard during January (summer); which had the highest total rainfall of the four months surveyed (BOM 2012). This is the highest number of Wallum Sedge Frogs (Litoria olongburensis) recorded during a single frog survey, with the next highest (38 individuals) recorded in February (summer) 2009.”
Although it does not specifically mention the reasons for recording Litoria olongburensis in Impact Area A during the 2011/2012 breeding season, the Ecosure report (Ecosure 2012) generally states that higher frog populations across the airport site were potentially due to higher rainfall and active weed management conducted by GCAPL that resulted in improved habitat. The ‘higher rainfall’ is likely to be referring to the past few years prior to 2013, as all years since 2008 (except 2011) had above average annual rainfall (BOM 2014). Such a conclusion is consistent with the ecology of Litoria olongburensis as (similar to other frog species) the species is known to be in a state of flux, expanding and contracting according to climatic conditions (amongst other factors). Generally speaking, two sequential summers with high rainfall would provide favourable conditions for an expansion of the population; however other factors would also determine population size. It is worth nothing that despite continued higher than average annual rainfall since the observations in 2012, evidence shows the population has reduced across the airport. The 2012-13 Significant Fauna Monitoring Program Report (Ecosure 2013c) reports that there was a 46 percent reduction in Litoria olongburensis records from the 2011-12 monitoring period, and that the 2012-13 monitoring period was similar to that of years prior to 2011/2012. This may explain why Litoria olongburensis was not recorded in Impact Area A during the 2012/2013 monitoring period. Based on this evidence, it would also appear that Litoria olongburensis colonised the southern tip of Impact Area A, after migrating northwards from other areas. Other common species less adapted to acidic conditions are also regularly recorded within Impact Area A. This includes Litoria fallax (Common Sedge Frog), Litora nasuta (Striped Rocket Frog), Litoria tyleri (Tyler’s Tree Frog) and Limnodynastes peronii (Striped Marsh Frog). These frogs are likely to compete for resources and are known to displace Litoria olongburensis (Ingram and Corben 1975). In addition, their regular presence indicates the pH of Impact Area A may be generally too high for Litoria olongburensis. These may be the reasons why Litoria olongburensis has not been recorded in the heart of Impact Area A since the early 2000’s. With the evidence at hand, it appears that Impact Area A could provide suitable habitat for Litoria olongburensis; though only during years where the population has increased in abundance and the species disperses to less favourable habitat, and perhaps only on the southern tip of Impact Area A. It also appears that attempts at breeding during the summer of 2011/2012 in this area were unsuccessful, as Litoria olongburensis has not been recorded in the area since the breeding season of 2011/1012. For these reasons, Impact Area A could be considered largely unsuitable for Litoria olongburensis. Based on previous survey results, it is likely the species does not currently inhabit the area. The reasons why the area is generally unsuitable is not entirely clear, though as discussed, it is likely to relate to competition with other frog species, the low frequency of freestanding water, and unsuitable water quality. Description of EPBC Act listed threatened flora or fauna in the localiser footprint on NSW State Land Table 5 and Table 6 show the EPBC Act listed threatened flora and fauna species identified in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search and the likelihood of their occurrence in the localiser footprint area. The likelihood of occurrence has been determined through desktop literature review and with reference to survey work undertaken as part of the project (see Appendix 2). The key to likelihood of occurrence is as per Table 2 above.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 33 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 5: Nationally Significant Flora Species that Potentially Occur within the Localiser Footprint Area on NSW State Land (Flora species identified in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool)
Note that the species information in the table below is generally sourced from the Species Profile and Threats Database and/or other government datasets and likelihood of occurrence at the site has been determined from previous literature reviews and studies at the site, as well as survey observations. Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Name Status Acronychia Scented Endangered From Fraser Island in Queensland to Transition zones between littoral Unlikely as habitat littoralis Acronychia Port Macquarie in New South Wales. rainforest and swamp sclerophyll requirements not present in forest; between littoral and coastal localiser footprint area. cypress pine communities; and margins of littoral forest and cleared land. Allocasuarina Dwarf heath Endangered The Dwarf Heath Casuarina is Coastal areas of wet to dry, dense, Unlikely due to distribution of defungens casuarina confined to the north coast region of low, closed heath land the species. NSW, between Raymond Terrace and Port Macquarie. There are 32 sites recorded from six general localities over a geographic range of about 40 kilometres. Arthraxon Hairy-joint grass Vulnerable In Australia, the species has been Hairy-joint Grass is found in or on the Unlikely as habitat hispidus recorded from scattered locations edges of rainforest and in wet eucalypt requirements not present in throughout Queensland and on the forest, often near creeks or swamps. localiser footprint area. northern tablelands and north coast of New South Wales. Baloghia Marbled Balogia, Vulnerable Geographically disjunct distribution Found in subtropical Unlikely as habitat marmorata Jointed Baloghia confined to the Lismore district, in rainforest/notophyll vine forest and requirements not present in north-east New South Wales, and wet sclerophyll forest (brush box localiser footprint area. the Tamborine Mountains and woodland) with rainforest understorey. Springbrook, in south-east Queensland. Cryptocarya Stinking Vulnerable Coastal south-east Queensland from Stinking Cryptocarya grows in littoral Unlikely as habitat foetida Cryptocarya, Fraser Island to border and then rainforest, usually on sandy soils, with requirements not present in Stinking Laurel into northern New South Wales mature trees also growing on basalt localiser footprint area. down as far as Iluka. soils.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 34 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Name Status Cryptostylis Leafless Vulnerable Has been recorded from as far north Does not appear to have well defined Unlikely as habitat hunteriana Tongue-orchid as Gibraltar Range National Park habitat preferences and is known to requirements not present in south into Victoria around the coast inhabit a range of communities, localiser footprint area. as far as Orbost. including swamp-heath and woodland. Diploglottis Small-leaved Endangered Currently known from <25 locations Warm subtropical rainforests of north- Unlikely as habitat campbellii Tamarind within an area from the coastal eastern New South Wales and south- requirements not present in lowlands of the Richmond River on eastern Queensland. localiser footprint area. the far north coast of New South Wales, to the Nerang River on the Gold Coast of Queensland. Gossia Sweet Myrtle, Endangered South-east Queensland and in Dry subtropical and riverine rainforest. Unlikely due to distribution fragrantissima Small-leaved north-east New South Wales south and as habitat requirements Myrtle to the Richmond River. not present in localiser footprint area. Hicksbeachia Monkey Nut Vulnerable From Tamborine Mountain, south- In and on the margins of subtropical Unlikely as habitat pinnatifolia east Queensland, to the Bellinger rainforest and sometimes extends into requirements not present in and Nambucca Valleys, in north-east wet sclerophyll forest. localiser footprint area. New South Wales. Macadamia Rough-shelled Vulnerable Northeast New South Wales- Endemic to rainforest and wet Unlikely as habitat tetraphylla Bush Nut southeast Queensland coastal sclerophyll forest communities requirements not present in region. localiser footprint area. Phaius Lesser Swamp- Endangered The Lesser Swamp-orchid is Commonly associated with coastal wet Unlikely due to the extent of australis orchid endemic to Australia and occurs in heath/sedgeland wetlands, swampy survey that has been southern Queensland and northern grassland or swampy forest and often undertaken in the area and New South Wales. where Broad-leaved Paperbark or lack of suitable habitat. Swamp Mahogany are found Phaius Lady Endangered Swamp Lily occurs in north-east and Swamp forest ecotones. Associated Unlikely as habitat tancarvilleae Tankerville’s south-east Queensland and north- vegetation includes swamp sclerophyll requirements not present in Swamp Orchid east New South Wales. forest (Melaleuca quinquenervia, localiser footprint area. Eucalyptus robusta-Lophostemon suaveolens), swampy rainforest (often with sclerophyll emergents), or fringing open forest.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 35 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Name Status Randia moorei Spiny Gardenia Endangered Lismore on the north coast of New Subtropical, riverine, littoral and dry Unlikely as habitat South Wales, northwards to the rainforest and sometimes along moist requirements not present in Logan River, southern Queensland. scrubby watercourses. localiser footprint area. Streblus Siah’s Backbone Endangered Cape York Peninsula to Milton, Warmer rainforests, chiefly along Unlikely as habitat pendulinus south-east New South Wales, as watercourses. requirements not present in well as Norfolk Island. localiser footprint area. Syzygium Smooth-bark Vulnerable Richmond River in New South Wales Riverine rainforest on rich alluvial or Unlikely as habitat hodgkinsoniae Rose Apple to Gympie, Queensland, with a basaltic soils. requirements not present in disjunct occurrence in north localiser footprint area. Queensland. Syzygium Rose Apple Vulnerable Sections of the Richmond, Brunswick Warm, protected, fertile soils in Unlikely as habitat moorei and Tweed Rivers in New South riverine and gully rainforests at low requirements not present in Wales, as well as at three sites in Altitudes. localiser footprint area. Upper Mudgeeraba Creek and Upper Tallebudgera Creek in south-east Queensland.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 36 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 6: Nationally Significant Fauna Species that potentially occur within the Localiser Footprint Area on NSW State Land (Fauna species identified in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool)
The assessment has excluded pelagic fauna (e.g. sea birds, cetaceans) due to the absence of suitable habitat for these species. Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Status
Birds
Anthochaera Regent Endangered Mainly inland slopes of the Great Box-ironbark eucalypt associations Unlikely due to distribution phrygia Honeyeater Dividing Range. At times significant and it seems to prefer wetter, more and as habitat requirements numbers also occur in coastal fertile sites within these associations, not present localiser footprint forests in New South Wales and such as along creek flats, broad river area. eastern Victoria. valleys and lower slopes. Along streams in New South Wales, riparian forests of River She-oak Casuarina cunninghamiana are also important for feeding and breeding. Botaurus Australasian Endangered In Australia, the species occurs from Water in tall reedbeds, sedges, Unlikely as habitat poiciloptilus Bittern south–east Queensland to south– rushes, cumbungi, lignum. Also found requirements not present in east South Australia, Tasmania and in drains and tussocky paddocks. It is localiser footprint area. in the south–west of Western largely recorded in freshwater Australia. wetlands and, rarely, in estuaries or tidal wetlands. Cyclopsitta Coxen's Fig- Endangered Queensland and New South Wales. Occurs in rainforest habitats including Unlikely as habitat diophthalma Parrot subtropical rainforest, dry rainforest, requirements not present in In New South Wales, recent credible coxeni littoral and developing littoral localiser footprint area. records have been obtained from rainforest, and vine forest (up to Border Ranges National Park, Tweed approximately 900 metres above sea River valley, Nightcap Range and level). Also in, open woodland or the Hastings River area. other types of cleared or partially-
cleared habitat; and isolated stands of fig or other trees on urban, agricultural or cleared land. Erythrotriorchis Red Goshawk Vulnerable Coastal and sub-coastal areas in Coastal and sub-coastal areas in Unlikely as most of the radiatus wooded and forested lands of wooded and forested lands of tropical vegetation in the localiser tropical and warm temperate and warm temperate Australia. footprint area is unsuitable Australia. habitat.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 37 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Status
Lathamus Swift Parrot Endangered Endemic to south-eastern Australia Dry sclerophyll eucalypt forests and Unlikely as habitat discolor woodlands, especially box/ironbark requirements not present in stands. localiser footprint area. Poephila cincta Black-throated Endangered Two general locations: in the Grassy woodland dominated by Unlikely as habitat cincta Finch Townsville region, where it is eucalypts, paperbarks or acacias, requirements not present in (southern) considered to be locally common at where there is access to seeding localiser footprint area. a few sites around Townsville and grasses and water Charters Towers; and at scattered sites in central-eastern Queensland Rostratula Australian Endangered Endemic to Australia and has been Wet pastures, marshy areas, Unlikely - Based on the survey australis Painted Snipe recorded at wetlands in all states vegetated margins of wetlands and data dating back 13 years and and territories. Scattered locations dams. personal observations by throughout much of Queensland specialist consultants at Avisure, who undertake monthly bird surveys at the airport). Over the past 7 years there have not been any records of Painted Snipe on Gold Coast Airport. Based on discussions with Avisure's ornithological team, it seems unlikely that GCA contains suitable permanent habitat for this species as they are non-migratory and attracted to shallow, grassy wetlands. Turnix Black-breasted Vulnerable Eastern Queensland and New South Vine thickets and rainforest vegetation Unlikely as habitat melanogaster Button-quail Wales from the Byfield region in the types, low thickets or woodlands. requirements not present in north, to the Border Ranges localiser footprint area. rainforests in the south, generally east of the Great Dividing Range. Frogs
Litoria Wallum Sedge Vulnerable Narrow coastal area between Fraser Wallum swamps and surrounding Unlikely as habitat olongburensis Frog Island, Queensland, and vegetation types requirements not present in Woolgoolga, New South Wales localiser footprint area (see Section 3.2[d]).
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 38 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Status
Insects
Phyllodes Pink Underwing Endangered From Nambour, south-east Undisturbed subtropical rainforest in Unlikely as habitat imperialis Moth Queensland, to Dorrigo in northern association with the vine Carronia requirements not present in smithersi New South Wales. multisepalea. localiser footprint area.
Mammals
Chalinolobus Large-eared Vulnerable Much of the known distribution is Sandstone cliffs and fertile woodland Unlikely as habitat dwyeri Pied Bat, Large within New South Wales. Available valley habitat including box-gum requirements not present in Pied Bat records suggest that the largest woodlands or river/rainforest localiser footprint area. concentrations of populations corridors. appear to be in the sandstone escarpments of the Sydney basin and the north-west slopes (Coolah Tops, Mt Kaputar, Warrumbungle National Park and Pilliga Nature Reserve. Dasyurus Northern Quoll Endangered Confined to a set of disjunct A variety of habitats across their Unlikely due to species hallucatus populations across the north of range. distribution. Australia. Dasyurus Spot-tailed Endangered South eastern Queensland through Primarily occurs in rainforest and wet Unlikely. Given large home maculatus Quoll, Spotted- New South Wales to Victoria. sclerophyll forest. ranges required and maculatus (SE tail Quoll, Tiger residential and infrastructure mainland Quoll development surrounding the population) (southeastern Airport. mainland population) Petrogale Brush-tailed Vulnerable Isolated rocky escarpments along Rock faces or outcrops. Unlikely as habitat penicillata Rock-wallaby the Great Dividing Range from requirements not present in south-eastern Queensland through localiser footprint area. eastern New South Wales to eastern Victoria.
Phascolarctos Koala Vulnerable Cairns to the New South Wales- Range of temperate, sub-tropical and Unlikely as habitat cinereus (combined Victoria border, and includes some tropical forest, woodland and semi- requirements not present in (combined populations of island populations. The koala’s localiser footprint area.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 39 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Status
populations of Queensland, distribution is not continuous across arid communities dominated by Qld, NSW and New South this range, with some populations eucalypts. the ACT) Wales and the isolated by cleared land or Australian unsuitable habitat. Capital Territory) Potorous Long-nosed Vulnerable Sparsely distributed along the coast Restricted to isolated populations in Unlikely (Ecosure 2009c, tridactylus Potoroo (SE and Great Dividing Range of south- coastal heaths and forests east of the Maunsell|AECOM 2007) due tridactylus mainland) east Queensland through NSW Great Dividing Range. to habitat preference. Occurs to the north-west, near Stewart Road, Tugun. And to the north-west of the Cobaki Environment Precinct. Pseudomys New Holland Vulnerable In NSW, the New Holland Mouse is Heath, particularly when regenerating Unlikely as habitat novaehollandiae Mouse, Pookila known from: Royal National Park after fire. requirements not present in and the Kangaroo Valley; Kuringai localiser footprint area. Chase NP and Port Stephens to Evans Head near the Queensland border. Pteropus Grey-headed Vulnerable Bundaberg in Queensland to Found to favour rainforests, open Unlikely. The localiser poliocephalus Flying-fox Melbourne in Victoria and from the forests, closed and open woodlands footprint area contains very coast inland to the western slopes of as well as Melaleuca swamps and little suitable habitat for this New South Wales. Banksia woodlands. Also found species. Despite this, the throughout urban and agricultural species is known to fly over areas where food trees exist. airport land regularly and there is continued standardised monitoring of the flying-fox hazard via nightly monitoring by safety offices during peak flying-fox periods. Xeromys Water Mouse, Vulnerable Northern Territory, Queensland and Coastal saltmarsh, mangrove and Unlikely. Despite potential myoides False Water New Guinea. In Queensland, the adjacent freshwater wetland habitats. habitat suitability, the study Rat, Yirrkoo species is known from the area is not within the known Proserpine area south to near the distribution for the species. See Van Dyck and Gynther (2003) for instance.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 40 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act Known distribution Habitat preference Likelihood of occurrence Status
Queensland/New South Wales border.
Other
Thersites Mitchell's Critically Rainforest species. Unlikely as habitat mitchellae Rainforest Snail Endangered requirements not present in localiser footprint area.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 41 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Description of Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) There are no TECs in the glidepath footprint or the 300 metre runway strip. There is one TEC listed under the EPBC Act present in the localiser footprint area. Note: state listed ecological communities are described in Section 3.2d. The Coastal Saltmarsh Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) (see Section 3.3[e] and Figure 7) corresponds to the Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Ecological Community (STCSEC), which is considered a Vulnerable Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) under the EPBC Act. The Conservation Advice for the STCSEC provides a synopsis of studies that have estimated the original and current extent of the community. This is presented in Box 1.
Box 1: Information on the extent and decline of the STCSEC in NSW (extracted from TSSC 2013, pp. 56-57) There is scattered information about the extent and decline of the Coastal Saltmarsh in NSW. Keith (2004) estimated that the current area of Coastal Saltmarsh covered an area of 7000 to 12 000 ha and that about 30 to 70% had been cleared since European settlement. West et al. (1985, in DEH 2011a) estimated the extent of Coastal Saltmarsh in NSW to be approximately 5700 ha while Creese et al. (2009) estimated the extent as 7259 ha. More recently, Daly (2013) summarised information about the extent of saltmarshes across all natural resource management regions and estuaries within NSW (Table 7). This indicated the ecological community covered an area of 7240 ha – i.e. it fell towards the lower end of Keith’s (2004) range. Although Daly (2013) provided no overall estimate of loss across NSW, he did note that specific estuaries showed losses of saltmarsh ranging from 12 to 97%. In some cases there were apparent increases in saltmarsh extent but it was unclear whether this was due to actual expansion of the ecological community or improved mapping techniques. Tozer et al. (2010) determined the current extent of estuarine saltmarshes on the south coast of NSW (from Sydney to the Victorian border) to be about 2167 ha and estimated that this represented <50 percent of the original extent.
Table 7: Estimate of Current extent (hectares) for the STCSEC in New South Wales (from TSSC 2013)
Region Daly (2013) Tozer (2010) Northern Rivers (Gold Coast Airport and surrounds is in this region) 2230 Hunter/Central Rivers 3270 Hawkesbury Nepean 290 Sydney Metropolitan 190 2167 Southern Rivers 1260 TOTAL 7240 7957 1 1Total across NSW with Tozer’s estimate replacing Daly’s estimates for estuaries south of Sydney. On the basis of the available survey data for NSW, the TSSC (2013) estimates that the current extent of the ecological community is likely to be about 7000 to 8000 hectares. The TSSC (2013, pp. 57) also states that the decline in pre-European extent is recognised to be highly variable but is estimated to be between 30 to 70 percent across the State. The Department of Environment and Heritage note that the further reduction and fragmentation have occurred since the estimates within West et al. (1985 in DEH 2011a). As per Table 7, it is estimated that approximately 2230 ha occur in Northern Rivers (Daly 2013, in TSSC 2013).
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 42 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
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. Assessment of impacts to EPBC listed flora and fauna in the 300 metre runway strip The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requires that no part of the flyover area or any object on it must project through the flyover plane. As there are only scattered trees/plants that currently exceed the flyover plane, it is feasible to undertake trimming and selective plant removal (rather than clearing) in Impact Areas B to D of the 300 metre runway strip. This will be done as a mitigation measure to reduce the project’s impact on Litoria olongburensis, as the sedge and heath layer can be maintained. In this case, plants exceeding the flyover plane will be trimmed, or removed if the height renders the plant unviable (e.g. for large trees or shrubs). Trimming will be undertaken in all Impact Areas (see Figure 5) except Impact Area A. Due to the extent of vegetation in Impact Area A that will exceed the flyover plane, it is not feasible to maintain the existing vegetation in this area. As such, Impact Area A is proposed to be cleared entirely in order to comply with the proposed flyover plane (shown in Figure 4) and be able to be practicably maintained. As per Figure 5, Impact Area A also includes the area of vegetation immediately to the west of the flyover area. Clearing will represent the loss of approximately 1.3ha of remnant habitat. Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-Fox) is the only threatened species under the EPBC Act which may utilise Impact Area A. Due to its wide occurrence and habitat preferences, removal of Impact Area A will not result in a significant impact to the species. As Impact Area A does not provide suitable habitat for Litoria olongburensis clearing of the area will not result in a significant impact to the species. Habitat values in Impact Areas B to D will remain; however, vegetation will be subject to trimming or selective plant removal to ensure compliance with the proposed flyover plane. This includes trimming or selective removal of plants that currently exceed the flyover plane and plants that have the potential to exceed the flyover plane in the near future. Due to these requirements, Impact Areas B to D will likely transition to a lower form of heathland, with a reduced coverage of tree and tall shrub species. Trimming and selective plant removal in Impact Areas B to D will result in a negligible impact to habitat values, as the heath and sedge values can largely be maintained through vegetation management (as described in Section 4). Management of vegetation in this area to a height below the flyover plane may also provide more favourable habitat conditions for species that inhabit heathland and sedgeland as removal of a shrub or tree layer frees resources for development of lower heath and sedgeland species. Hopkins (2003, in Ecosure 2013a) examined the temporal and spatial distribution of calling for Litoria olongburensis across the airport grounds and found that the species was more likely to occur in ponds with increased ground cover and shrub density. With management (see Section 4), habitat values are likely to be enhanced for Litoria olongburensis. No additional vegetation clearing will be required for installation of services. Assessment of impacts to EPBC listed flora and fauna in the localiser footprint area The localiser footprint will not result in a significant impact to threatened flora or fauna species listed under the EPBC Act due to the limited suitable habitat available. Assessment of impacts to EPBC listed Threatened Ecological Communities in the localiser footprint All of the localiser footprint area is proposed to be cleared and maintained in a cleared state through ongoing vegetation management. Clearing will remove 3.5 hectares of the STCSEC out of a total clearing area of 7.5 hectares (of which approximately 0.5 hectares has already been cleared for the Tugun Bypass Tunnel and replanted). Pursuant to Section 18A(4)(b) of the EPBC Act, is not an offence to have a significant impact on a Vulnerable TEC such as the STCSEC in the localiser footprint area. This is also outlined in the Department of Environment’s Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (2013, pp. 8), which states:
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 43 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
“…listed ecological communities in the vulnerable category of ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act, are not Matters of National Environmental Significance for the purposes of Part 3 of the EPBC Act (requirements for environmental approvals).” Despite the EPBC Act listed TEC not being considered a matter of National Environmental Significance for the purposes of Part 3 of the EPBC Act, the TEC does form part of the ‘environment’ as defined under the EPBC Act. Thus, as the clearing in the localiser footprint area will be undertaken by a Commonwealth agency and the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 apply, the impact to the EPBC Act listed TEC needs to be considered here within an assessment of the ‘whole of environment’. This is further discussed in Section 3.2(d). No additional vegetation clearing will be required for installation of services. 3.1 (e) Listed migratory species Description Description of migratory species in the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip The EPBC Protected Matters search identified a number of migratory species that may occur at the Airport and surrounds, or whose habitat may occur at the Airport and surrounds: Migratory terrestrial birds: 7 species Migratory wetland birds: 23 species Migratory marine birds: 18 species Migratory marine mammals, reptiles and fish: 19 species. Monthly bird surveys have been carried out at the Airport since 1997 as part of the Bird and Wildlife Hazard Management Program. These surveys have focused on areas adjacent to the main runway but have included sites within the existing drainage reserve. The drainage reserve is neighbouring the 300 metre runway strip but does not form part of either the glidepath of the 300 metre runway strip footprints. In total 132 species of bird have been detected at the Airport with 79 of these recorded within the drainage reserve (Ecosure 2013a). In 2011-12 and 2012-13, 50 and 58 bird species were recorded across the Airport respectively, of which five species were birds listed under international migratory bird agreements (and therefore listed as migratory under the EPBC Act) (Ecosure 2013a) these include: Rainbow bee-eater (Merops oratus): This is a global species that seasonally migrates between Indonesia, PNG and northern Australia to southern Australia. A nest has previously been recorded at Gold Coast Airport but the area is now greatly altered. It is possible that they could build nests in some of the sandy areas of the Airport, but none are currently known. Nest sites would be considered significant if identified. Otherwise it is a common species that feeds around the Airport in Summer (Ecosure 2011a); Eastern great egret (Ardea ibis): A common species with large home range. No nest or roost sites or critical feed sites on Gold Coast Airport (Ecosure 2011a); Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis): A common species with large home range. No nest or roost sites or critical feed sites on Gold Coast Airport (Ecosure 2011a). Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii): This is a migratory species with a large home range. There are no reported nest sites on the Airport. This species is regularly sighted on the Airport utilising disturbed, vegetated drains and low lying grassland. Suitable feeding habitat occurs in Gold Coast Airport in saltmarsh areas, which do not occur in the 300 metre runway strip. All records of the species on the Airport are from vegetated drains. In the Action Plan for Australian Birds it is considered least concern (Garnett and Crowley 2000 in Ecosure 2011a). White-throated needletail (Hirundapus caudactus): This is a common species with wide home range. Occurs during seasonal times in summer when insects flying otherwise absent. No nest or roost sites identified on Gold Coast Airport.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 44 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The above species were included in the Protected Matters search results as either migratory wetland or terrestrial birds. Preliminary ecological review and fieldwork also identified that the White-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) – a marine species and terrestrial migratory species under the EPBC Act, and the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) – a marine species under the EPBC Act, may occur in the 300 metre runway strip as potential habitat occurs and the species have previously been recorded as part of the Airport Bird Monitoring Program. Of the other migratory bird species identified in the Protected Matters Search, it is possible that other wetland, terrestrial and marine birds may occasionally utilise the airport site. However, currently available information does not support identifying patches of vegetation in and around the 300 metre runway strip as ‘important habitat’ as per the EPBC Act (requiring a stable population of at least 0.1 percent of the flyway population or 2000 individuals). Further, it is noted that GCAPL actively discourages the presence of birds in the vicinity of Gold Coast Airport due to the risk posed by bird strike to aviation. Overall, the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip offer limited habitat value (due to the size of habitat patches) and would not be considered core or important habitat for any migratory species. As the Protected Matters Search is a predictive tool that captures a broader area than the project area, the search results included marine mammals (e.g. whales, dolphins), reptiles (e.g. turtles) and fish. However as the glidepath footprint and 300m runway strip are terrestrial sites with limited aquatic habitat (the drainage reserve) and no marine habitat, these species or their habitats would not occur in these areas. Description of migratory species in the localiser footprint The salt marsh areas in the localiser footprint area have previously been referred to as the Pony Club Roost (Australian Wetlands 2012, Parsons Brinckerhoff 2004c, Rohweder 2001 & 2007). The Pony Club Roost is one of 11 active migratory bird roosts in the Tweed River Estuary (Australian Wetlands 2012). In 2001, Rohweder (2001) noted that the Pony Club Roost provided locally important high tide roost habitat for a number of significant shorebird species. However, since 1994, Swamp Oak (Casuarina glauca), mangrove and sedge (Juncus kraussii) has encroached into the salt marsh resulting in a deterioration of habitat quality (Australian Wetlands 2012) for roosting and foraging. The encroachment of woody vegetation into saltmarsh habitats is a significant threat to shorebirds populations (Spencer et al. 2009). This is because shorebirds prefer roost sites with open vegetation that allows for detection of predators (Spencer et al. 2009) and provides suitable space for roosting (Australian Wetlands 2012). The roost is currently in a poor state due its small size, and also due to the declining visibility and roost space caused by the vegetation encroachment. The declines in habitat quality have been reflected in the observed declines in the number of birds using the site (Australian Wetlands 2012). Over the past eight years the roost has been used by only a small number of birds roosting or foraging during high tide (Australian Wetlands 2012; Rohweder 2007). The deterioration has also meant that many birds could fly 4.5 kilometres to reach the nearest spring tide roost (Rohweder 2007). As the site is considered to have poor roost quality, it is only used occasionally as a secondary roost site (Australian Wetlands 2012). More widely, the Cobaki Broadwater is known to provide good intertidal foraging habitat, though it is strongly suspected that use of the habitat is constrained by the absence of good quality spring tide roosts (Wetlands Australia 2012).
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 45 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
With review of previous studies on shorebirds in the Cobaki, Rohweder (2001; 2007) and Australian Wetlands (2012) also note that the number of roosting sites used in the Cobaki has reduced due to disturbance and habitat loss. Significant shorebird species known to use parts of the localiser footprint area as a high tide roost include (Ecosure 2009c; Parsons Brickerhoff 2004c; Rohwder 2001; 2007): Heteroscelis brevipes (Grey-tailed Tattler); Limosa lapponica (Bar-tailed Godwit) Numenius madagascariensis (Eastern Curlew); Numenius phaeopus (Whimbrel); Pluvialis fulva (Pacific Golden Plover); and Tringa nebularis (Common Greenshank). All of these species are currently listed as both marine and migratory under the EPBC Act. Other migratory species that utilise the entire Tweed River Estuary, and therefore may also use the localiser footprint area. This includes (Wetlands Australian 2012): Actitis hypoleucos (Common Sandpiper); Arenaria interpres (Ruddy Turnstone); Calidris acuminata (Sharp-tailed Sandpiper); Calidris alba (Sanderling) (also vulnerable under the TS Act); Calidris canutus (Red Knot); Calidris ferrugenea (Curlew Sandpiper); Calidris ruficollis (Red-necked Stint); Calidris tenuirostris (Great Knot) (also vulnerable under the TS Act); Charadrius bicinctus (Double-banded Plover); Charadrius leschenaulti (Greater Sand Plover) (also vulnerable under the TS Act); Charadrius mongolus (Lesser Sand Plover) (also vulnerable under the TS Act); Gallinago hardwickii (Latham’s Snipe); Limosa limosa (Black-tailed Godwit (also vulnerable under the TS Act); Pluvialis fulva (Pacific Golden Plover); Tringa brevipes (Grey-tailed Tattler); Tringa incana (Wandering Tattler); and Tringa stagnatilus (Marsh Sandpiper). Despite the changes to habitat in the localiser footprint area and the associated reduction in use by shorebirds, the number of shorebirds using the localiser footprint area would also be influenced by population decreases that have occurred in the context of declining migratory bird populations across the Tweed Estuary and Australia more generally (DECCW 2010; Hansen 2011). This is most likely due to habitat destruction within the East-Asian/Australasian Flyway and, more locally in the Tweed River Estuary, foreshore development, increased levels of human recreation, vegetation encroachment, pollution, major projects and dredging (Rohweder 2007). The total population of migratory shorebirds has significantly declined in the Tweed River Estuary (Rohweder 2007, Australian Wetlands 2012) with under half the shorebird numbers observed in 2009, compared to numbers observed between 1987-2002 (Wetlands Australia 2012). The migratory species with substantial population declines in the estuary include Limosa lapponica (Bar-tailed
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 46 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Godwit), Calidris ferruginea (Curlew Sandpiper) and Pluvialis fulva (Pacific Golden Plover) (Australian Wetlands 2012).
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on the members of any listed migratory species, or their habitat. The assessment of impacts to migratory species from the ILS project has considered the significance criteria in the DoE Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (2013, pp. 12): An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: 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 area 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. Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (2013, pp. 12) also state an area of ‘important habitat’ for a migratory species is: Habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species; and/or Habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages; and/or Habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species range; and/or Habitat within an area where the species is declining. In addition to this, the Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 Migratory shorebird species (DEWHA 2009) identifies an area as being important habitat if: The site is identified as internationally significant; or The site supports: • At least 0.1 percent of the flyway population of a single species; • At least 2000 migratory shorebirds; or • At least 15 shorebird species. Or for Gallinago hardwickii (Latham’s Snipe), habitat is considered ‘important habitat’ when it has been identified as internationally important for the species, or the site supports at least 18 individuals of the species, and the site has naturally occurring open freshwater wetland with vegetation cover nearby (DEWHA 2009). Further to this, internationally important shorebird sites within the East-Australasian Flyway include those that support 20,000 or more shorebirds or 1percent of the Flyway population of a migratory shorebird species or subspecies (Environment Australia 2002), as per the Ramsar Convention. Assessment of impacts to migratory species in the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip Whilst some migratory species are known to occur at the airport site, the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip are not identified as an important habitat for migratory species therefore no significant impact to migratory species is anticipated as a result of the construction or operation of the project. During trimming/clearing, site preparation and construction it is possible that invasive species would be accidentally introduced to the project area, however weed and pest management measures will be implemented during the project to minimise the risk of this occurring and to prevent the spread of weeds to surrounding areas. As identified above the site is not identified as an important habitat for
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 47 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
migratory species so the project is not expected to cause a significant impact to important habitat for migratory species. The site is not identified as an important habitat for migratory species so the project is not expected to seriously disrupt the lifecycle of a population of a migratory species. Furthermore, the occurrence of migratory and marine species is reduced at the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip due to management activities that discourage their occurrence (i.e. the Airport Bird & Wildlife Hazard Management Plan). Assessment of impacts to migratory species in the localiser footprint The 3.5 hectares of coastal saltmarsh to be cleared as part of the ILS project on State land represents a loss of roosting and foraging habitat for shorebirds, particularly for migratory and marine bird species listed under the EPBC Act that inhabit the Cobaki Broadwater and more widely, the Tweed River Estuary. The localiser footprint is part of the Tweed River Estuary. Watkins (1993) originally classified the Tweed River Estuary as being nationally important for Numenius phaeopus (Whimbrel); however Australian Wetlands (2012), Bamford et al. (2008) and Rohweder have noted that the Tweed River Estuary is no longer considered important (nationally or internationally) for any species of migratory shorebird. Australian Wetlands (2012) state that the Tweed River estuary is likely to be in the top 10 most important sites (ranked about 8) for New South Wales but is less important in an Australian context (Australian Wetlands 2012, pp. 70). Australian Wetlands (2012) predicts the population of shorebirds to be well below 1000; though the area supports around 22 migratory species. Thus, the Tweed River Estuary would be considered important national habitat, using the definition used by Department of Environment (DEWHA 2009). Where feasible, low-growing saltmarsh species will be retained west of the earth pad within the localiser footprint as described in Section 4. As the action will not 1) substantially modify migratory bird habitat available in the Cobaki Broadwater and wider Tweed River Estuary (as per Significant Impact Guideline 1.1), or 2) result in the loss of important habitat that causes a significant reduction in the capacity of the habitat to support migratory shorebirds (as per the Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 Migratory shorebird species), it has been assessed that the clearing of roost habitat at the localiser footprint is unlikely to result in a significant impact as defined under the EPBC Act.
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 There are no Commonwealth marine areas within or in proximity to the project site.
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth marine area. N/A
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 48 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
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.) 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. The glidepath and 300 metre runway strip components of the ILS project are located on Commonwealth Land - see Section 3.2d. 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.
See Section 3.2d.
3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Description The action is not within or in proximity to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Nature and extent of likely impact Address any impacts on any part of the environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. 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 N/A
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. The project is not a coal seam gas development or large coal mining development.
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. N/A
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 49 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
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? No Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the No Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment The proponent for the ILS project is Airservices Australia, a Commonwealth agency. The nature and extent of impacts on the whole environment are described in Section 3.2(d) below.
3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a 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 No Commonwealth land? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g)) As described in Section 3.2(b) above, the proponent for the ILS project is Airservices Australia, a Commonwealth agency. In addition the glidepath and 300 metre runway strip components of the project are located on Commonwealth airport land (Figure 1). In accordance with EPBC Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2, the assessment of impacts has considered the ‘whole environment’ using the impact categories identified in Step 4 of the guideline, and has focused on the elements of the environment that are particularly sensitive or valuable within the project area. The assessment of impacts has considered the scale, intensity and timeframes of the impact. Sections 3.1d, 3.1e and Section 3.3 also describe the key features of the environment in the project footprint.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 50 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Landscapes and soils The site is within a low-lying coastal area and, like much of the surrounding coastal land, there is a high chance the study area contains potential or actual acid sulfate soils. As part of the Tugun Bypass EIS (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2004a), studies were undertaken to identify the occurrence of acid sulfate soil. It is relevant to the current study as boreholes and test pits studied as part of the EIS exist within or near the ILS study area. Results show that some areas exceed the Acid Sulfate Soils Management Advisory Committee Action Criteria (ASSMAC, Stone et al. 1998). Where action criteria are exceeded, an acid sulfate soil management plan is required. Field tests did not conclusively identify actual acid sulfate soil, however, potential acid sulfate soil was identified in most field tested samples. Further to this, acid sulfate soil investigations undertaken as part of this project (Precise Environmental 2014a), and which were consistent with NSW ASSMAC guidelines, indicate that the localiser footprint comprises a thin layer of top soil over alluvial sands, extending to a depth of at least 5.5 - 6.0 metres below ground level. Net acidity concentrations above the action criteria within the ASSMAC guidelines (Stone et al. 1998) have been identified in some areas. Net acidity concentrations above the action criteria were reported at varying soil depths and for half of the samples analysed as part of the acid sulfate soil investigations. In some areas in particular, the top 200 millimetres of soil was considered to have relatively high levels of net acidity (net acidity was approximately 5 times the action criteria level). Placement of fill at the site has a low risk of acid sulfate soil displacement, however dewatering or construction of drainages at the site may generate acidity with potential impacts to receiving waters if mitigation measures are not in place. Trenching and under boring for installation of services is also likely to encounter acid sulfate soils. Mitigation measures for potential impacts from acid sulfate soil, including the preparation of an acid sulfate soil management plan, are described in Section 4. The project will not substantially alter natural landscape features, cause subsidence or instability or involve medium or large-scale excavation of soil or minerals.
Coastal landscapes and processes The action is land-based and will not alter coastal landscapes or processes. Ocean forms, ocean processes and ocean life The action is land-based and is not expected to affect ocean forms, processes or life. Water resources Water resources in the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip There are two significant surface water bodies that feature on the airport land, namely the Cobaki Broadwater and the drainage reserve. The Cobaki Broadwater is located along the western boundary of the Cobaki Environmental Precinct. Commonwealth airport land west of the runway discharges to the Cobaki Broadwater. The drainage reserve within Gold Coast Airport commences at Betty Diamond Park to the north and leaves the airport at the southeast discharging to Kirra Beach via the Gold Coast City Council drainage network. It has been substantially modified through historic land use activities and is piped or channelised along most of its length. The drain receives stormwater from an urban catchment of approximately 3.7 square kilometres and is tidal towards the southern end of the airport (GCAPL 2011). Several drainage lines have been constructed within the airport and surrounds including the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip. These are shown in Figure 8. Works in the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip will not have a significant impact on drainage lines or cause erosion and sedimentation in waterways. Water resources in the localiser footprint
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 51 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The two main drainage lines in the localiser footprint are man-made, predominantly tidal and associated with the Cobaki Broadwater. There is also a drain immediately south of the runway which runs along the boundary of the airport and north of the localiser footprint area. As shown in Figure 8, overland flow from the bushland areas to the east of the Tugun Bypass also drain into the area. The open earth tidal drains traversing the ground pad at the localiser footprint will be diverted around the pad to maintain drainage patterns at the site. Queensland Airports Ltd has commissioned flood modelling for the localiser footprint area. The drainage and earthworks design will be further developed once modelling is complete. Surface water monitoring undertaken in the localiser footprint (Precise Environmental 2014b) identified that the physico-chemical water quality in the drains was typical of that expected of low- lying coastal wetlands and in general was consistent with water quality indicators. Whilst nutrient levels exceeded the water quality objectives this is expected of drainage from wetland areas after rainfall events. Impacts to water quality in the localiser footprint area and surrounds may occur due to the replacement of vegetation with grass. It has been identified that cutting of grass on the airport as part of normal airport operations, contributes organic phosphorous, ammonia and nitrogen to local waterways (Ecosure 2013b) via decomposition and the transport of organic material. In addition grass cutting contribute to persistently low dissolved oxygen concentrations in waterways at the airport (Ecosure 2013b). This is again due to the transport of organic matter (Ecosure 2013b). It is possible that cutting of grass in the localiser footprint could result in similar impacts. The grassed area associated with the localiser footprint (see Figures 1 & 3) will be approximately 7.5 hectares in size (on State land). Acid sulfate soils testing undertaken at the localiser footprint and surrounds has identified that the small rate of consolidation associated with the bulk fill is unlikely to have any significant impact on the local water table or normal interactions between acid sulfate soils, groundwater and the adjacent surface waters of the Cobaki Broadwater. It is also unlikely that vegetation clearing in the localiser footprint will significant affect groundwater due to the area and type of vegetation being cleared, and the direct tidal influence of the Cobaki Broadwater on the groundwater in the area. Mitigation opportunities for impacts to water resources will be investigated and mitigated through design, monitoring and adaptive management. Preliminary investigations have indicated the project will result in a negligible to minor impact on water resources. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4. The ILS works on Commonwealth and State land are not expected to: Measurably reduce the quantity, quality or availability of surface or ground water; Channelise, divert or impound rivers or creeks or substantially alter drainage patterns; or Measurably alter water table levels. Pollutants, chemicals, and toxic substances The project will not generate significant quantities of pollutants or emissions. In the glidepath footprint, works will predominately consist of minor filling; however, minor excavations may be required. No earthworks are proposed to establish the 300 metre wide runway strip. Excavations will be required during trenching and under boring for the installation of services. Potential disturbance of acid sulfate soils is described in Section 3.3c. Works may expose potential or actual acid sulfate soils. However, with appropriate management through the development and implementation of an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan (see Section 4), the associated impact to groundwater and above ground ecology and drainage systems is expected to be negligible. A small number of contaminated sites are known to occur in the general area surround the project footprint, with one located within the glidepath footprint and the north-west section of the 300 metre runway strip. Another contaminated site is located outside the 300m runway strip to the west of
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 52 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Impact Area B and is associated with the Airservices fire training area .The site contains contamination associated with constituents of previously used firefighting foam and hydrocarbon contaminants. The locations of known areas of land contamination are shown in Figure 8. E3 Consulting (E3 Consulting 2007) undertook a contaminated land study in 2007 for the portion of contaminated land within the glidepath footprint and the north-west section of the 300 metre runway strip. The study notes that that the area had been subject to historical filling activities associated with the Tugun Landfill and the Gold Coast Council sewerage treatment plant. The study found that the site contained various fill materials including nightsoil deposits, landfill wastes, asbestos fragments and general fill soils. The landfill waste was generally encountered at a depth of 0.5 metres below ground level and extended in some locations to a depth of approximately 2.5 metres below ground level. 48 primary soil samples collected at the site were analysed for a wide variety of potential contaminants however only two samples returned results marginally above the Airport (Environmental Protection) Regulations 1997 (AEPR) Acceptance Limits for Environmental Significant Areas. All sample results were found to be below the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure ‘Health-based Investigation Level F criteria’ for commercial and industrial land use and the AEPR Acceptance Limits for General Areas. Evidence collected during their study would suggest that the landfill and sewerage materials were introduced to the site in the late 1960s (E3 Consulting 2007, pp. 27). Trenching for installation of services is unlikely to encounter contamination associated with the above mentioned fire training ground. However, as the extent of this contamination isn’t fully delineated further assessment will be undertaken prior to commencement of construction to identify if installation of services will disturb any contamination, and if so, a Contaminated Land Management Plan will be developed and implemented to manage potential impacts. A search of the New South Wales Contaminated Land Register did not identify contaminated land in the localiser footprint and historic land uses in this area are unlikely to have resulted in contamination. The Construction Environmental Management Plan will include procedures where contaminated land is identified. Mitigation measures are presented in Section 4. With appropriate avoidance and management, the associated impact is expected to be negligible, and the ILS project will not result in a significant impact to the environment as per the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2. Flora EPBC listed flora species and ecological communities have been described previously in Section 3.1(d). This section discusses other significant flora listed at the state and local level. State listed species were identified through relevant database searches including the Queensland Wildlife Online database and the Atlas of NSW Wildlife. Locally significant flora species were considered with respect to the Gold Coast City Master Flora List, which identifies species of city-wide significance. A species database for Tweed Shire is not currently available. Flora in the glidepath footprint Installation of ILS infrastructure in the glidepath footprint will not result in a significant impact to flora as this area is maintained as part of the runway precinct and does not contain habitat value for flora. Flora in the 300 metre runway strip footprint In the 300 metre runway strip, there are four patches of vegetation (see Figure 5), referred to as Impact Areas. Significant flora species listed at the State or local level that have some potential of occurring in the area are presented in Table 8. Flora species listed under Federal legislation were described previously in Table 5.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 53 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 8: Flora species listed under State legislation or listed as having city-wide significance in Gold Coast City, that are known or possibly occur in the 300 metre runway strip
Listed Species Status Distribution Likelihood of occurrence in the 300 metre runway strip Christmas Bells Endangered under the North from the Hawkesbury River area and inland to Known. This species is found in the 300m runway strip, Blandfordia grandiflora Queensland NC Act Glen Innes district. though the known population will not be impacted by the project as it will be below the flyover plane City-wide significance in Gold trimming requirements. Coast City Dark Greenhood Vulnerable under the NSW TSC The Dark Greenhood occurs in north-east New South Possible. Marginally suitable habitat exists in the 300m Pterostylis nigricans Act Wales north from Evans Head, and in Queensland. runway strip. Lemon-scented grass Endangered under the NSW TSC Lemon-scented Grass occurs north from Grafton in New Possible. Suitable habitat exists in the runway strip. Elyonurus citreus Act South Wales. It is only known from localities south of Casino, north-west of Grafton, near Cudgen Lake on the Tweed coast and in Yuraygir National Park. It also occurs in Queensland, Northern Territory, Western Australia and New Guinea. Pink nodding orchid Endangered under the NSW TSC North from the Macleay River on the north coast of Possible. Suitable habitat exists. Geodorum densiflorum Act New South Wales. Spider Orchid Endangered under the NSW TSC Occurs in coastal districts and nearby ranges, extending Possible. There is potential due to occurrence of Dendrobium Act from Queensland to its southern distributional limit in Melaleuca stypheliodes in areas east of the runway. melaleucaphilum the lower Blue Mountains. Tiny Wattle Vulnerable under the Queensland Acacia baueri subsp. baueri is found on infertile and Known. A significant population of this plant is present Acacia baueri subsp. NC Act. often seasonally waterlogged sands in coastal heath on the airport confined to areas of mown heath in NSW baueri (wallum) habitat and adjacent plateaus and low open - not within Impact Areas A to D; though partially The species is not listed as woodland within parts of the flyover area. This species is unlikely threatened under the TSC Act to be impacted by clearing in Impact Area A and will City-wide significance in Gold not be impacted by trimming in other areas of the Coast City flyover area due to its height.
Wallum bottlebrush City-wide significance in Gold Restricted to poorly drained heath and moist areas of Known in Impact Areas A and B therefore would be Coast City open forest on sand and sub-coastal metasediments. impacted by clearing and possibly trimming. Melaleuca pachyphylla Sandy heath of coastal New South Wales and southern Queensland. Swamp grasstree City-wide significance in Gold Wet sandy areas from Wyong on the New South Wales Known in Impact Areas A and B therefore would be Coast City Central Coast north into Queensland impacted by clearing and possibly trimming. Xanthorrhoea fulva
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 54 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Wallum banksia City-wide significance in Gold Coastal areas of New South Wales and southern Known in Impact Area A therefore would be impacted Coast City Queensland by clearing. Banksia aemula
Olive Tea Tree City-wide significance in Gold North-eastern New South Wales and south-east Known in Impact Area B therefore possibly subject to Coast City Queensland in sandy, swampy coastal heath trimming. Leptospermum liversidegei Fringed baeckea City-wide significance in Gold Grows in heath in wet areas on the NSW coast; north Possible. This species may occur in the 300m runway Coast City from the Budawang Ranges in NSW and in southern strip. Baeckea diosmifolia Queensland. The only known location on the Gold Coast is at Gold Coast Airport.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 55 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Impact Area A within the 300m runway strip (see Figure 5) is proposed to be cleared entirely in order to comply with the proposed flyover plane and avoid extensive vegetation management requirements. As per Figure 5, Impact Area A also includes the area of vegetation immediately to the west of the flyover area on airport land. Clearing will result in the removal of approximately 1.3 hectares of remnant habitat. No state-significant flora species have been observed in Impact Area A however three locally significant species were identified during field surveys as identified in Table 8 above With consideration of the bio-regional representation (which includes their distribution in New South Wales and Queensland) of the vegetation communities and locally significant flora species within Impact Area A, the vegetation clearing associated with the flyover area is considered to result in a negligible to minor impact to the vegetation community types and flora species. This impact is not considered to represent a significant impact under the EPBC Act Significant Guidelines 1.2. Vegetation in Impact Areas B to D is mapped as remnant heathland and sedgeland. Habitat values in Impact Areas B to D will remain; however, vegetation will be subject to trimming or selective plant removal to ensure compliance with the proposed flyover plane. This includes trimming or selective removal of plants that currently exceed the flyover plane and plants that have the potential to exceed the flyover plane in the near future. Due to these requirements, Impact Areas B to D will likely be transitioned to a lower form of heathland due to the nature of management efforts, with a reduced coverage of tree and tall shrub species. Impact Areas B and C have only minor requirements for vegetation management. In Impact Area D, there will be extensive removal of tree and shrub species in the northern area due to a high density of plants that currently exceed the proposed flyover plane. A patch of Lepironia articulata will also require minor trimming. Due to its function as habitat for significant frog species, monitoring will be undertaken to identify any signs of loss in habitat value. Though this is unlikely to occur, management measures will be incorporated into the construction environmental management plan (CEMP) for the works (see Section 4) to manage potential impacts associated with the trimming. Trimming and selective plant removal in Impact Areas B to D will result in a negligible impact to habitat values, as the heath and sedge values can largely be maintained through vegetation management (See Section 4). No additional vegetation clearing will be required for installation of services. Clearing and trimming within the 300 metre runway strip will not result in a significant impact to flora as the project does not: Involve medium or large-scale native vegetation clearance; Involve any clearance of any vegetation containing a listed threatened species which is likely to result in a long-term decline in a population or which threatens the viability of the species; Introduce potentially invasive species; Involve the use of chemicals which substantially stunt the growth of native vegetation; or Involve large-scale controlled burning or any controlled burning in sensitive areas, including areas which contain listed threatened species.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 56 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Flora in the localiser footprint area Significant species listed under the EPBC Act are described in Section 3.1(d). EPBC Act listed species also listed under state legislation have been excluded from this section, as they are mentioned in Section 3.1(d). Species that are identified as having city-wide significance in Gold Coast City have also been considered here as having local significance due to the lack of a flora database for Tweed Shire. The localiser footprint has been studied as part of ecological assessments undertaken in 2009 (Ecosure 2009b and 2009c) and 2007 (Maunsell|AECOM 2007) and the field surveys undertaken to inform this referral Maunsell|AECOM (2007) listed two state-listed flora species that had a moderate likelihood of occurring in the area, whilst Ecosure (2009c) predicted that there was a low likelihood that significant flora species exist in the area. The two species identified by Maunsell|AECOM (2007) with a moderate likelihood of occurring include Geodorum densiflorum (Pink nodding orchid, endangered under the TSC Act) and Archidendron hendersonii (White lace flower, vulnerable under the TSC Act). As Archidendron hendersonii inhabits littoral rainforest areas, this assessment considers only Geodorum densiflorum to have a moderate possibility of occurring in the localiser footprint area due to the existence of suitable habitat, as shown in Table 9 below. No listed species were observed at the site during the survey undertaken to inform this referral. Species that have city-wide significance in Gold Coast City that were identified at the site during field surveys are also listed in Table 9. Table 9 Flora species listed under State legislation or listed as having city-wide significance in Gold Coast City that are known or possibly occur in the Localiser Footprint
Likelihood of Occurrence in Listed Species Status Distribution the Localiser Footprint
Pink Nodding Orchid Endangered Geodorum densiflorum grows in dry Possible. Some suitable habitat Geodorum under the NSW sclerophyll forest often on coastal sand present. This species has not densiflorum TSC Act at lower altitudes, north from the been identified during the Macleay River on the north coast of previous two field surveys, NSW. though sometimes the species is inconspicuous. There are thought to be fewer than 10 populations of Geodorum densiflorum in NSW.
Narrow-leaved Milk City-wide Grows in dry sclerophyll forest and Known from previous field Vine significance in heath on sandy soils, sometimes on surveys (Maunsell/Aecom 2007) Gold Coast City rainforest margins, north from the Marsdenia fraseri Macleay River in NSW and in southern Queensland. Figure 9 shows the vegetation communities mapped by Ecosure in the localiser footprint. To the west of the Tugun Bypass tunnel, there are 16 different vegetation communities mapped, which can be summarised as: Baumea juncea and Phragmytes australis sedgeland/rushland; Casuarina glauca low open forest, with various ground covers, such as Setaria sphacelata, which undergoes regular weed management; Exotic grassland; Mangrove forest to open woodland; Sporobolus virginicus (salt marsh); and Zoysia macrantha grassland (salt marsh). The small triangular portion of forest to the east of the Tugun Bypass tunnel contains two vegetation communities, namely:
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 57 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Casuarina glauca low open forest, which is regularly trimmed as part of the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) maintenance under a licence from the NSW Government. The OLS is a series of surfaces that set the height limits of objects around an aerodrome. Casuarina glauca and Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest. The general site walk-over and the Vegetation Community Verification Points (shown in Figure 9, and outlined in Appendix 2) undertaken as part of a recent site survey were able to broadly confirm the existence of these communities within this area. Despite this, there is evidence that the vegetation communities in the localiser footprint have changed in recent years. During the Tugun Bypass flora and fauna surveys between January 2000 and March 2001, Parsons Brinkerhoff (2004c) considered some of the area in the middle of the localiser footprint to be Swamp Oak Woodland; however the ecological community appears to have since changed to a more brackish environment, as evidenced by the now widespread existence of saltmarsh as well as areas dominated by a ground layer of species such as Baumea juncea, Phragmites australis and Acrostichum speciosum. Such a change is reasonable to expect due to the potential drainage impacts that may have occurred due to construction of the Tugun Bypass, with some influence also from natural change. In regards to the latter, the area has undergone a significant change in the last 40 years. Most of the localiser footprint was originally cleared for agriculture (year of original clearing is unknown), and the current vegetation communities (including fringing mangroves) appear to have since grown (see Figure 2). In addition to this, southern parts of the localiser footprint have been utilised by the Pony Club, with some of the area maintained as grassland. As mentioned in Section 1.3, the State land is also subject to regular vegetation management (tree trimming) due to height restrictions associated with the OLS for the approach to runway 32. Trees closest to runway 32 are regularly trimmed back to 2 – 3 metres AGL for OLS protection. Under the Tweed Vegetation Management Strategy (2004) vegetation within the localiser footprint falls into three categories. Within the area of the SEPP14 wetland are “Saltmarsh Communities” and “Swamp She-oak closed forest to woodland”. The remainder of the study area is mapped as cleared/disturbed land. Vegetation communities in the localiser footprint have also been identified as Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) under the TSC Act (Ecosure 2009b and c). These are mapped in Figure 7 and include: 1. Coastal Saltmarsh in the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions; 2. Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions; 3. Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions; 4. Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest of the New South Wales North Coast Bioregion. The Coastal Saltmarsh EEC under the TSC Act corresponds to the Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Ecological Community (STCSEC), which is considered a Vulnerable Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) under the EPBC Act. This community (its value and extent) is further described in Section 3.1(d). The current extent of the other three ecological communities (Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest; Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest; and Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains) across New South Wales is not fully known, though they are expected to be much less than 30 percent of their original ranges (DEH 2011b, c and d). For example, there were less than 350 hectares of each of these EECs within the Tweed lowlands in 1985 (Pressey and Griffith 1992, in DEH 2011b, c and d). The localiser footprint area also has an area of State Environmental Planning Policy No 14 – Coastal Wetlands (SEPP 14) Wetland mapped on the western side. Despite the SEPP14 area that has been mapped by the New South Wales Department of Planning, vegetation community surveys done by
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 58 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Ecosure (2009c) show that other areas of the localiser footprint area meet the inclusion (floristic) criteria for a SEPP 14 Coastal Wetland. Thus, the SEPP 14 wetland may extend further east beyond what is mapped. The ground-truthed SEPP 14 wetland extent mapped by Ecosure is shown in Figure 7. Assessment of impacts on flora in the localiser footprint The localiser footprint is approximately 7.5 hectares in area, of which approximately 0.5 hectares was previously cleared as part of the Tugun Bypass Tunnel and now contains some regrowth and planted vegetation (i.e above the tunnel on Lot 2 DP 1092051). Therefore the remaining area to be cleared is approximately 7 hectares, of which approximately 6.4 hectares is mapped as EEC (see Figure 7). The vegetation to be cleared consists of: 0.6 hectares of non-EEC vegetation; and The four EECs in the area: • 3.5 hectares of Coastal Saltmarsh (which is both a New South Wales EEC and listed as a vulnerable TEC under the EPBC Act – see Section 3.1[d]) • 0.04 hectares of Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest; • 1.1 hectares of Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest; and • 1.8 hectares of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains. Approximately 3.1 hectares of the localiser footprint is also mapped as SEPP14 wetland, whilst 4.7 hectares of this vegetation meets the definition of SEPP14 (Ecosure 2009c). The design will look for opportunities to utilise native low growing species (e.g. sedgeland) to reduce impacts associated with habitat loss and upon water quality. No additional vegetation clearing will be required for installation of services. The Significance Impact Guidelines 1.2 provides some guidance on where impacts to ‘plants’ may be considered significant. The guidelines state that a significant impact is likely to occur if medium to large scale vegetation clearance is proposed. Clearance of the just over seven hectares of vegetation in the localiser footprint is considered to be small scale vegetation clearance, which according to the guideline, would not be considered a significant impact. Fauna Impacts to significant species listed under the EPBC Act are described in Section 3.1(d). EPBC Act listed species also listed under state legislation have been excluded from this section (with the exception of the Wallum Sedge Frog, Litoria olongburensis, as the assessment of suitable habitat for this species is described below in parallel with the State-listed Wallum Froglet, Crinia tinula), as they are mentioned in Section 3.1(d). Species that are identified as having city-wide significance in City of Gold Coast have also been considered here as having local significance, due to the lack of a flora database for Tweed Shire. Fauna in the Glidepath footprint Installation of ILS infrastructure in the glidepath footprint will not result in a significant impact to fauna as this area is maintained as part of the runway precinct and does not contain any habitat value. Fauna in the 300 metre runway strip Baseline information Within the 300 metre runway strip, Crinia tinnula (Wallum Froglet, Vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 [NSW] and Nature Conservation Act 1992 [Qld]) is known to exist in Impact Area A and is regularly recorded as part of GCAPL’s Significant Fauna Monitoring Program (Ecosure 2014). Other state-listed fauna species recorded or possibly occurring in the 300 metre runway strip are listed in Table 10.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 59 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 10: Fauna species listed under State legislation or listed as having city-wide significance in City of Gold Coast that are known or possibly occurring in the 300 metre runway strip
Listed Species Status Distribution Likelihood of occurrence in the 300 metre runway strip
1. Beccari’s freetail bat Vulnerable under the New Across northern Australia from Western Australia to Queensland Possible – potential habitat occurs in Mormopterus beccarii South Wales TSC Act and down to the Queensland coast to the border and just across the study area. This species has been the border into New South Wales. previously recorded on the airport site. City-wide significance in City of Gold Coast
2. Black Bittern Vulnerable under the New Occurs from southern New South Wales north to Cape York and Possible – marginal habitat occurs in Ixobrychus flavicollis South Wales TSC Act along the north coast to the Kimberley region. the study area. This species has been previously recorded on the airport site. City-wide significance in City of Inhabits both terrestrial and estuarine wetlands, generally in areas Gold Coast of permanent water and dense vegetation.
3. Black-necked Stork Vulnerable under the Mainly between mid-north Western Australia and north-east New Known – potential habitat occurs in the Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus Queensland NC Act, South Wales. Inhabits riverine swamps, large permanent pools study area. This species has been Endangered under the New and coastal wetlands and estuaries. previously recorded on the airport site South Wales TSC Act. generally and has been recorded in the 300 metre runway strip. City-wide significance in City of Gold Coast
4. Brolga Vulnerable under the New North and eastern Australia. Well vegetated shallow freshwater Possible. Suitable habitat present, Grus rubicunda South Wales TSC Act wetlands; small isolate swamps in eucalypt forest, flood plains, though probably an uncommon visitor. grasslands; paddocks, ploughed fields, irrigated pastures, This species has been previously stubbles, crops; desert claypans; bore drains; sometimes tidal recorded in the Cobaki. areas, mangroves, beaches.
5. Bush Stone-curlew Vulnerable under the New Widely distributed in Australia. Open woodland with fallen Possible – potential habitat occurs in Burhinus grallarius South Wales TSC Act branches, leaf litter, sparse grass and timber along water courses; the study area. This species has been sandy scrub near beaches and mangrove fringes. previously recorded on the airport site. Common blossom bat Vulnerable under the New Coastal areas of eastern Australia from Hawks Nest in New South 6. Likely - potential habitat occurs in the Syconycteris australis South Wales TSC Act Wales to Cape York peninsula in Queensland. Roost in littoral study area. This species has been rainforest and feed on nectar and pollen from flowers in adjacent previously recorded on the airport site. heathland and paperbark swamps. Vulnerable under the New Northern Australia from the Kimberley to the gulf and then from Likely - recorded in the south-west of Common planigale 7. South TSC Act the Cape York in a coastal strip down to the Hastings river in the 300 metre runway strip. Planigale maculata NSW. Occurs in a variety of habitats including dry Sclerophyll
forest, lowland heath and disturbed habitats. East coast of Australia from Cape York to Castlemain Victoria Likely – potential habitat occurs in the Eastern bent-winged bat Vulnerable under the NSW 8. mainly east of the Great Dividing Range. study area. This species has been Miniopterus schreibersii TSC Act previously recorded on the airport site. oceanensis
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 60 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Listed Species Status Distribution Likelihood of occurrence in the 300 metre runway strip Vulnerable under the New The Eastern Freetail-bat is found along the east coast from south Possible – recorded once in vegetation Eastern freetail bat 9. South Wales TSC Act Queensland to southern NSW. Dry sclerophyll forest, woodland, east of the runway in 2005. Mormopterus norfolkensis swamp forests and mangrove forests east of the Great Dividing Range. Vulnerable under the New Found from Cape York through eastern Queensland to the far Likely – potential habitat occurs in the 10. Eastern long-eared bat South Wales TSC Act north-east corner of New South Wales. Lowland subtropical study area. This species has been Nyctophilus bifax rainforest and wet and swamp eucalypt forest, extending into previously recorded on the airport. adjacent moist eucalypt forest. Coastal rainforest and patches of coastal scrub. 11. Glossy Black-Cockatoo Vulnerable under the From central Queensland to Victoria. Lower rainfall dry sclerophyll Likely – species recorded foraging Calyptorhynchus lathami Queensland NC Act and New forest on flat ground containing Allocasuarina torulosa, adjacent to the study area. South Wales TSC Act. A. verticillata or A. littoralis. City-wide significance in City of Gold Coast 12. Large-footed myotis Vulnerable under the New Mainly coastal from Kimberley through Northern Territory, Likely – potential habitat occurs in the Myotis macropus South Wales TSC Act Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia study area. This species has been extending inland along major rivers such as the Murray River. previously recorded on the airport. City-wide significance in City of Gold Coast City-wide significance in City of Fragmented along eastern Australia from Port Douglas Known – potential habitat occurs in the 13. Lewin’s Rail Gold Coast Queensland through to Eyre Peninsula SA. study area. This species has been Lewinia pectoralis Inhabits swamp woodlands, rushes, reeds, rank grasses in previously recorded within the 300
swamps, creeks, paddocks, wet heaths, samphire in salt marshes. metre runway strip. 14. Little bent-winged bat Vulnerable under the New Coastal eastern Australia from Cape York in Queensland to Sydney Possible. Suitable habitat exists. This Miniopterus australis South Wales TSC Act in New South Wales. species has been previously recorded on the airport site. 15. Mangrove Honeyeater Vulnerable under the New From the mid coast of Queensland to the south-eastern corner of Known - potential habitat occurs in the Lichenostomus South Wales TSC Act South Australia. Inhabits mangrove forest predominantly. This study area. This species has been fasciogularis species also occurs in other near-coastal forests and woodlands, previously recorded within the 300 including Casuarina and paperbark swamp forests. metre runway strip. 16. Osprey Vulnerable under the New Open forests and woodlands in coastal Queensland. Likely – potential habitat occurs in the Pandion haliatus South Wales TSC Act study area. This species has been previously recorded on the airport. 17. Square-tailed kite Vulnerable under the New The Square-tailed Kite ranges along coastal and subcoastal areas Possible - known from proximal Lophoictinia isura South Wales TSC Act from south-western to northern Australia, Queensland, New South records. Wales and Victoria. In New South Wales, scattered records of the City-wide significance in City of species throughout the state indicate that the species is a regular Gold Coast resident in the north, north-east and along the major west-flowing river systems.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 61 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Listed Species Status Distribution Likelihood of occurrence in the 300 metre runway strip 18. Wallum froglet Vulnerable under the New The coastal strip and off shore islands from Litabella National Park Known Crinia tinnula South Wales TSC Act and the in Queensland to Kurnell in Sydney New South Wales. Queensland NC Act City-wide significance in City of Gold Coast 19. Yellow-bellied sheathtail Vulnerable under the New The Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat is a wide-ranging species found Possible - suitable habitat exists. bat South Wales TSC Act across northern and eastern Australia. Saccolaimus flaviventris
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 62 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Assessment of impacts on fauna in the 300 metre runway strip Complete removal of Impact Area A will remove habitat for Crinia tinnula, though this is expected to provide a minor impact to the species due to the wide occurrence of the species in other areas within the airport boundary, and the extent of known populations along the northern New South Wales and south-east Queensland coastline. Removal of Impact Area A is likely to result in a minor impact to the other significant species that may inhabit the area. This is because the area is small and fragmented and the habitat type is well represented regionally. In addition, the occurrence of volant species (birds and bats) is reduced due to management activities that discourage their occurrence (i.e. the Airport Bird & Wildlife Hazard Management Plan) and their mobility. Trimming and selective removal for the heath and sedgeland within Impact Areas B to D will alter minor portions of heathland/sedgeland habitat on the western side of the runway. Crinia tinnula (Wallum Froglet) is known to inhabit sedgeland and heathland in these areas. In Impact Areas B to D, plants that exceed the flyover plane will be trimmed or removed if trimming renders the plant unviable. Due to trimming and selective removal, these areas will become further dominated by sedge and heath species, whilst emergent tree and shrub species will be trimmed or removed. During trimming and/or selected plant removal, the habitat values will be disturbed; however, management measures can reduce the impact of these works as described in Section 4. In the long term, management of vegetation in this area to a height below the flyover plane can provide more favourable habitat conditions for species that inhabit heathland and sedgeland as removal of a shrub or tree layer frees resources for development of lower heath and sedgeland habitat species. Hopkins (2003, in Ecosure 2013a) examined the temporal and spatial distribution of calling for Crinia tinnula and Litoria olongburensis across the airport grounds and found that these species were more likely to occur in ponds with increased ground cover and shrub density. With management (see Section 4), habitat values will be enhanced for these two wallum frog species. Trimming is expected to result in a negligible impact to Planigale maculata as this species utilises the ground layer and can persist in environments with varied canopy cover. Removal of any plants that exceed the flyover plane will remove some heath habitat value for birds and bats. However, the impact to these species will be minor because: The occurrence of bird species is reduced due to management activities that discourage their occurrence (i.e. the Airport Bird & Wildlife Hazard Management Plan); and The number of potential habitat trees being impacted will be minimal. With appropriate management, the habitat values of healthland and sedgeland will largely remain where trimming and selective plant removal is occurring. Summary of impact on fauna in the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip With reference to the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2, the project is not expected to result in a significant impact to fauna within the glidepath footprint or 300 metre runway strip as the project: Requires small scale clearing in Impact Area A; Will enhance and/or retain shrub and ground habitat values in Impact Areas B to D; Will not impact listed threatened flora species to an extent that would result in long-term decline of a population or threaten the viability of the species; Will not cause a long-term decrease in, or threaten the viability of, a native animal population or populations, through death, injury or other harm to individuals; Will not displace or substantially limit the movement or dispersal of native animal populations;
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 63 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Will not substantially reduce or fragment available habitat for native species; Will not reduce or fragment available habitat for listed threatened species which is likely to displace a population, result in a long-term decline in a population, or threaten the viability of the species; and Will apply mitigation measures that significantly reduce the impact of the project to species known to permanently inhabit the area (e.g. Litoria olongburensis and Crinia tinnula). Fauna in the localiser footprint Baseline information State-listed fauna recorded or possibly occurring in the localiser footprint area are listed in Table 10. This is based on desktop assessment and site observations (see Appendix 2). Note that fauna listed under the EPBC Act are identified in Section 3.1d, however an assessment of habitat suitability for the EPBC listed Wallum Sedge Frog, Litoria olongburensis, is also provided in this section as the assessment of suitable habitat for this species is described below in parallel with the State-listed Wallum Froglet, Crinia tinula. Species that are identified as having city-wide significance in the City of Gold Coast have also been considered here as having local significance, due to the lack of a flora database for Tweed Shire. Due to the removal of the vegetation communities described above, the associated habitat value for these species will be lost.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 64 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Table 11: Fauna species listed under State legislation or listed as having city-wide significance in City of Gold Coast that are known or possibly occurring in the localiser footprint
Listed Species Status Distribution Presence in the Localiser Footprint 1. Beccari’s freetail bat Vulnerable under the Across Northern Australia from Western Australia to Possible – limited suitable habitat. This Mormopterus beccarii New South Wales TSC Queensland and down to the Queensland coast to species has been previously recorded on Act the border and just across the border into New South the airport site (on Commonwealth land City-wide significance in Wales. north of the localiser footprint). City of Gold Coast 2. Black Bittern Vulnerable under the Occurs from southern New South Wales north to Likely – suitable habitat occurs in the study Ixobrychus flavicollis New South Wales TSC Cape York and along the north coast to the area. This species has been previously Act Kimberley region. Inhabits both terrestrial and recorded on the airport site (on City-wide significance in estuarine wetlands, generally in areas of permanent Commonwealth land north of the localiser City of Gold Coast water and dense vegetation. footprint). 3. Black-necked Stork Vulnerable under the Mainly between mid-north Western Australia and Likely – potential habitat occurs in the Ephippiorhynchus Queensland NC Act, north-east NSW. Inhabits riverine swamps, large study area. This species has been asiaticus Endangered under the permanent pools and coastal wetlands and estuaries. previously recorded to the north of the New South Wales TSC localiser footprint, on Commonwealth land. Act. City-wide significance in City of Gold Coast 4. Brolga Vulnerable under the North and eastern Australia. Well vegetated shallow Possible. Suitable habitat present, though Grus rubicunda New South Wales TSC freshwater wetlands; small isolate swamps in probably an uncommon visitor. This species Act eucalypt forest, flood plains, grasslands; paddocks, has been previously recorded to the north ploughed fields, irrigated pastures, stubbles, crops; in the Cobaki. desert claypans; bore drains; sometimes tidal areas, mangroves, beaches. 5. Bush Hen Vulnerable under the Coastal northern Australia and through eastern Likely - potential habitat occurs in the Amaurornis olivaceus New South Wales TSC Queensland to the New South Wales north coast. study area. Species previously recorded in Act vicinity of site. 6. Bush Stone-curlew Vulnerable under the Widely distributed in Australia. Open woodland with Likely - potential habitat occurs in the Burhinus grallarius New South Wales TSC fallen branches, leaf litter, sparse grass and timber study area. Species previously recorded on Act along water courses; sandy scrub near beaches and the banks of the Cobaki to the north-west mangrove fringes. (on Commonwealth land). 7. Collared Kingfisher Vulnerable under the Around the northern Australian coastline from Shark Known – habitat occurs in the study area. Todiramphus chloris EPBC Act Bay in Western Australia to the mouth of the The species has been observed in SEPP 14 City-wide significance in Clarence River, New South Wales. Restricted to area of the localiser footprint. This species City of Gold Coast mangroves and other estuarine habitats and mainly has also been previously recorded in close occur about the mouths of the larger coastal rivers. proximity to the localiser footprint as part of the Airport Fauna Monitoring Program
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 65 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Listed Species Status Distribution Presence in the Localiser Footprint (on Commonwealth land, north-west of the localiser footprint). 8. Common blossom bat Vulnerable under the Coastal areas of eastern Australia from Hawks Nest Possible, though limited suitable habitat Syconycteris australis New South Wales TSC in New South Wales to Cape York peninsula in exists on site. Act Queensland. Roost in littoral rainforest and feed on nectar and pollen from flowers in adjacent heathland and paperbark swamps. 9. Common planigale Vulnerable under the Northern Australia from the Kimberley to the gulf and Possible – recorded in vegetation on the Planigale maculata New South Wales TSC then from the Cape York in a coastal strip down to airport site (on Commonwealth land), but Act the Hastings river in New South Wales. Occurs in a limited suitable habitat available in the variety of habitats including dry Sclerophyll forest, localiser footprint. lowland heath and disturbed habitats. 10. Eastern bent-winged Vulnerable under the East coast of Australia from Cape York to Castlemain Possible – marginal and limited suitable bat New South Wales TSC Victoria mainly east of the Great Dividing Range. habitat. Miniopterus schreibersii Act oceanensis 11. Eastern freetail bat Vulnerable under the The Eastern Freetail-bat is found along the east coast Possible – recorded once in vegetation east Mormopterus New South Wales TSC from south Queensland to southern New South of the runway in 2005 (on Commonwealth norfolkensis Act Wales. Dry sclerophyll forest, woodland, swamp land). forests and mangrove forests east of the Great Dividing Range. 12. Eastern long-eared bat Vulnerable under the Found from Cape York through eastern Queensland Possible - limited suitable habitat. This Nyctophilus bifax New South Wales TSC to the far north-east corner of New South Wales. species has been previously recorded to Act Lowland subtropical rainforest and wet and swamp the north-west of the localiser footprint on eucalypt forest, extending into adjacent moist Commonwealth land. eucalypt forest. Coastal rainforest and patches of coastal scrub. 13. Glossy Black-Cockatoo Vulnerable under the From central Queensland to Victoria. Lower rainfall Likely – species recorded foraging adjacent Calyptorhynchus Queensland NC Act and dry sclerophyll forest on flat ground containing to the study area. lathami New South Wales TSC Allocasuarina torulosa, A. verticillata or A. littoralis. Act. City-wide significance in City of Gold Coast 14. Large-footed myotis Vulnerable under the Mainly coastal from Kimberley through Northern Possible - limited suitable habitat. This Myotis macropus New South Wales TSC Territory, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria species has been previously recorded as Act and South Australia extending inland along major part of the Airport Fauna Monitoring City-wide significance in rivers such as the Murray River. Program (on Commonwealth land). City of Gold Coast
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 66 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Listed Species Status Distribution Presence in the Localiser Footprint 15. Lewin’s Rail City-wide significance in Fragmented along eastern Australia from Port Likely – potential habitat occurs in the Lewinia pectoralis City of Gold Coast Douglas Queensland through to Eyre Peninsula South study area. This species has been Australia. Inhabits swamp woodlands, rushes, reeds, previously recorded on the airport site rank grasses in swamps, creeks, paddocks, wet along the drainage reserve to the north (on heaths, samphire in salt marshes. Commonwealth land). 16. Little bent-winged bat Vulnerable under the Coastal eastern Australia from Cape York in Possible – marginal and limited suitable Miniopterus australis New South Wales TSC Queensland to Sydney in New South Wales. habitat. This species has been previously Act recorded on the Commonwealth land to the north. 17. Mangrove Honeyeater Vulnerable under the From the mid coast of Queensland to the south- Known - potential habitat occurs in the Lichenostomus New South Wales TSC eastern corner of South Australia. Mangrove forest study area. This species has been fasciogularis Act predominantly. This species also occurs in other previously recorded as part of the Airport near-coastal forests and woodlands, including Bird Monitoring Program in close proximity Casuarina and paperbark swamp forests. to the localiser footprint. 18. Osprey Vulnerable under the Open forests and woodlands in coastal Queensland. Likely – potential habitat occurs in the Pandion haliatus New South Wales TSC study area. This species has been Act previously recorded on Commonwealth land, along the banks of the Cobaki. 19. Square-tailed kite Vulnerable under the The Square-tailed Kite ranges along coastal and Possible. Known from proximal records. Lophoictinia isura New South Wales TSC subcoastal areas from south-western to northern Act Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. In New South Wales, scattered records of the species throughout the state indicate that the species is a regular resident in the north, north-east and along the major west-flowing river systems. 20. Yellow-bellied sheathtail Vulnerable under the The Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat is a wide-ranging Possible, though limited suitable habitat bat New South Wales TSC species found across northern and eastern Australia. exists. Saccolaimus flaviventris Act
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 67 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Aquatic Fauna in the Localiser Footprint Area As part of studies conducted for the Tugun Bypass, there has also been a sighting of a species of sea slug within the mangrove fringed drainage line in the localiser footprint. It is suspected that these are Elysia bangtawaensis (Cobb, 1997), a species that has been recorded in Thailand, India and Australia (Rudman 2007) Elysia bangtawaensis is a sacoglossan gastropod (sap-sucking sea slug) that was first described in 1997 by Swennen. The family Elysiidae is the largest family of Sacoglossans, with the Elysia genus the most specious. The species mainly feed on green algae and are often well camouflaged, as much of their colour is derived from the chloroplasts of the algae they feed on (Shenai-Tirodkar et al. 2012). Elysia bangtawaensis (or any other Elysia species) is not currently listed as threatened under the TSC Act or EPBC Act. However, Cobb (2007) has suggested the species may have conservation significance because of its highly limited distribution. Although the recording of the species within the localiser footprint is one of two known locations in Australia, the reason for the small number of known populations of this species may be due to a lack of targeted survey effort (and the difficulty of spotting the species) rather than a limited occurrence of suitable habitats or extant populations. The distribution of the species may also be indicated by the presence of other species of Elysia, which are known to inhabit the region and are common all round Australia except for Tasmania (Burn 1998). This may give further evidence that Elysia bangtawaensis may be present in other areas along the Queensland and New South Wales coastline. This should be used with caution however, as there is very limited data on the species’ actual distribution. Terrestrial Fauna Corridors in the Localiser Footprint Area Fundamental requirements for terrestrial fauna connectivity (see Lindenmayer and Nix, 2002) are largely absent in and around the localiser footprint (i.e. between the Cobaki and habitat east of the localiser footprint). The current barriers to terrestrial wildlife movement in and around the localiser footprint include: 1. The narrow pinch-point area of land that exists alongside the Cobaki Broadwater and the Tugun Bypass; 2. The drainage channels and pinch-points associated with narrow drainage crossings; 3. The disturbed habitat and pinch point associated with the Tugun Bypass; and 4. The airside security fencing. It is likely the current barriers provide significant hindrance to terrestrial connectivity for most terrestrial fauna between the Cobaki and habitat to the east of the Tugun Bypass. Large mammals (such as koalas and wallabies) and reptiles are likely to have limited mobility between the habitat east of the Tugun Bypass and the Cobaki due to a combination of the four barriers listed above. The pinch points and tidal drains are also likely to be significant barriers to movement/dispersal for the Common Planigale (Planigale maculata) and other small mammals. In the localiser footprint, perimeter fencing is required for security, whilst clearing is required across the localiser footprint. Clearing and fencing in this area will result in further fragmentation between the area of habitat to the south-east of the runway (east of the Tugun Bypass) and Cobaki Broadwater. Currently, several significant barriers to connectivity exist between the Cobaki Broadwater and habitat on the eastern side of the Tugun Bypass. With installation of the ILS, the narrow piece of land that exists to the west of the runway along the banks of the Cobaki will be extended south. Here, connectivity will be maintained along the banks of the Cobaki Broadwater for fauna that inhabit mangrove forest (e.g. Mangrove Honeyeater or Collared Kingfisher). The
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 68 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 alignment of the road and fence in the northwest corner of the localiser footprint area has been planned to minimise the extent to which the corridor along the Cobaki is impacted. Due to the proposed perimeter fencing and clearing, the pinch-point that exists along the Tugun Bypass alignment (which connects habitat either side of the Tugun Bypass) will be severed. This would affect connectivity in this location and also potentially further north on Commonwealth airport land. However, given the poor current condition of connectivity in the area and the current significant barrier effects between the Cobaki and areas east of the localiser footprint, construction of the ILS is not expected to result in significant impact to current levels of connectivity. Birds in the Localiser Footprint Area The clearing of coastal saltmarsh in this area also represents a loss of high tide roost habitat for shorebirds. This is discussed in Section 3.1(e). Frogs in the Localiser Footprint Area - Habitat Assessment for Litoria Olongburensis and Crinia Tinnula Based on desktop assessment and site survey (see Appendix 2), this assessment has deemed that the habitat within the localiser footprint is unsuitable for Litoria olongburensis and Crinia tinnula species because: The vegetation communities are unsuitable to the west of the Tugun Bypass; Two previous frog surveys undertaken by Ecosure (2009b and 2009c) did not find suitable habitat or record these species within the localiser footprint; The small triangle of land to the east of the Tugun Bypass was unsuitable as vegetation was Casuarina glauca forest, with an understorey dominated by sparse occurrences of Sporadanthus interruptus, Phragmites australis and Gahnia sieberiana. Baumea teretifolia, one of the preferred sedge species for the two frog species, was observed to be occasionally present in patches, though it was sparse where it did exist; The triangle area to the east of the Tugun Bypass is a small area of impacted habitat on the edge and would not function as a corridor for the species. Additionally, it borders Commonwealth airport land, and connects to salt marsh; Crinia signifera was heard during the current survey in the small triangle of land to the east (the Supplementary Frog Survey Point in Figure 9). This species prefers less acidic environments and can sometimes indicate that the habitat is unsuitable for the two acid frog species; During recent targeted frog surveys in the localiser footprint (survey methodology is described in Appendix 2), the conditions for survey were close to optimal, as described in the Referral Guidelines for Wallum Sedge Frog. No Litoria olongburensis or Crinia tinnula calls were heard during the survey however. Furthermore, Crinia tinnula was heard calling during the survey in known habitat areas approximately 150 metres east of the localiser footprint. If the species was present in the localiser footprint, there is some likelihood that it would have been calling in this survey area given the near-optimal conditions that occurred during the survey.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 69 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Assessment of impacts on fauna in the localiser footprint area With consideration of the above, removal of habitat in the localiser footprint will not result in a significant impact to ‘animals’ (as per Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2) as the project will not: Cause a long-term decrease in, or threaten the viability of, a native animal population or populations, through death, injury or other harm to individuals; Displace or substantially limit the movement or dispersal of native animal populations (emphasis added); Substantially reduce or fragment available habitat for native species; Reduce or fragment available habitat for listed threatened species which is likely to displace a population, result in a long-term decline in a population, or threaten the viability of the species, or Introduce exotic species which will substantially reduce habitat or resources for the native species. Mitigation measures to minimise the impact to habitat values are discussed in Section 4. Impacts on People and Communities There will be negligible noise impacts to the community due to the construction of the project. Impacts to due to operational noise associated with changes to flight paths is subject to a separate EPBC Act referral by Airservices and will also be addressed within the MDP being prepared by GCAPL (see Section 2.4). Strategic planning documents in both Gold Coast and Tweed regions reflect that Gold Coast Airport is an integral piece of infrastructure for the region. The planning documents also identify the importance of the airport in providing employment and economic growth in the region. The ILS project will have a positive economic impact regionally. Gold Coast Airport is a significant economic driver of the region in terms of employment, direct and indirect economic impact and the facilitated impact arising from the flow on benefits of the visitor economy which includes tourism, education and major events. By 2016/2017 Gold Coast Airport will facilitate 2.61 million visitors to the region, which represents a 36 per cent increase on 2010, or an additional 690,000 visitors over 2010, equating to an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent. Additionally the Gold Coast will host the Commonwealth Games in 2018, which provides further impetus for installation of the ILS. Presently on average 50 flights per annum are diverted from Gold Coast Airport to alternative airports due to adverse weather conditions. This affects approximately 8,000 passengers annually with the majority of aircraft diverted to Brisbane Airport. Airlines are therefore required to either disembark their passengers at Brisbane Airport or to return to Gold Coast Airport when the weather conditions improve. If passengers disembark at Brisbane Airport, then the airlines arrange for the passengers to be bussed to Gold Coast Airport in order to complete their journey and vice versa for departing passengers. This can significantly inconvenience passengers, and friends and families of passengers can also be affected. With installation of the ILS, the direct and immediate financial benefits to Gold Coast Airport and its associated aviation and terminal precinct would be an increase in income of approximately $100,000 per annum. This translates to an economic benefit to the local economy of approximately $88,000 per annum comprising a direct impact of $49,000 and a direct and induced impact of $39,000. These benefits would be realised immediately with the introduction of an ILS and would increase over time as passenger growth occurs. Long term benefits are in the enhancement of the attractiveness of Gold Coast Airport to the airlines and their passengers in decision making in flying to the airport and perceived degree of confidence that diversions will not occur. The loss of an existing service or the failure to attract an additional service (e.g. new international services) due to relatively high number of diversions that would otherwise not occur if an ILS was in place can be estimated when considering the value to the
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 70 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 regional economy (Gold Coast/Northern Rivers) of each domestic and international service into the airport. The value to the regional economy by expenditure of a daily domestic service is $30 million per annum and a daily international service is $46 million per annum. If the risk of losing a service or not attracting a new service is (an estimated) 10 percent higher by the airport continuing to not have ILS capability, then the economic loss to the region is $7.6 million per annum. Due to the reliability of services made possible by the ILS, and the economic flow on affects, it is assessed that the ILS project has significant potential to benefit the community. Impacts on Heritage The ILS project footprint lies within a significant regional cultural landscape known to the Aboriginal people of the Tweed and Gold Coast. A number of cultural heritage sites have been identified in the general locality of the project footprint as identified in Figure 8. A due diligence cultural heritage study was conducted for the ILS project (Everick Heritage Consultants 2015) and included a desktop study of previous archaeological reports and other literature, field inspections and consultation with Indigenous stakeholders as detailed in Section 2.6. Searches of Queensland, NSW and Commonwealth heritage databases were conducted as part of the study to identify any registered sites within the project footprint and surrounds. Sites identified in these searched are detailed in Figure 8. One cultural heritage site is located within the 300 metre runway strip (see Figure 8). This is an artefact scatter identified by Hall (1990) on the eastern side of the runway. The site is not expected to be impacted by the works, as no ground disturbance is required in the area which will be maintained in line with the current regime. No other indigenous cultural heritage sites or relics were identified in the glidepath footprint, 300m runway strip or localiser footprint and no areas were identified that are considered to potentially contain subsurface deposits of significant Aboriginal heritage. In discussions during the site walkover with Indigenous stakeholders, potential for further investigation at one location within Impact Area A was raised. Subsequent consultation has determined that an appropriate mitigation strategy would involve a post clearing survey of this area. An additional post excavation survey is also proposed for the minor drainage diversion works in the localiser footprint area. The alignment of services (power and communication) will be selected to be within areas of past significant ground disturbance to minimise the potential impacts to cultural heritage. If undisturbed lands are unavoidable, the Aboriginal community and archaeological expert will be consulted to determine if further cultural heritage assessment or monitoring is required. No known Commonwealth Heritage places are located within the project footprint. The cultural heritage assessment conducted for the project did not identify any historic (non-indigenous heritage) within the project footprint. Although potential impacts on physical Aboriginal heritage is extremely low as identified in the cultural heritage due diligence assessment, a cultural heritage find procedure will be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan in the event that cultural heritage is encountered during the works. With reference to the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2, the project is not expected to result in a significant impact to heritage values. 3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the 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))
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 71 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
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 See Section 3.1(d) and 3.2(d).
3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows See Section 3.2(d). 3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics See Section 3.2(d) 3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features The Cobaki Broadwater is adjacent to and partly enclosed within the Airport boundary. The broadwater is an environmentally sensitive waterway as identified in the Coastal Zone Management Plan for Cobaki Broadwater and Terranora Broadwater (Australian Wetlands 2012). On the Airport property the broadwater and adjacent airport land is known as the Cobaki Environmental Precinct which represents approximately 25 percent of the airport lease and consists of areas of remnant vegetation and cultural significance. As outlined in the Airport Master Plan, GCAPL has identified this area as an environmental conservation land use to offset environmental impacts from future development. 3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation See Section 3.2(d). 3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) The project footprint within commonwealth land and its immediate surrounds consist of low lying coastal floodplain situated below 5 metres AHD. The area has been significantly modified by historical sand mining involving extensive land reclamation and redeposition within the general vicinity of the site. The localiser footprint (on NSW land) has also been previously modified by agriculture (see Figure 2), the construction of the Tugun Bypass and Pony Club operations. 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. The glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip are largely mown grass/heath which are maintained by GCAPL to meet operational requirements. The environmental value of a majority of the study area is therefore limited. However, small patches of potentially important vegetation/habitat do exist in the 300 metre runway strip referred to in this referral as Impact Areas A to D. As the presence of certain wildlife on airport can pose a significant risk to aircraft safety, GCAPL has prepared a Bird & Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (GCAPL 2014) in accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. The plan presents both passive and active management measures for airport land along with monitoring and reporting procedures. Under the plan, the glidepath footprint and the 300 metre runway strip (and other habitat areas across the airport) are managed to limit the attraction of large and/or flocking birds and wildlife species. Active dispersal of birds and wildlife hazards also occurs on an ongoing basis. This limits the environmental value of the habitat in the study area for certain high strike risk species. Pest plant and animal species are also known to occur on the within the project footprint. These are managed as part of GCAPL’s pest management program and via selective weed control. Pest fauna
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 72 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 management focusses on the Euopean red fox (Vulpes vulpes), European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) and the brown hare (Lepus capensis). The localiser footprint is predominantly covered by native vegetation, as discussed in Section 3.2(d). Previous and current land uses (agriculture, Tugun Bypass construction, OLS vegetation management on the approach of runway 32 and Pony Club operations) have influenced the types of vegetation in the area. The proximity to other cleared areas has also influenced the current state of the environment. For instance, field surveys in 2009 (Ecosure 2009c) identified several weeds of significance in the area. These included: Baccharis halimifolia (Groundsel); Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata (Bitou Bush); Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel); Lantana camara (Lantana); and Schinus terebinthifolia (Broad-leaved Pepper Tree) Weed management to remove widespread occurrence of these and other weeds (e.g. Setaria sphacelata) is undertaken by GCAPL in and around the localiser footprint and there has been a reduction in the abundance and species of weeds in the localiser footprint since 2009. As mentioned in Section 3.2(d) and 3.1(e), there is also evidence that the vegetation communities in the localiser footprint have changed markedly in recent years due to changes in drainage. Section 3.1(e) also describes how changes to vegetation have resulted in a deterioration of habitat quality and the habitat is currently in a poor state for migratory species (Australian Wetlands 2012). 3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values See Section 3.2(d). 3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values See Section 3.2(d). 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). National parks and conservation reserves in the vicinity of the project footprint include: Ukerebagh nature reserve at Tweed Heads South approximately 5 kilometres south east of the Airport; Tallebudgera Creek Conservation Park more than 10 kilometres north of the Airport; Springbrook National Park approximately 25 kilometres west of the Airport; Numinbah Nature Reserve approximately 25 kilometres west of the Airport; and Lamington National Park approximately 30 kilometres west of the Airport. Given the distance of these sites from the ILS works they are not expected to be affected by the project. 3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold) The glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip are within the Commonwealth airport boundary leased to GCAPL. The localiser footprint is located on Lot 1 and 2 DP1092051, as per Figures 1 & 3. Lot 1 DP1092051 is NSW State Crown land owned and administered by the NSW State Government. This lot is currently leased to GCAPL.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 73 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Lot 2 DP1092051 is owned by the NSW State Government. It is road reserve managed by New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services. GCAPL has a licence for land above the Tugun Bypass tunnel as part of Lot 2. Airservices are in the process of obtaining a sublease/licence for relevant components of the ILS project footprint from GCAPL.
3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area The glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip form part of Gold Coast Airport existing operational areas and are managed for: Safe aircraft landing, take off and taxiing operations; Aircraft navigation aids, radar and communications equipment; Air traffic control, aviation rescue and fire fighting and meteorological services; Other facilities to ensure safe operation of aircraft; and A small portion of the localiser footprint is currently used by the pony club. 3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area Installation of ILS infrastructure in the glidepath footprint and 300 metre runway strip will not change the existing use of the area. See Section 3.3(l). The land use in the localiser footprint will change to support ILS infrastructure.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 74 of 92
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).
Soils Construction and maintenance activities for the ILS project will be conducted in a way that prevents or minimises the risk of dust generation, soil erosion or sedimentation of adjacent drainage lines or waterways, and minimises the risk of acidification from acid sulfate soils through the implementation of appropriate mitigation as described below: Erosion and Sediment Control Site specific erosion and sediment control plans will be implemented during vegetation clearing and construction of each component of the ILS project and will include: Installation of erosion and sediment control measures including sediment fences or sand bags prior to ground disturbance, and measures to remain in place until the site is stabilised following construction; Stabilisation of diverted drainage lines in the localiser footprint and temporary sediment controls such as check dams to be installed until they are stabilised to minimise the risk to water quality in the Cobaki; Mulching, revegetation or other measures applied to cleared areas as soon as possible to stabilise the soil; Dust control will be implemented through watering or other method to reduce dust generation from exposed areas in dry conditions;
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 75 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Any stockpiles will be located within the clearing footprint, away from drainage lines and waterbodies, and will be covered or stabilised if remaining for more than one week; Erosion and sediment control measures will be checked regularly during construction and maintained in good working order; The site will be checked daily for signs of erosion and sedimentation and appropriate and reasonable corrective actions taken to rectify any non-conformity; and Communications and power infrastructure will be located in common trenches where possible to minimise ground disturbance Acid Sulfate Soil The acid sulfate soil investigation and management plan prepared for the localiser footprint area (Precise 2014a) details the appropriate acid sulfate soil mitigation measures, including: Area of ground disturbance is to be minimised as far as possible, including the use of common trenches for communications and power infrastructure where possible; Erosion and sediment control measures be implemented as above; Removal of topsoil and placement of fill to be undertaken in a manner that minimises the duration that sub-soils are exposed; Agricultural lime to be placed over exposed soils following excavation and used to neutralise excavated soils; The treated material may be reused on site where fit for purpose, and if compliant with the relevant pH criteria; Surface water quality monitoring shall be undertaken at the locations and frequencies specified in the acid sulfate soil management plan; The discharge of leachate and/or surface water that has been in contact with acid sulfate soil shall be monitored in accordance with the ASS management plan; Containment of untreated ASS within bunded areas and treatment of leachate from bunded areas prior to discharge; Regular visual monitoring is to occur at the site to check for signs of acid sulfate soil; If visual and/or water quality monitoring indicates the production and migration of acidic leachate, additional treatment measures will be implemented as necessary; and Excavation will be planned to minimise the extent and duration of dewatering and a site specific dewatering management plan will be prepared for all groundwater extraction that has the potential to expose acid sulfate soil to oxidising conditions. The above mitigation measures will be further detailed, including information from the above mentioned ASS Management Plan, in the Construction Environmental Management Plan. Contaminated Land The project works may encounter contamination associated with landfill debris in the glidepath footprint. Trenching within the 300m runway strip is unlikely to encounter contamination associated with the fire training area. The following mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise impacts from the disturbance of contaminated land: Further assessment will be undertaken prior to commencement of construction to identify if installation of services will disturb any contamination, and if so, a Contaminated Land Management Plan will be developed and implemented to manage potential impacts. If excavations occur within areas of contaminated land, measures will be taken to minimise exposure of workers or users of the area through preventing dermal contact and dust through the maintenance of a surface capping layer of 0.5 metres. In the event that the underlying fill is disturbed, procedures will be adopted to minimise the exposure to the subsurface soils during
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 76 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
any excavation works and to maintain or reinstate the surface barrier or capping layer once works are completed; Any excess soils or waste generated from excavation works in the identified contaminated area should be assessed and disposed of at a suitably licensed facility; Any imported soil fill will be verified as free of declared weed species and other contaminants; and In the event that previously unidentified contaminated land or suspected contaminated material is encountered during the works, works will cease in that area, the area stabilised to prevent contaminated runoff leaving the area, and advice sought from a suitably qualified individual. If necessary, further testing will be carried out to identify the best management/remediation option to be implemented.
Waterways and Drainage Works in the glidepath area and the localiser footprint area have the potential to have minor impacts to waterways and drainage. During relocation of the grassed drainage channel in the glidepath area, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: Erosion and sediment controls will be implemented prior to ground disturbance; The channel will be stabilised with matting or vegetation as soon possible after completion; and Visual monitoring will occur following completion to check that water quality downstream is not impacted. During construction at the localiser footprint area, the following mitigation measures for waterways and drainage will be implemented: The existing mangrove-lined drainage channels to be impacted by the localiser footprint are to be diverted around the works to maintain east-west drainage to the Cobaki; Runoff from relevant areas of the localiser footprint will drain to the diverted drainage channels and then to the Cobaki; As the antenna array clear zone in the localiser footprint area will be grassed and drainage will be directed into the Cobaki Broadwater, potential elevated levels of phosphorous, ammonia and nitrogen as well as potential reductions in dissolved oxygen will require management. Water quality improvement devices will be investigated for inclusion in the design to provide a stormwater treatment and conveyance function; Within the localiser footprint area, baseline water quality conditions (pre-development) have been assessed (Precise 2014b). Water quality will be monitored during both construction and operation and if any water quality issues associated with the works are identified appropriate measures will be investigated to address these issues. Vegetation Management In this section, the term ‘vegetation management’ includes clearing, selective plant removal and trimming during both construction and operations. The following mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to vegetation during the ILS Project: Staff/contractor inductions for the works will include awareness training regarding the ecological values of the site and the required management measures; The vegetation management area footprint for the project will be minimised where possible and immediately fringing mangrove vegetation along the Cobaki Broadwater that provides a corridor around the south western corner of the runway will be retained;
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 77 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Where feasible, low-growing salt marsh species will be retained west of the earth pad within the localiser footprint; To protect areas of vegetation to be retained during vegetation management activities, the zone of works will be clearly delineated. The exclusion zone will be the area outside of the zone of works. No trimming or plant removal will occur in this zone. All construction staff will be briefed on vegetation management protocols and exclusion zones; During construction, wash down procedures will be implemented for machinery and vehicles to prevent the spread of weeds; A pre-clearing survey will be conducted prior to vegetation clearing activities. If significant flora species are identified, these will be clearly flagged and removal or trimming of a plant will not occur until advice is sought on approval requirements and potential ways to minimise the impact (e.g. translocation);Where feasible, vegetation trimming or selective plant removal will occur without the use of large machinery within the Impact Areas B-D, and personnel will be briefed on the possible existence of threatened species, to avoid trampling of the species; Declared plants (e.g. Lantana camara) and noxious weeds within works areas will be treated or removed prior to clearing and a weed management plan implemented post-construction to manage the regrowth of weeds; A vegetation management plan will be implemented for the ongoing management of vegetation in Impact Areas B-D. Significant Species Management The following mitigation measures have been designed to reduce the impact upon significant species where vegetation management is required. These mitigation measures specifically relate to the clearing, selective removal or trimming of habitat within the Impact Areas and localiser footprint. A fauna/spotter catcher will be engaged for the initial clearing works to undertake a pre-clearing survey and to be present during the vegetation clearing in the localiser footprint and Impact Area A and D to facilitate the safe movement of fauna into adjacent habitat areas. The need for a fauna spotter/catcher will be considered prior to other vegetation management (including ongoing maintenance). As identified in this referral the project is not likely to significantly affect the breeding place of listed fauna species, however relevant government agencies will be consulted if breeding places (e.g. nests, burrows or occupied hollows) for threatened fauna are identified and required to be relocated or destroyed; Disturbance to areas outside the clearing footprint will be prevented through clear demarcation of the clearing boundary and no-go zones; During vegetation management activities, measures will be incorporated to provide habitat for fauna, such salvage of hollow logs from clearing footprint and as the placement within retained vegetated areas. Other felled material will be mulched and spread over the site once construction is completed and/or removed from site. Burning of waste timber will not be undertaken; Frogs have been found to be very sensitive to some herbicide products, and specifically, the surfactants that are used to improve the effectiveness of the products. For this reason, selective and targeted use of herbicide in frog habitat areas will be used in a way that minimises risks to frog species; Measures to prevent the spread of diseases (e.g. Chytrid fungus) in frog habitat areas will be incorporated into the within the CEMP.
Cultural Heritage
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 78 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Although no known cultural heritage sites are likely to be impacted during the works on either Commonwealth or State land, it is possible that previously unknown cultural heritage sites or artefacts may be encountered during earth disturbance. The cultural heritage due diligence assessment for the ILS project (Everick 2015) includes recommendations for cultural heritage management that will be incorporated into the Construction Environmental Management Plan and implemented during construction, these include: Plant operators undertaking initial ground disturbance for the project will attend a cultural heritage induction. The induction will include information on the legislative requirements with respect to cultural heritage, how to identify Aboriginal objects and procedures in the event of a cultural heritage find; A post clearing inspection for part of Impact Area A; A post excavation inspection for the drainage realignment within the localiser footprint; The alignments of services (power and communication) will be selected to be within areas of past significant ground disturbance to minimise the potential impacts to cultural heritage. If undisturbed lands are unavoidable, the Aboriginal community and archaeological expert will be consulted to determine if further cultural heritage assessment or monitoring is required. Process for dealing with human remains should they be located at any stage during earthworks, including stop work arrangements and consultation with community and regulatory stakeholders; Process for dealing with suspected Aboriginal cultural material if uncovered during the works, including consultation with community and regulatory stakeholders, salvage procedures for any finds of low heritage significance and procedures for identifying an appropriate keeping place for any salvaged artefacts; Registration of any Aboriginal cultural heritage/materials if uncovered during the works.
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) The above management measures will be integrated into EMPs for construction and/or operations as relevant. The EMP will also clearly define roles and responsibilities, monitoring requirements, corrective action procedures and reporting requirements.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 79 of 92
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?
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. The assessment in this referral is based on detailed desktop review and field surveys in the project footprint, and has considered the EPBC Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 and 1.2. Installation of the ground components of ILS infrastructure are not expected to result in a significant impact upon matters of national significance or the ‘environment’ (as per Sections 26 27A, and 28 of the EPBC Act). Reasons for this are detailed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2d of this referral and summarised below: Clearing will occur in Impact Area A in the 300m runway strip, resulting in the removal of approximately 1.3 hectares of remnant habitat. With consideration of the bio-regional representation (which includes their distribution in New South Wales and Queensland) of the vegetation communities and locally significant flora species within Impact Area A, the vegetation clearing associated with the flyover area is considered to result in a negligible to minor impact to the vegetation community types and flora species. Selective tree removal and trimming will occur in Impact Areas B to D but habitat value can be largely maintained or enhanced. Clearing in the localiser footprint area will result in the loss of approximately 7.5 hectares of vegetation (of which 0.5 hectares within the localiser footprint was previously cleared for the Tugun Bypass Tunnel). This includes the loss of 3.5 hectares of salt marsh ecological community, which is listed as a Vulnerable TEC under the EPBC Act and is an endangered ecological community under the New South Wales TSC Act. However the impact to this TEC is not considered to be significant under the EPBC Act as the cleared area represents a very small percentage of its current extent in the region, which is estimated at 2230 hectares (Daly 2013). Three other threatened ecological communities listed under the New South Wales TSC Act will also be impacted; however, due to the small scale of clearing for each community this has been assessed not significant under the EPBC Act. Furthermore it is apparent that previous land uses have affected the vegetation communities in the localiser footprint and vegetation communities have changed markedly in recent years due to changes in drainage. Weeds are also present in parts of the site. Installation and operation of the ILS in the localiser footprint will not result in a significant impact to threatened flora or fauna; however, the project will result in a loss of poor quality shorebird roost habitat and remove habitat for a sea slug species that is not well documented. However the sea slug species is not listed under the TSC or EPBC Act as a threatened species. Installation of security fencing in the localiser footprint will further reduce the current poor habitat connectivity between areas east of the Tugun Bypass and the Cobaki Broadwater however the fence and road location has been modified to minimise the impact to the corridor along the Cobaki foreshore. The project will have negligible to minor impacts to other aspects of the environment including soils and water resources.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 80 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The project will have positive impacts on people and communities (excluding operational noise impacts), and no impacts on indigenous or non-indigenous heritage. Mitigation measures described in Section 4 will be implemented during the project.
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 20150210 Page 81 of 92
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 environmental management?
Provide details
There have been no environmental prosecutions against Airservices. Airservices manages sites around Australia in accordance with its environmental policy and an ISO14001 aligned environmental management system (EMS) that requires Airservices to act in accordance with all relevant environmental legislation. The EMS functions include: Provision of environmental awareness training to all staff, in regard to the potential impacts arising from their activities and their legal responsibilities. Identification of environmental risk associated with Airservices operations and measures to manage risks. Completion of internal and third party audits on a regular basis to ensure the EMS procedures are being implemented. A legal register that identifies Airservices activities and relevant regulatory requirements, and legislative obligations.
6.2 Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been 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 with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 82 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework Airservices has a corporate-based, nation-wide environmental management system (EMS) in place. This system is aligned to ISO 14001. Two sites, Gellibrand Hill Radar and facilities at Gold Coast Airport (Fire Station, technical maintenance centre and navigational aids) are ISO 14001 certified. Airservices EMS is a networked system that is maintained and updated by the Environment Systems business unit within Airservices. The system allows for the identification and recording of potential environmental impacts, assessment of associated risks and includes requirements for incident reporting, management planning and record keeping. The environmental policy within the EMS displays the organisation’s intention and principles in relation to its overall environmental objectives and targets. The proposal will be undertaken in accordance with the environmental policy and EMS, as demonstrated by the level of environmental assessment of the site undertaken; the adaptation of the design to address issues raised by key stakeholders, and development and implementation of site environmental management plans that address construction and operation of the site.
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)
2014/7150 – Airservices Australia, Mount Ginini Fuel Tank Replacement Project 2011/6101 - Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices Australia/Transport – air and space/Sunshine Coast Airport , 110 km N of Brisbane/Qld/Construction of a new runway at Sunshine Coast Airport. 2011/5809 – Airservices Australia/Commonwealth/Shane’s Park, Blacktown/NSW/Transfer of Airservices Australia property 2010/5592 - Airservices Australia/Commonwealth/Seven Mile Aerodrome, Alice Springs Airport/NT/Demolition of former HF receiver (Metters) Towers 2009/4899 – Airservices Australia/Commonwealth/Sunshine Coast Airport/Qld/Sale of Airservices Australia Property 2008/4388 – Airservices Australia/Transport – air and space/Rockhampton Control Tower complex/Qld/Development of a New Airservices Integrated Facility. 2007/3872 – Airservices Australia/Transport – air and space/Lord Howe Island/NSW/Air Traffic Control Infrastructure Facility. 2005/2459 – Airservices Australia (ASA)/Communication/Shanes Park, Sydney/NSW/hazard reduction burn. 2003/1121 – Airservices Australia/Sale or lease of Commonwealth property/Cranebrook/NSW/Sale of Land – Lot 1 in DP 533370
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 83 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
7 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above)
7.1 References List the references used in preparing the referral. Highlight documents that are available to the public, including web references if relevant.
Australian Wetlands 2012, Coastal Management Plan for Cobaki Broadwater and Terranora Broadwater, Prepared for the Tweed Shire Council. Publicly available. Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, G., and J. Wahl 2008, Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian – Australian Flyway: Populations Estimates and Internally Important Sites, Wetlands International – Oceania, Canberra. Publicly available. BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) 2012, Coolangatta, Queensland March 2013 Daily Weather Observations, viewed online 17 March 2013, available at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201303/html/IDCJDW4036.201303.shtml. Publicly available. BOM 2014, Monthly Rainfall for Coolangatta, viewed online 12th January 2014. Available at http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile &p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=040717. Publicly available. Bonhomme, Craib and Associates 2004, Tugun Bypass Environment Impact Statement: Technical Paper Number 14 Cultural Heritage Assessment, prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff as part of the Tugun Bypass Alliance, Queensland Department of Main Roads, Nerang. Publicly available. Burn, R. F.,1998, “Mollusca: the southern synthesis”, Fauna of Australia, Vol. 5, Part B (eds Beesley, P.L., Ross, G. J. B. and Wells, A.), CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, pp.961-974. Publicly available Cobb, G.C., 2007 (Aug 9) Elysia bangtawaensis in nthn New South Wales. [Message in] Sea Slug Forum. Australian Museum, Sydney. Available from http://www.seaslugforum.net/find/20377. Publicly available. Creese RG, Glasby TM, West G, & Gallen C 2009, Mapping the habitats of NSW estuaries. Industry & Investment NSW – Fisheries Final Report Series No. 113. Publicly available. Daly T, 2013. Coastal saltmarsh, Primefact. NSW Department of Primary Industries. Viewed: 15th November 2013, available at www.dpi.nsw.gov.au. Publicly available. DECCW (Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW) 2010, Shorebirds of Northern New South Wales, based on a report prepared by D. Rohweder and funded by the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Publicly available. DEH (Department of Environment and Heritage, NSW) 2010, Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW, State of New South Wales and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Publicly available. DEH (Department of Environment and Heritage, NSW) 2011a, Coastal Saltmarsh in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregeions – endangered ecological community listing. Viewed 16 May 2013, available online at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/CoastalSaltmarshEndSpListing.htm. Publicly available. DEH (Department of Environment and Heritage, NSW) 2011b, Subtropical coastal floodplain forest of the NSW North Coast bioregion - endangered ecological community listing. Viewed 16 May 2013, available online at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/SubtropicalCoastalFloodplainEndSpListing.htm. Publicly available.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 84 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
DEH (Department of Environment and Heritage, NSW) 2011c, Swamp oak floodplain forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions - endangered ecological community listing. Viewed 16 May 2013, available online at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/SwampOakFloodplainEndSpListing.htm. Publicly available. DEH (Department of Environment and Heritage, NSW) 2011d, Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions - endangered ecological listing. Viewed 16 May 2013, available online at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/SwampSchlerophyllEndSpListing.htm. Publicly available. DEWHA (Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts) 2009, Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species, EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Publicly available. DOE 2013, Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Publicly available. DOE 2013, Matters of National Environmental Significance- Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Publicly available. DEWHA 2009, Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species, EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/draft-significant-impact-guidelines-36-migratory-shorebird- species-migratory-species-epbc. Publicly available. DEWHA 2010, Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-frogs- guidelines-detecting-frogs-listed-threatened. Publicly available. Ecograph 2004, Tweed Vegetation Management Strategy, a report to Tweed Council. http://www.tweed.nsw.gov.au/PlanningPolicies. Publicly available. E3 Consulting 2007, Gold Coast Airport Leased Land Stage 2 Environmental Site Assessment, Prepared for the Gold Coast Desalination Alliance, Brisbane. Ecosure 2009a, Identification of Environmentally Significant Areas on Gold Coast Airport, Prepared for Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, Coolangatta. Ecosure 2009b, Ecological Assessment for land south of Airport’s Business Park – compensatory habitat or development, Prepared for Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, Coolangatta. Ecosure 2009c, Ecological Assessment: Land South of the Runway: Constraints and Opportunities for Compensatory Habitat or Development, Prepared for Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, Coolangatta. Ecosure 2011a, Identification of Environmentally Significant Areas on Gold Coast Airport, prepared for Gold Coast Airport Proprietary Limited, Coolangatta. Ecosure 2011b, GIS Mapping of Significant Species on Gold Coast Airport, prepared for Gold Coast Airport Proprietary Limited, Coolangatta. Ecosure 2012, Annual report 2011-12 – Significant terrestrial Fauna Monitoring, prepared for Gold Coast Airport Proprietary Limited, Coolangatta. Ecosure 2013a, Gold Coast Airport Fauna Monitoring Program Review, prepared for Gold Coast Airport Proprietary Limited, Coolangatta. Ecosure 2013b, Water Quality Monitoring Program 2012/13 Annual Report, Report prepared for Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, August 2013. Ecosure 2013c, Significant Terrestrial Fauna Monitoring July 2012 to June 2013 Report, Report prepared for Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, August 2013.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 85 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Ecosure 2014, GIS Data: WallumFrogs_to_20131018, received from GCAPL on the 15th of January 2014. Environment Australia 2002, Safe Landings – Conservation of Migratory Shorebirds in the east Asian- Australasian Flyway, viewed online 18th November 2013, available from the DOE website at http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/safe-landings. Publicly available. Everick Heritage Consultants Pty Ltd 2015, Due Diligence Cultural Heritage Assessment, Gold Coast Airport Instrument Landing System, QLD/NSW. A report prepared for Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd. Garnett, S. T. and Crowley, G.M. 2000 The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia, Canberra. Publicly available. GCAPL (Gold Coast Airport Limited) 2011, Airport Master Plan, CGAPL, Coolangatta. http://goldcoastairport.com.au/regulatory/airport-master-plan/. Publicly available. GCAPL 2014, Gold Coast Airport Bird & Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, GCAPL, Gold Coast Airport Proprietary Limited, Coolangatta. Hall, J. 1990. An Assessment of Aboriginal sites at the Coolangatta Airport, prepared for Gold Coast Airport Proprietary Limited, Coolangatta. Hansen, B 2001, A Brief Overview of Literature on Waders in Decline, Stilt, No. 60, pp. 6-8. Publicly available. Ingram G. J. and Corben C. J. (1975), “The Frog Fauna of North Stradbroke Island, with Comments on the ‘Acid’ Frogs of the Wallum”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland No 86, pp. 49- 54. Publicly available. Keith DA 2004. Ocean shores to desert dunes: The native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Sydney. Publicly available. Lewis BD and Goldingay RL 2005, Population monitoring of the vulnerable wallum sedge frog (Litoria olongburensis) in north-eastern New South Wales, Australian Journal of Zoology, No. 53, pp. 185- 194. Publicly available. Lindenmayer, D and H Nix 1993, “Ecological Principles for the Design of Wildlife Corridors”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 627-630. Publicly available. Maunsell | Aecom 2007, Threatened Species Assessment of Lot 1 DP1092051, prepared for Gold Coast Airport Proprietary Limited, Coolangatta. Murray, K., Skerratt, L., Marantelli, G., Berger, L., Hunter, D., Mahony, M. and Hines, H. 2011. Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive-species/publications/hygiene-protocols-control- diseases-australian-frogs. Publicly available. Parsons Brickerhoff 2004a, Tugun Bypass Environment Impact Statement: Technical Paper Number 5 Acid Sulfate Soil Management, prepared as part of the Tuguan Bypass Alliance, Queensland Department of Main Roads, Nerang. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/T/Tugun-Bypass- project/Tugun-Bypass-Environmental-Impact-Statement.aspx. Publicly available. Parsons Brickerhoff 2004c, Tugun Bypass Environment Impact Statement: Technical Paper Number 12 Flora and Fauna Assessment, prepared as part of the Tuguan Bypass Alliance, Queensland Department of Main Roads, Nerang. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/T/Tugun-Bypass- project/Tugun-Bypass-Environmental-Impact-Statement.aspx. Publicly available. Precise Environmental 2014a Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation and Management Plan, Instrument Landing System. Gold Coast Airport, Queensland. A report to Queensland Airports Limited, June 2014.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 86 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Precise Environmental 2014b Baseline Assessment of Surface Water and Groundwater, Proposed Instrument Land System Site. Gold Coast Airport, Queensland. A report to Queensland Airports Limited, November 2014. Rohweder, DA 2001, Assessment of the Impact of the Proposed Tugun Bypass - Option C4: Kenny Drive to Boyd Street: Terrestrial and Estuarine Birds, Report Prepared for the Qld Department of Main Roads. Publicly available. Rohweder, DA 2007, ‘Changes in the summer population of shorebirds in the Tweed River Estuary, northern New South Wales between 1987 and 2003’, Australian Zoologist, Vol. 34 (2), pp. 125-137. Publicly available. Rudman, W.B., 2007 (August 8) Elysia bangtawaensis Swennen, 1997. [In] Sea Slug Forum. Australian Museum, Sydney. Available from http://www.seaslugforum.net/factsheet/elysbang. Publicly available SEWPaC, 2011, Draft Referral Guidelines for the Wallum Sedge Frog, Litoria olongburensis, Commonwealth Government, Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/draft-referral- guidelines-wallum-sedge-frog-litoria-olongburensis. Publicly available. Shenai-Tirodkar, P., Desai, N. M. and T. G. Jagtap 2012, “Ecological observations and GC-MS analysis of methanolic extract of sacoglossan Elysia bangtawaensis (Swennen), The International Quarterly Journal of Life Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 457-761. Publicly available. Spencer, J., Monamy, V. Monamy and M. Breitfuss 2009, “Saltmash as habitat for birds and other vetebrates”, in Australian Saltmarsh Ecology, ed. Neil Saintilan, CSIRO Publishing. Publicly available. Stone Y., Ahern C. R. and Blunden B. 1998, Acid Sulfate Soils Manual, Acid Sulfate Soil Management Advisory Committee, Wollongbar, NSW, Australia. Publicly available. Swennen, C. (1997), “Two new gastropods, Elysia bangtawaensis and E. siamensisfrom southern Thailand (Opisthobranchia, Sacoglossa, Elysiidae)”. Bulletin Zoölogisch Museum, Universiteit van Amsterdam 16 (6): 34-38. Publicly available Tozer MG, Turner K, Keith DA, Tindall D, Pennay C, Simpson C, MacKenzie B, Beukers P and Cox S 2010, “Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands”. Cunninghamia, 11: 359–406. Viewed: 15/5/2013. Publicly available. TSSC 2013, Conservation Advice for Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh, viewed online 15th November 2013, available at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=118. Publicly available. Van Dyck, S. and Gynther, I (2003), “Nesting strategies of the Water Mouse Xyromys myoides in Southeast Queensland”, Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, Volume 49, Number 1, pp. 453-479. Publicly available. Watkins, D 1993, “A National Plan for Shorebird Conservation”, in Australia Australian Wader Studies Group of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Moonee Ponds, Victoria. Publicly available. West RJ, Thorogood CA, Walford TR and Williams RJ 1985, An estuarine inventory for New South Wales, Australia. Fisheries Bulletin 2. Department of Agriculture, New South Wales. Publicly available.
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 87 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
7.2 Reliability and date of information For information in section 3 specify: source of the information; how recent the information is; how the reliability of the information was tested; and any uncertainties in the information.
The sources of information in Section 3 are listed above in Section 7.1. The information sources listed above are considered to be reliable sources as they are from studies conducted by qualified specialists or are from State and Commonwealth government publications. Preference has been given to using information from within the last 5 years (2012-2014) to provide current information on the state of the environment in the project area. In some cases current information is not available, less current information has been used. While information from government databases (e.g. the protected matters search) is predictive information, this has been interpreted with reference to previous fieldwork and monitoring conducted at the Airport. Ecology fieldwork for the project has also been conducted to inform this referral.
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 figures, maps or aerial Figure 1 – Location of proposed ILS attach photographs showing the Components for runway 14
project locality (section 1) Figure 2 – Historical (1975) aerial photo
GIS file delineating the of the localiser footprint area with boundary of the referral area current aerial photo underlain (section 1) Figure 3 – Localiser and Associated Infrastructure for Runway 14 Figure 4 – 300m runway strip Schematic Figure 5 – Impact Areas in the 300m runway strip Figure 6 - Approximate extent of suitable vegetation for Litoria olongburensis breeding in Impact Area A Figure 7 – Endangered Ecological Communities SEPP14 Wetlands in the localiser footprint Figure 8 - Known contaminated land sites, Cultural Heritage Sites and site drainage Figure 9 – Vegetation communities in the localiser footprint Appendix 1 – EPBC Act Protected Matters Report Appendix 2 – Baseline Assessment Methodology
figures, maps or aerial photographs showing the location of the project in respect to any matters of
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 88 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
national environmental significance or important features of the environments (section 3) If copies of any state or local relevant, government approvals and attach consent conditions (section 2.5) copies of any completed assessments to meet state or local government approvals and outcomes of public consultations, if available (section 2.6) copies of any flora and fauna investigations and surveys (section 3) technical reports relevant to the 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 undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders (section 3)
001 Referral of proposed action v 20150210 Page 89 of 92
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Person preparing the referral information (if different from 8.1) 8.2 Individual or organisation who has prepared the information contained in this referral form. Name Lillian O’Mahony Title Chartered Environmental Engineer Organisation Arup Pty Ltd ACN / ABN (if applicable) 18000966165 Postal address GPO Box 685 Brisbane QLD 4001
Telephone 30236000
Email [email protected]
I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached Declaration to this form is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.
Signature Date 10/02/2015
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? (The references listed in Section 7.1 identify those that are publicly available) 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 20150210 Page 91 of 92
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 20150210 Page 92 of 92