commonwealth land operational vegetation management plan · management plan (cemp) for the ils...

Commonwealth operational vegetation management plan ecosure.com.au | i

ecology / vegetation / wildlife / aquatic ecology / GIS

Commonwealth Land Operational Vegetation Management Plan Final report June 2016 QUEENSLAND AIRPORTS LIMITED

Commonwealth operational vegetation management plan ecosure.com.au | ii

Contents

List of figures ........................................................................................................................ iii

List of tables .......................................................................................................................... iii

Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations ................................................................................. iv

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Site description ....................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Objectives and scope .............................................................................................. 2

1.4 Management plan preparation and implementation................................................. 2

2 Legislative context ......................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Commonwealth legislation ...................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Airports Act 1996 ............................................................................................. 4

2.1.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ..................... 4

2.1.3 Air Services Act 1995 ....................................................................................... 5

2.1.4 Civil Aviation Act 1998 ..................................................................................... 5

2.2 State legislation ...................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland) ................................................... 6

2.2.2 Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Queensland) ............................................. 6

2.2.3 Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966 (Queensland) ................. 6

2.2.4 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (New South Wales) ..................... 6

2.2.5 State environmental planning polices (New South Wales) ............................... 6

3 Vegetation description and significant wildlife ................................................................ 7

4 Potential impacts.......................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Vegetation removal and trimming .......................................................................... 15

4.2 Mowing and drainage maintenance ...................................................................... 15

4.3 Weeds .................................................................................................................. 16

5 Management actions .................................................................................................... 18

5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Management of vegetation .................................................................................... 18

5.3 Plan review ........................................................................................................... 22

5.4 Monitoring and reporting ....................................................................................... 22

Commonwealth operational vegetation management plan ecosure.com.au | iii

5.5 Training and awareness ........................................................................................ 23

5.6 Emergency response, environmental incidents and complaints ............................ 23

5.6.1 Environmental incident involving a significant fauna or flora species .............. 23

5.6.2 Damage to protected vegetation .................................................................... 23

References ......................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix 1 Impact assessment .......................................................................................... 25

Assessment under Significant impact guidelines 1.1 ....................................................... 25

Assessment under Significant impact guidelines 1.2 (SEWPaC 2013). ........................... 28

Appendix 2 Vegetation management plan ........................................................................... 31

Appendix 3 Frog habitat drain maintenance plan ................................................................ 33

Appendix 4 Standard FSC methods .................................................................................... 35

List of figures

Figure 1 Environmentally significant areas and vegetation communities ............................... 3

Figure 2 Vegetation management in ESA impact areas ...................................................... 17

Figure 3 Vegetation management plan ............................................................................... 32

Figure 4 Frog habitat drain maintenance plan ..................................................................... 34

List of tables

Table 1 Vegetation descriptions within airside frog habitat areas .......................................... 7

Table 2 Total threatened frog numbers recorded at airside frog habitat management areas

for period 2007-08 till 2014-15 (Ecosure 2015). .................................................................. 13

Table 3 Flora species likelihood of occurring within 300 metre runway strip (GCAPL 2015).13

Table 4 Vegetation management control plan ..................................................................... 19

Table 5 Recommended monitoring and reporting schedule................................................. 22

Table 6 Roles, responsibilities and contacts - relevant to environmental incidents involving

significant fauna or flora species ......................................................................................... 23

Commonwealth operational vegetation management plan ecosure.com.au | iv

Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations

ASS Acid sulfate soils

BDP Betty Diamond Park

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

CEMP Construction environmental management plan

CoGC City of Gold Coast

DIRD Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

DoE Department of the Environment

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ESA Environmentally significant areas

GCAPL Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd

ILS Instrument landing system

MDP Instrument Landing System Draft Major Development Plan

NC Act Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992

NSW New South Wales

OLS Obstacle limitation surface

pHFOX field oxidised pH test

QAL Queensland Airports Limited

QLD Queensland

RE Regional ecosystem

TSC Act New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

VMA Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999

VMP Vegetation management plan

Commonwealth operational vegetation management plan ecosure.com.au | 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd (GCAPL) commissioned preparation of this vegetation

management plan (VMP) to meet operational vegetation management requirements set out

in the major development plan (MDP; GCAPL 2016) for the Instrument Landing System (ILS)

as they relate to Commonwealth airport land.

The VMP also captures other operational vegetation management activities such as drain

maintenance and mowing where they may impact a species or community listed under the

Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and/or state legislation.

Due to jurisdictional complexities and for ease of management, four VMPs have been

developed for the ILS project, two of which form sub plans to the construction environmental

management plan (CEMP) for the ILS Project:

1. VMP for ILS Project Construction on Commonwealth Land (forms sub plan to

Commonwealth land CEMP)

2. VMP for ILS Project Construction on NSW Land (forms sub plan to NSW land CEMP)

3. Operational VMP on Commonwealth Land

4. Operational VMP on New South Wales Land.

This VMP relates to Commonwealth airport land leased to GCAPL (Figure 1). The VMP

applies broadly to the entire leased area and provides specific vegetation management

measures in order to maintain operational and functional requirements in habitat for significant

frog species, environmentally significant areas (ESA), access tracks including those through

bushland areas, and drainage channels.

1.2 Site description

The airport contains vegetation which provides heath and sedge habitat and supports the

legislatively significant wallum sedge frog (Litoria olongburensis) (listed as vulnerable under

NSW, QLD and Commonwealth legislation) and wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) (listed as

vulnerable under NSW and QLD legislation).

The ILS project components on Commonwealth leased airport land include the 300 metre

runway strip as well as the glidepath footprint (GCAPL 2016). Within the 300 metre runway

strip there are five patches of vegetation that are part of the airports’ ESAs and are referred to

as ESA impact areas A, B, C, D and E (Figure 1). The vegetation within ESA impact area A

(1.38 ha) will be cleared during the ILS project, whilst some of the vegetation within B, C, D

and E will be selectively removed and or trimmed. Vegetation management within the ESA

impacts areas A-E during construction is addressed in the VMP for ILS Project Construction


on Commonwealth Land; whilst this present plan covers management and maintenance of

ESA impact areas B-E during operation. Area A will be cleared of vegetation during the ILS

project and maintained thereafter through mowing. This VMP also applies to frog habitat which

may become established (either through natural processes or constructed as a compensatory

measure) in future.

Previously identified frog habitat areas (S1-S10) illustrated on Figure 1 are monitored as part

of GCAPL’s terrestrial fauna monitoring program (i.e. Ecosure 2015).

1.3 Objectives and scope

The key objective of this VMP is to provide actions which will effectively manage vegetation

within the GCAPL leased area, including emergent woody vegetation and low-growing

vegetation such as sedges and saltmarsh, in order to:

• maintain vegetation heights to meet operational clearance requirements

• limit wildlife attraction which may pose a strike risk

• maintain appropriate and functional drainage

• maintain access throughout bushland areas

• maintain vegetative species composition and habitat structure to maintain the

likelihood of ongoing use by legislatively significant frogs

• maintain the integrity of the ESAs and minimise impacts on significant flora and

fauna.

The scope of this VMP includes to:

• provide an overview of relevant legislation including an assessment of permits

required for vegetation management works

• briefly describe the vegetation characteristics for each frog habitat area covered by

this plan

• guide monitoring and reporting on key outcomes of the management plan.

1.4 Management plan preparation and implementation

This VMP has been prepared by Ecosure for use by GCAPL staff and relevant contractors.

Literature reviewed to assist in the development of this management plan included the national

recovery plan for wallum frogs (Meyer et al. 2006), hygiene protocols for frogs (Department of

Environment and Climate Change [NSW] 2008), research articles (Lewis and Goldingay 2005;

Holland et al. 2012), referral guidelines for the vulnerable wallum sedge frog (Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2011) and survey guidelines

(Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2010). Previous reports and

data collected on the GCA and surrounds were also reviewed.

S3

S5

S6

S9S4

S7S10S1

S12

S8

S2

549,000

549,000

549,500

549,500

550,000

550,000

550,500

550,500

551,000

551,000

6,883

,000

6,883

,000

6,883

,500

6,883

,500

6,884

,000

6,884

,000

6,884

,500

6,884

,500

6,885

,000

6,885

,000

6,885

,500

6,885

,500

GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56Projection: Transverse Mercator

Datum: GDA 1994Units: Meter

Figure 1: Environmentally significant areasand vegetation communitiesQueensland Airports LimitedCommonwealth land operational vegetationmanagement plan

0 100 20050Metres°

Data Sources: QAL, 2015; Aerial image: Nearmap, 2015ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.

ESA Impact AreaSEPP14Known frog habitat

Gold Coast AirportboundaryState boundary(QLD/NSW)300 m runway strip

Job number: PR1444Revision: 1

Author: ALMDate: 20/05/2016

PR1444_MP_OP_Fig1_ESA_Veg_R1A4

A

B

C

D

E

Vegetation communitiesEEC (Coastal Saltmarsh)EEC (Freshwater Wetland)EEC (Lowland Rainforest)EEC (Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest)EEC (Swamp Sclerophyll Forest)EEC(Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest)RE (12.2.12/12.2.9)


2 Legislative context

2.1 Commonwealth legislation

2.1.1 Airports Act 1996

The Commonwealth’s Airports Act 1996 provides a system for regulating core regulated

airports. This includes providing for environmental management at an airport site. As specified

under this Act, the airport’s master plan includes an environment strategy which provides for

the protection and management of flora and fauna. The environment strategy’s biodiversity

objective is ‘to appropriately manage biodiversity values of Gold Coast Airport with due regard

to mitigation of bird and wildlife strike risk’ (GCAPL 2011).

The environment strategy also identifies ESAs at Gold Coast Airport (GCAPL 2011). These

are currently under review as part of the 2017 Master Plan development, and will give due

consideration to the vegetation alterations as part of the ILS project. The Airports Act has

triggers related to development and/or pollution which impacts ESAs.

The proposed ILS project has been defined as a major airport development under Section 89

of the Airports Act. Consequently, a major development plan (MDP) was prepared (GCAPL

2016). The MDP has recently been approved by the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional

Development (DIRD; notification of approval received 27th January 2016) for project

components occurring on Commonwealth airport land only. Project components within

Commonwealth land are subject to the provisions of the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations (1997) provide airports with a system of

regulation and accountability for activities that may pollute or results in excessive noise, as

well as promoting environmental management practices.

2.1.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth’s EPBC Act provides protection for the environment and specifically

addresses matters of national significance. A proposed plan of development has to be referred

to the Department of the Environment (DoE) for approval if the action is likely to have a

significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance.

Matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act are:

• world heritage sites

• national heritage places

• wetlands of international importance (often called ‘Ramsar’ wetlands after the

international treaty under which such wetlands are listed)

• nationally threatened species and ecological communities


• migratory species

• Commonwealth marine areas

• nuclear actions.

The wallum sedge frog is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and as such any action that

is likely to have a significant impact on a population of this species must be referred to DoE.

Guidelines are available for a proponent to self-assess if an action is likely to be significant

(Matters of National Environmental Significance - Significant impact guidelines 1.1 (DEWHA

2009). These guidelines have been used to provide an assessment of significance for

operational management of airside frog habitat (Section 4).

Airservices Australia lodged a referral under Section 68 of the EPBC Act. The Commonwealth

Department of the Environment (DoE) advised DIRD under Section 161A of the EPBC Act

that the proposed ILS project works within Commonwealth airport land is unlikely to have a

significant impact on the environment and that advice from the Minister for the Environment is

not required (GCAPL 2016).

2.1.3 Air Services Act 1995

The Air Services Act 1995 provides Airservices Australia, as a Commonwealth corporation,

with functions and powers regarding aviation and related purposes. Airservices Australia is

therefore the only organisation aside from the Department of Defence that is authorised to

commission and maintain a project such as the ILS. Section 19 of the Air Services Act provides

Airservices Australia with an exemption from State and Territory land use laws when applying

its functions. The proposed ILS installation will however be subject to Commonwealth

legislation regarding the whole of environment, including matters of state and/or local

significance.

2.1.4 Civil Aviation Act 1998

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is the government-owned authority responsible for

the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia under the Civil Aviation Act 1998. The

Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 details Commonwealth legislation regarding all aspects

of civil aviation safety, and establishes the regulatory framework. Part 139 (Aerodromes)

contains specific requirements for wildlife hazard management.

2.2 State legislation

As Gold Coast Airport is under Commonwealth jurisdiction, regulated under the Airports Act,

approvals are not required under State legislation. However, any action taken should be

consistent with the aims and objectives of comparable legislation. State ecological values such

as species records and vegetation communities were considered during the identification of

ESAs (Ecosure 2011; 2016), as required under the Airports (Environment Protection)

Regulations.


2.2.1 Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland)

The object of the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) is the conservation of

nature. The conservation of nature is to be achieved by an integrated and comprehensive

conservation strategy for the whole of Queensland State that involves, among other things,

the identification of critical habitats and areas of major interest and the protection of native

wildlife and its habitat. This was considered in the identification of ESAs (Ecosure 2011; 2016).

2.2.2 Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Queensland)

The purpose of the Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) includes the

regulation of vegetation clearing to conserve regional ecosystems, to maintain ecological

processes and prevent the loss of biodiversity.

Frog habitat areas S3 (ESA impact area A) and S5 (ESA impact area B) support least concern

regional ecosystems (RE) (RE 12.2.12: Closed heath on seasonally waterlogged sand plains/

RE12.2.9: Banksia aemula woodland on dunes and sand plains). As part of the ESA

assessment, the status and distributions of RE on airport land (Figure 1) was considered

(Ecosure 2011; 2016).

2.2.3 Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966 (Queensland)

The Queensland Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966 aims to regulate the use

of agricultural chemicals and as such requires that contractors have a commercial operator’s

license for using herbicides.

2.2.4 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (New South Wales)

The NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) provides for the protection

of threatened flora and fauna species as well as ecological communities. The objects of this

Act include the promotion of ecologically sustainable development and the conservation of

biological diversity. Matters listed under the TSC Act, including significant species and

threatened ecological communities (Figure 1), were considered in the methods to identify

ESAs.

2.2.5 State environmental planning polices (New South Wales)

State environment planning policies (SEPPs) are environmental planning instruments which

address specific planning issues within NSW. These SEPPs may remove power from local

councils in order to control specific types of development or development in specific areas.

SEPPs often transfer decision-making from Council to the Planning Minister.

SEPP 14 – Coastal Wetlands

This policy provides additional protection for coastal wetlands by requiring development

consent to be obtained before any clearing, draining, filling or construction of levees can occur

on a mapped wetland. SEPP 14 coastal wetlands were considered as part of the methods to

identify ESAs, and there location on the airport is indicated on Figure 1.


3 Vegetation description and significant wildlife

The most significant ecological values within those areas managed for operational and functional requirements are the airside frog habitats, which

are described in Table 1 below. This table also notes where frog habitats align with ESA impact areas.

Table 1 Vegetation descriptions within airside frog habitat areas

Frog habitat area

Site photograph Vegetation present Significant fauna records

S1

Low-lying wetland community in a constructed drain. Ground cover - primarily sedge species Juncus usitatus, Persicaria strigosa and Ludwigia octovalvis

Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula)


Frog habitat area


S2

Low-lying wetland community in a constructed drain. Ground cover - primarily sedge species Juncus usitatus, Persicaria strigosa and Ludwigia octovalvis

None

S3 (ESA impact area A)

Mown wet heathland along with RE 12.2.12/12.2.9; which is closed or wet heath/Banksia aemula woodland and considered to be Essential Habitat for wallum froglet and wallum sedge frog. Overstorey – Banksia aemula, Melaleuca quinquenervia Mid storey - monkey rope vine (Parsonsia straminea) Groundcover – Gahnia aspera, Xanthorrhoea sp, cheese tree (Glochidion ferdinandi) ESA impact area A will be cleared, graded, grassed and mown during the ILS construction works.

Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) Wallum sedge frog (Litoria olongburensis)


Frog habitat area


S5 (ESA impact area B)

Overstorey –Banksia aemula, Acacia disparrima and, Melaleuca quinquenervia Mid storey – dominate species Leucopogon biflorus, others such as slash pine (Pinus elliottii), camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), monkey rope vine (Parsonsia straminea), hard quandong (Elaeocarpus obovatus) Ground cover – Caustis recurvata, Gleichenia dicarpa, Gahnia aspera, Xanthorrhoea sp., Homalanthus nutans ESA impact area B will be trimmed during the ILS construction works.


S6 (ESA impact area C)

Regenerating wet heathland. Eastern side of vegetation patch: Mid storey - slash pine (Pinus elliottii), Melaleuca quinquenervia, Leucopogon biflorus, monkey rope vine (Parsonsia straminea) Ground cover - Gahnia aspera, whiskey grass (Andropogon virginicus), swamp foxtail (Baloskion tetraphyllum), Lomandra longifolia Northern side of vegetation patch: Mid storey – Melaleuca quinquenervia, Lophostemon confertus, Eucalyptus robusta Ground cover - Gahnia aspera, Leucopogon biflorus, hard quandong (Elaeocarpus obovatus), Xanthorrhoea sp, swamp foxtail (Baloskion tetraphyllum) ESA impact area C will be trimmed during the ILS construction works.



Frog habitat area


S7

Constructed drain with low-lying wetland vegetation. Mid storey - Melaleuca quinquenervia, Gahnia aspera Ground cover – Drosera spatulata, Gleichenia dicarpa, Juncus usitatus,


S8

Constructed drain with low-lying wetland vegetation. Mid storey – Melaleuca quinquenervia Groundcover - Persicaria dichotoma, Gahnia aspera, Lygodium microphyllum, swamp foxtail (Baloskion tetraphyllum), Gleichenia dicarpa Vegetation between S8 and S9 – western side Mid storey – Melaleuca quinquenervia, slash pine (Pinus elliottii) (12 medium and >70 small) Vegetation between S8 and S9 – eastern side Mid storey – camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), mulberry tree (Morus sp.) Ground cover - soft bracken (Calochlaena dubia), Gleichenia dicarpa, Singapore daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata), cheese tree (Glochidion ferdinandi)



Frog habitat area


S9

Wet heathland to shrubland. Mid storey – camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), satinwood (Nematolepis squamea >30) Ground cover - Pultenaea spp, Gahnia aspera


S10

Lepironia articulata rushland and low-lying wetland community. Northern vegetation: Mid storey – Melaleuca quinquenervia, Acacia disparrima Ground cover - Gahnia aspera, Juncus usitatus Southern vegetation: Mid storey – Melaleuca quinquenervia Ground cover - Gahnia aspera, Juncus usitatus, Gleichenia dicarpa, Lygodium microphyllum, grey sedge (Lepironia articulata), Glycine spp. S10 will be cleared during Project Lift construction works.



Frog habitat area


S12 (ESA impact area D)

Wet heathland to shrubland. Mid storey: eucalyptus juveniles, Lophostemon confertus, geebung (Persoonia lanceolata), Melaleuca decora, Leucopogon biflorus and the regionally significant (NSW) satinwood (Nematolepis squamea). Ground cover: sedge species including grey rush (Lepironia articulata), Cyperus haspan, Gahnia aspera, soft bracken (Calochlaena dubia), Lomandra longifolia, swamp foxtail (Baloskion tetraphyllum), molasses grass (Melinis minutiflora), lantana sp., Homalanthus nutans, hard quandong (Elaeocarpus obovatus), Persicaria dichotoma and Ludwigia octovalvis. ESA impact area D will be trimmed during the ILS construction works.



Sedge swamp habitat has been shown to be preferred by wallum sedge frogs over paperbark,

woodland and heath habitat (Lewis and Goldingay 2005), although adjacent woodland may

provide organic material important for the maintenance of a naturally low pH, which is a key

component of wallum habitats (Holland et al. 2012).

Numbers of wallum sedge frogs were surveyed regularly during 2014-15 surveys (Ecosure

2015) (Table 2) and have persisted across most of the sites where they have been recorded

during previous monitoring (exceptions were ponds S10 and S11 with no significant frogs

recorded in the 2014-15 monitoring season compared to 2012-13). Numbers of individuals

heard or observed were less than the 2012-13 survey period, but were within the average

range found in the past four years. There has been an overall increase in numbers from 2009-

10. Areas with the greatest number of recorded frog calls were ESA C (S6), S7, S9 and ESA

D (S12).

There are no records for other state or federally significant fauna or flora species within airside

frog habitat areas (Ecosure 2013a; Ecosure 2011; Ecosure 2014). Ecosure (2014)

summarises significant species records for the entire airport lease area; there had at that time

been five threatened flora species and 38 threatened fauna species observed.

Table 2 Total threatened frog numbers recorded at airside frog habitat management areas for period 2007-08 till 2014-15 (Ecosure 2015).

Frog species

Frog habitat area

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S12

Wallum sedge frog (Litoria olongburensis)

0 0 10 27 30 46 45 17 43 9 35

Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) 4 1 48 41 82 67 69+ 45 38 23 38

Information contained in the MDP (GCAPL 2016) lists significant flora species that are known

or which may occur within the 300 metre runway strip. This is summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 Flora species likelihood of occurring within 300 metre runway strip (GCAPL 2015).

Common name

Scientific name

EPBC Act status

NC Act status

TSC Act status

Gold Coast City significant

Flowering times

Likelihood of occurrence within 300 metre runway strip

Christmas bells

Blandfordia grandiflora

- E - - Late spring to early summer (PlantNet 2016)

Known. Previously recorded within the 300 metre runway strip however the known population will not be impacted by the project (below vegetation trimming requirements)

Dark greenhood

Pterostylis nigricans

- - V - Autumn (OEH 2012-2015)

Possible. Marginally suitable habitat occurs within the 300 metre runway strip


Common name

Scientific name

EPBC Act status

NC Act status

TSC Act status

Gold Coast City significant

Flowering times

Likelihood of occurrence within 300 metre runway strip

Fringed baekea

Baeckea diosmifolia

- - - - Spring (PlantNet 2016)

Possible. Only known location of this species occurs on the Gold Coast Airport but does not occur within ESA impact areas A-E.

Lemon-scented grass

Elyonurus citreus (Elionurus citreus)

- - E - Summer (OEH 2012-2015)

Possible. Suitable habitat exists within the 300 metre runway strip

Pink nodding orchid

Geodorum densiflorum

- - E - December – January (OEH 2012-2015)

Possible. Suitable habitat exists

Spider orchid

Dendrobium melaleucaphilum

- - E - July – October (OEH 2012-2015)

Possible. Due to occurrence of prickly paperbark (Melaleuca styphelioides) occurring to the east of the runway

Tiny wattle Acacia baueri subsp. baueri

- - V - December – March (OEH 2012-2015)

Known. Occurs on the NSW portion of the Gold Coast Airport but does not occur within ESA impact areas A – E and is unlikely to be impacted by clearing.

Wallum bottlebrush

Melaleuca pachyphylla

- - - City-wide significant

Summer (PlantNet 2016)

Known. Occurs in impact Area A and B and would be impacted by clearing and possibly trimming

Swamp grasstree

Xanthorrhoea fulva


August – October (PlantNet 2016)

Known. Occurs in impact Area A and B and would be impacted by clearing and possibly trimming

Wallum banksia

Banksia aemula


March – June (PlantNet 2016)

Known. Occurs in impact Area A and would be impacted by clearing

Olive tea tree

Leptospermum liversidgei


Mostly January (PlantNet 2016)

Known. Occurs in impact Area A and would be impacted by clearing

Satinwood Nematolepis squamea


Mostly spring (PlantNet 2016)

Known. Occurs in S9. and ESA D.


4 Potential impacts

The predominant risks to environmental values, including legislatively significant frog species,

are associated with vegetation removal and trimming to meet operational clearance

requirements, mowing and drainage maintenance, and weeds.

4.1 Vegetation removal and trimming

Vegetation removal and trimming will occur throughout GCAPL Commonwealth areas

including in the ESA impact areas.

The majority of the proposed vegetation management works associated with the ILS project

(construction and operation) within Commonwealth airport land occur in New South Wales,

with two established ponds in Queensland (S3/ Impact area A and S5/Impact area B). S3/ESA

impact area A will be entirely removed during the construction phase of the ILS.

There are five patches of vegetation that are part of ESA impact areas A, B, C, D and E (Figure

2) within the 300 metre runway strip. The assessment of impacts conducted as part of the ILS

project (GCAPL 2016) concluded that if the appropriate management actions are

implemented, the trimming and selective plant removal in the impact areas B to E and clearing

of area A will not have a significant environmental impact. Clearing or trimming of vegetation

will also not impact on any known populations of significant flora (GCAPL 2016). However,

vegetation removal and trimming poses a risk to legislatively significant fauna species (i.e.

incidental injury or death of wallum sedge frog) unless appropriate actions are taken (Section

5).

4.2 Mowing and drainage maintenance

Mowing is undertaken for various operational requirements, including to discourage wildlife

which may pose a strike risk. This requires areas of frog habitat to be mown, which poses a

risk to these species unless appropriate actions are taken. The vegetation management plan

included in Appendix 2 indicates mowing arrangements, including areas that should not be

mowed, and limitations on mowing activities in sensitive areas such as frog habitat.

GCAPL (2016) assessed the likely impacts of construction and operational vegetation

management on the ESA impact areas. Appendix 1 contains an assessment of significance

(with reference to DEWHA 2009) to better understand the extent of any impact on matters of

national environmental significance (i.e. wallum sedge frog) during operational management

outside of the ESA impact areas.

Drainage maintenance is conducted to maintain flow, and to reduce build-up of sediments and

subsequent colonisation by weedy vegetation. There is anecdotal evidence that airside areas

become inundated when drainage flow is compromised, attracting birds which then present a

strike risk.


Management actions to reduce impacts on the frog habitat of these drains have been included

in Table 4 and Appendix 3. In each of the frog habitat drains, sediment and vegetation will only

be removed from half the drain area with the other half of the drain to be left intact to provide

frog habitat. Removal of sediments will involve the use of appropriately sized plant, equipment

and techniques to minimise disturbance on neighbouring habitat areas. Regular management

of vegetation within drainage channel will also be appropriately sized plant and equipment,

including the use of a slasher.

4.3 Weeds

GCAPL undertakes management of weeds to reduce the incidence of declared weeds in the

area covered by the VMP. These works are intended to continue.



Figure 2: Vegetation managementin ESA impact areasQueensland Airports LimitedCommonwealth land operational vegetationmanagement plan

0 200 400100Metres°

Data Sources: QAL, 2015; NSW Department of Planning; Aerial image: Nearmap, 2015ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.



PR1444_MP_OP_Fig2_VegMgt_ESA_R3A4

Vegetation managed at1-2 m below 5% planeIndicative Reduced Level(RL) of runway centre lineIndicative ground level

A

B

C

D

E

Gold CoastAirport boundaryNSW CrownLease

State boundary(QLD/NSW)300 m runwaystrip

ESA impact areaTo be clearedTrimmed at 1-2 mbelow the 5%plane

A

C

B

E

D

549,000

549,000

549,500

549,500

550,000

550,000

550,500

550,500

551,000

551,000

6,883

,500

6,883

,500

6,884

,000

6,884

,000

6,884

,500

6,884

,500

6,885

,000

6,885

,000

6,885

,500

6,885

,500

5% plane within flyover area


5 Management actions

5.1 Overview

These management actions have been formulated to provide guidance on:

• the removal and/or trimming of emergent woody vegetation within frog habitat areas

• an appropriate mowing regime in relation to mitigation of impacts to listed frog

species whist maintaining operational requirements.

• sediment removal and management of vegetation including sedges, saltmarsh and

weeds in drainage lines.

Regular and timely trimming or removal of vegetation (i.e. from frog habitat and ESA impact

areas) assists in reducing negative impacts and damage to frog habitat by enabling hand

removal instead of mechanical removal. Protocols regarding hygiene to prevent the spread of

disease in frogs (see DECC 2008; summarised in Table 4) should be followed during

vegetation management activities.

5.2 Management of vegetation

Management of vegetation in accordance with Table 4 below will minimise impacts on

threatened species. The works are to be carried out by trained bush regenerators and in the

case of drain and mowing maintenance, by appropriately trained personnel. Prior to on-ground

works commencing, relevant personnel must have read and understood the requirements of

this VMP.

Recommended methods for vegetation/trimming removal are outlined below in Table 4. This

approach can be applied to the indicative frog habitat areas shown in Figure 1. Table 4 should

be read in conjunction with Figure 2 (which provides details on trimming limits), Appendix 2

(mowing plan) and Appendix 3 (for details on sediment and vegetation removal from drains).

Removing emergent vegetation in the manner specified below is unlikely to result in adverse

impacts on habitat quality for threatened frogs. Removal of emergent woody vegetation may

also assist in maintaining the sedge swamp habitat that is important for wallum sedge frog

(Lewis and Goldingay 2005). Sedges will be retained and trimmed at 1-2 m below the 5%

plane. If the vegetation within the fly-over area is 0-1 m below the 5% plane but is unlikely to

grow beyond the 5% plane, it will not be trimmed.

Drainage works will involve sediment removal and/or vegetation removal/reduction over

approximately 50% of the drain width, as per Appendix 3. The machinery used should be

appropriate for the amount of sediment and vegetation to be removed, thereby limiting

negative impacts to the remaining frog habitat area.

The national recovery plan for wallum frog species (Meyer et al. 2006) states that threats to

wallum frogs include the use of biocides in weed and mosquito control. To avoid adverse


impacts through the use of herbicide within impact areas B to D, experienced bush

regenerators will use Glyphosate Biactive® or other appropriate herbicides with organic dyes

and will use the cut and paint method of vegetation removal to ensure only minimal amounts

of herbicide is used. This is considered the least likely to affect frogs within these areas.

Where practicable works will occur when dry to further minimise risks to frogs.

Table 4 Vegetation management control plan

Hazard Control Timing Responsibility

Awareness and inductions

Lack of awareness of this VMP

A copy of this plan is to be made available to personnel involved in vegetation maintenance and management activities

Prior to vegetation management activities

GCAPL Environment Manager

Identification of vegetation requiring removal or trimming

Significant species loss/ damage

Survey of relevant airside frog ponds to identify vegetation requiring removal

As required – works to be done prior to vegetation exceeding 5% plane within fly-over area identified in Figure 2.


Vegetation removal or trimming

Impacts to significant species during removal of emergent juvenile woody vegetation

Cut down saplings/juvenile vegetation that may eventually encroach on clearance requirements within the fly-over area. Treat the base of the plant and cut up, leaving it in-situ. Sites to be accessed only by foot, works to commence as early as possible after emergent vegetation is noted.

Trimming limit in ESAs restricted to 1- 2 m below the 5% plane (unless vegetation unlikely to ever grow beyond 5% plane).

Avoid clearing during summer and within two weeks of heavy rain (to minimise impacts on frogs).

The recommended period for removal of saplings is during dry weather, between May and September, annually dependent on growth.

Where larger volumes of vegetation are being removed, a fauna spotter/catcher should check for fauna (especially frogs) prior to removal of trees and accompany bush regenerators during vegetation removal.


Suitably qualified bush regenerator

Hand trimming of low-growing vegetation e.g. sedges in fly-over area within the 300 m runway strip (ESA Impact Areas B-D)

Works to be done between May and September to avoid sedge frog activity periods. Wallum froglets could still be active, but timing would reduce likelihood of harm to sedge frogs.

Annually dependent on growth.



Mowing

Impacts to significant species during mowing

Cleared areas to be mowed in accordance with Appendix 2.

As required to meet specifications on the vegetation management plan (Appendix 2).

Appropriately trained machinery operator/mowing contractor



Mowing in frog habitat areas should be conducted in relatively dry conditions to limit ground disturbance, and to coincide with reduced frog activity periods.

As required to meet specifications on the vegetation management plan (Appendix 2).


Bird attraction increasing strike risk

Consideration of the Gold Coast Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan during mowing.

As required GCAPL Operations and Standards Manager

Prior to drain maintenance in frog habitat

Disturbance of acid sulphate soil

Should sediment removal generate >100m3 of spoil, acid sulfate soil (ASS) testing should be conducted prior to commencement of any excavation works.

If sediment removal will generate <100m3 of spoil, a visual assessment should still be undertaken (noting any sulphurous odour, black soil, iron coloured stains, unusually clear or milky blue-green water).

If ASS are present, an ASS Management Plan may be required prior to commencing works.

Prior to commencing drain maintenance


Suitably qualified environmental professional

ASS specialist

Impacts to cultural heritage sites

Assess the likelihood of cultural heritage sites being present; if drain maintenance must occur in a previously undisturbed area, monitoring and a find procedure should be developed.

Prior to commencing drain maintenance


Suitably qualified cultural heritage professional

During drain maintenance in frog habitat

Impacts to significant species during drain maintenance

Approximately half the area of the drains (or less) to be cleared of sediment and vegetation as per Appendix 31. Remaining vegetation to be left intact. Suitable mechanical equipment for the scale of the planned works should be used.

Grade as necessary to enable safe access and facilitate ongoing operations.

Spoil should be removed immediately (for offsite disposal or on-site reuse) to reduce the risk of frogs and other fauna inhabiting the stockpile.

Removal of sediment/drainage works to be done between May and September to avoid peak frog activity periods and if practical, performed while drains are dry.

Expected frequency dependent on sediment build up and vegetation growth.


Suitably qualified environmental professional


Fauna spotter catcher

1 Or; as determined by a suitably qualified environmental professional to maintain sufficient fauna refuge and avoid environmental harm



Sediment and vegetation removed from within frog habitat areas should be inspected by an ecologist or fauna spotter catcher prior to cartage to determine if any fauna is present. Any fauna present should be returned to the vegetated section of the drain.

Sedimentation and erosion causing impacts to water quality and vegetation health

Install temporary sediment control measures (i.e. a downstream sediment boom).

During drain maintenance Appropriately trained machinery operator/mowing contractor

Site hygiene FSC (Appendix 4) to wear talc-free and non-powdered gloves to handle amphibians between each site.

At all times GCAPL Environment Manager

Fauna spotter catcher

Prior to the beginning of field work and between each site, footwear should be thoroughly cleaned. The soles of boots should be scraped, and then cleaned using an approved disinfecting solution



All equipment should be cleaned, disinfected and dried out completely before entering or re-entering the project area and cleaning solutions should be used away from any water body (e.g. over hard surfaces such as concrete or bitumen). Where possible, disposable equipment should be used to prevent the need for cleaning.



General drain maintenance

Impacts to ecological or cultural heritage values during drain maintenance

Maintain as required, with consideration of ASS, cultural heritage sites and ecological values. Environment manager to input into planning. Appropriately qualified spotter catcher to be present during vegetation removal.

As required GCAPL Environment Manager


Bird attraction increasing strike risk

Consideration of the Gold Coast Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan during drain maintenance.

As required GCAPL Operations and Standards Manager



General weed management

Weed spread Manage weeds according to GCAPL’s ongoing weed management program. When carrying out weed control a combination of cut, scrape and paint and spot-spraying depending on the size of the plant and the area of infestation.

During weed management and restoration



Native fauna injury or death

Growth retardants not to be used to control vegetation in areas adjacent to waterways. Fauna friendly herbicides to be used in all vegetation management activities, such as Glyphosate 22ioactive.

During weed management and restoration



5.3 Plan review

This management plan will be reviewed after five years and updated accordingly. The

management plan will be adaptive and can be updated as required, such as if changes occur

to relevant legislation, if flora or fauna species composition in these habitat areas changes

substantially, if new frog habitat areas develop or if there are significant operational changes.

The VMP is only intended to be resubmitted for approval should amendments to the plan or

changes in environmental values of the site result in a significant increase in the nature and/or

scale of impact.

5.4 Monitoring and reporting

Reporting requirements to summarise works completed are specified in Table 5. The

significant terrestrial fauna monitoring program (Ecosure 2015) will also allow for GCAPL to

monitor effects (positive or negative) on frog populations as a result of these management

actions.

Table 5 Recommended monitoring and reporting schedule


Monitoring

Impacts on frog populations

Frog habitat monitoring. Biennial (or as required)

Environmental consultant

Reporting

VMP not being followed, or VMP losing relevance

A brief annual report summarising vegetation works completed. This may be incorporated into the GCAPL Annual Environment Report.

Annually GCAPL Environment Manager or environmental consultant

Impacts on frog populations

Terrestrial fauna monitoring program report; including assessment of trends in frog populations.

Biennial GCAPL Environment Manager or environmental consultant


5.5 Training and awareness

Table 4 requires that a copy of this plan be made available to personnel involved in vegetation

maintenance and management activities. Prior to working on the airport, staff and contractors

should be made aware of no-go zones, environmentally sensitive areas and clearing

restrictions.

5.6 Emergency response, environmental incidents and complaints

Unintended consequences to native vegetation (particularly within ESAs) or native fauna

species will be managed through GCAPL’s Environmental Management System and/or

revisions of this VMP.

5.6.1 Environmental incident involving a significant fauna or flora species

If the environmental incident results in harm or the potential for harm to a significant species,

the GCAPL Environment Manager will contact a suitably qualified specialist for advice (Table

4).

Table 6 Roles, responsibilities and contacts – relevant to environmental incidents involving significant fauna or flora species

Organisation Role Contact Responsibility

Ecosure Pty Ltd Advise on appropriate management approach

07 5508 2046 Suitably qualified environmental consultancy available to advise on significant fauna or flora issues

Currumbin Sanctuary Wildlife Hospital

Wildlife care for rescued fauna

07 5534 0813 Millers Drive Currumbin, QLD, 4223

Sanctuary to be notified if native wildlife require rescue from the site or treatment for injury

Tweed Valley Wildlife Carers

Wildlife care for rescued fauna

02 6672 4789 Sanctuary to be notified if native wildlife require rescue from the site or treatment for injury

5.6.2 Damage to protected vegetation

Damage to vegetation intended to be retained shall be recorded in a non-conformance report,

with the damage repaired to the satisfaction of the Environmental Manager. Should protected

vegetation be significantly damaged in any way, a suitably qualified ecologist shall assess the

damage and provide a management strategy for repair or revegetation.


References Barry, S (2005) Wetland Management Profile: Coastal and Sub-coastal Wet Heath Swamps.

Published by Queensland Wetlands Program, October 2010.

DECC , 2008, Hygiene protocol for the control of disease in frogs. Information Circular Number

6. Department of Environment and Climate Change Sydney South

DEWHA, 2010, Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened frogs. Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

DSEWPaC 2011, Draft referral guidelines for the vulnerable wallum sedge frog, Litoria olongburensis. Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Ecosure, 2011, Identification of Environmentally Significant Areas on Gold Coast Airport, Report to Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd. Publication Location – West Burleigh

Ecosure, 2014, Significant Species Mapping Update. Final Report to Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, West Burleigh, October 2014

Ecosure, 2013, Significant Terrestrial Fauna Monitoring Annual Report 2012-2013, Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, West Burleigh

Ecosure, 2015, Significant Terrestrial Fauna Monitoring, Report to Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd, Publication Location – Burleigh Heads

Ecosure 2016, Identification of environmentally significant areas on Gold Coast Airport; Report

to GCAPL, Publication Location – Burleigh Heads

GCAPL 2016, Instrument Landing System – Major Development Plan, Prepared by Gold

Coast Airport Pty Ltd

GCAPL 2011, Airport Master Plan, Gold Coast Airport Limited, Coolangatta.

http://goldocastairport.com.au/regulatory/airport-master-plan/. Publically available

Holland, A., Duivenvoorden, LJ and Kinnear, SHW 2012, Naturally acidic waterways: conceptual food webs for better management and understanding of ecological functioning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, vol 22, pp. 836-847

Lewis, B.D. and Goldingay R.L. 2005, Population monitoring of the vulnerable wallum sedge frog (Litoria olongburensis) in north-eastern New South Wales. Australian Journal of Zoology, vol 53, pp.185-194

Meyer, E., Hero, J-M., Shoo, L. and Lewis, B., 2006, National recovery plan for the wallum sedge frog and other wallum-dependent frog species. Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane

OEH 2012-2015, Threatened Species Profiles. Numerous species. NSW Office of

Environment and Heritage, NSW Government, accessed January 2016

PlantNET 2016, New South Wales Flora Online, National Herbarium of NSW, Royal Botanic

Garden, Sydney, available from http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/search/simple.htm,

accessed January 2016

SEWPaC (2013), Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by

Commonwealth agencies. Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2. Prepared by Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Commonwealth of

Australia, Canberra.


Appendix 1 Impact assessment

A referral under Section 68 of the EPBC Act was lodged by Airservices Australia for the ILS

project. The DoE advised DIRD under Section 161A of the EPBC Act that the proposed ILS

project works within Commonwealth airport land is “unlikely to have a significant impact on the

environment and that advice from the Minister for the Environment is not required” (Gold Coast

Airport, 2015).

GCAPL (2016) assessed the likely impacts of construction and operational vegetation

management on the ESA impact areas. The following assessment refers to all other works

contained within the VMP (i.e. operational vegetation management outside of the ESA impact

areas, including mowing and drainage management. It also covers the removal of emergent

woody vegetation that may pose a risk to the obstacle limiting surface).

The location of the proposed works are on Commonwealth land, under the regulatory

framework of the Airports Act 1996 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation

Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The proposed works need to be assessed under two sets of guidelines

under the EPBC Act: Matters of National Environmental Significance – Significant impact

guidelines 1.1 (DEWHA 2009) and Actions on, or impacting upon Commonwealth land, and

actions by Commonwealth agencies – Significant impact guidelines 1.2 (SEWPaC 2013).

These assessments are provided below.

Assessment under Significant impact guidelines 1.1

Would the proposed actions:

• lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a

species?

The GCA population of wallum sedge frogs (Litoria olongburensis) has not to date been

identified as an important population (Meyer et al. 2006), but given the severely fragmented

nature of remaining habitat, it is difficult to discount any viable population as not being

important (DOE 2014). As such, the wallum sedge frog population at the GCA will be treated

as an important population, for the purposes of this assessment, given its persistence

throughout more than 14 years of assessment and monitoring and occasionally relatively large

number of calling individuals (>50 calling individuals, suggesting a population of at least 100

[e.g. Ecosure 2015]).

The proposed works will remove or selectively trim emergent woody vegetation likely to intrude

into operational surfaces (in ESA impact areas B-E). Of greater habitat importance to the

wallum sedge frog is the sedge vegetation present within these same ESAs. This ground cover

vegetation will only be trimmed at 1-2m below the 5% plane (unless vegetation is unlikely to

ever grow beyond the 5% plane). Outside of the ESAs, there are areas of known and potential

wallum sedge frog habitat which are required to be mown for operational function.

Airside drains also provide suitable habitat for wallum sedge frog (i.e. S3 to S12). These may


need to periodically be cleared of built up vegetation and/or sediment (and associated

vegetation) to maintain appropriate drain functionality. Wallum sedge frogs have not been

recorded in the drain at S1 or S2 (to the east of runway 14/32), however drains at S7, 8 and

10 are known to support wallum sedge frogs and these may require vegetation and/or

sediment removal on occasion. When this occurs, the management actions stipulated by this

plan require that at least 50% of the drain vegetation be retained in situ. The remaining

vegetation will provide refuge frog habitat. Guidelines have been set in this plan (See Section

5.2 of main document) to avoid carrying out management within drains during periods of peak

frog activity (i.e. breeding) or when the drain is carrying water.

Woodland is potentially important for frog sheltering during non-breeding dry periods (Holland

et. Al 2012). This type of vegetation occurs behind ponds S6 and S12 and will only be indirectly

impacted by the proposed works, as established woodland areas will not be cleared or

trimmed.

• reduce the area of occupancy of an important population?

The removal of emergent woody vegetation and trimming to reduce the height of sedges and

heath will not reduce the area of occupancy for the wallum sedge frog at the airport, since the

important elements of its habitat (wallum environment and nearby woodland) will be retained.

Mowing may temporarily reduce the potential area of occupancy, however the vegetation

which is most likely to support wallum sedge frogs will be retained at 300 mm height or above

(Appendix 2). The hand removal of woody vegetation, as prescribed in this plan, is expected

to enhance the area of occupancy for legislatively significant species by increasing sedge

dominated vegetation communities, while retaining woodland to the west of the frog ponds.

The drains to be cleared of sediment and vegetation (maximum 50% of the drain width only)

are largely considered low quality habitat for threatened frogs and therefore are unlikely to

reduce the occupancy of the population. The cleared sections of these drains will likely

regenerate between maintenance efforts to continue to provide habitat for listed frog species.

• fragment an existing important population into two or more populations?

The woody vegetation is currently scattered in its distribution throughout the heath/sedge

vegetation. With the proposed manual trimming of the woody vegetation, the existing frog

habitat will not be fragmented by its removal. Sedges will be trimmed and in the case of drains,

only <50% of the vegetated area will be removed, leaving the remaining >50% as frog habitat.

Connections will be maintained. No fragmentation of existing populations into two or more

populations will occur. The cleared sections of drains will likely regenerate between

maintenance efforts to continue to provide habitat for listed frog species. Mowed areas will

also regrow.

• adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species?

Ongoing trimming and removal of woody vegetation within the airside frog habitat areas will

not adversely affect the frog habitat available across GCA. Mowing will mainly occur outside

of known frog habitat (Figure 3 and Appendix 2). Where frog habitat is mown the vegetation

height will be at least 300 mm and the mowing conducted in relatively dry conditions to

minimise disturbance to soil and vegetation from mowing machinery.


The wallum sedge frog prefers sedge swamp habitat over paperbark and woodland habitat

(Lewis and Goldingay 2005). Adjacent woodland vegetation which can be beneficial to the

species (Holland et al. 2012) is to be retained. Removal of vegetation from the drains is

considered low risk as the mowing plan requires only 50% of vegetation within the drain to be

removed vegetation in the majority of these drains is considered to be of low quality for

threatened frogs.

• disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population?

This management plan specifies that any clearing works are to be avoided during summer as

well as within two weeks of any heavy rain event where practicable to minimise impacts on

frogs. The recommended period for removal of saplings is May to September and then during

periods of dry weather. Although wallum sedge frogs can potentially breed all year round,

breeding is triggered by rain, so works should avoid being conducted during the monsoon

parts of the year as well as avoiding the main winter period (when the wallum froglet is most

active).

• modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of

habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline?

The modification works proposed in this management plan are unlikely to affect the availability

or quality of habitat which would cause this species to decline. If the works were not to occur,

the woody vegetation could be expected to gradually increase in abundance, shading out

sedge habitat and thereby decreasing the availability of suitable habitat. Sedges will only be

trimmed at 1-2 m below the 5% plane (unless the species is unlikely to ever grow beyond the

5% plane). Mowing will occur outside of known, high quality habitat (significant frog habitat;

see Appendix 3). While drain vegetation may be removed periodically within good quality

sedge frog habitat, at least 50% will be retained in situ and additional measures taken to

minimise impacts on frog species (Section 5.2). The cleared sections of drains will likely

regenerate between maintenance efforts to continue to provide habitat for listed frog species.

• result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming

established in the vulnerable species’ habitat?

The proposed works will reduce the extent of invasive species such as camphor laurel within

the habitat areas. With the implementation of this management plan, appropriate weed control

measures will be used to remove woody invasive species and declared weeds within the

habitat areas. Weed hygiene protocols will also be implemented to reduce the risk of spreading

weeds into these areas (see Section 5.2 Table 4).

• introduce disease that may cause the species to decline?

Best practice hygiene protocols to minimise the spread of chytrid fungus will be implemented

to prevent the spread of disease (DECC 2008). These will include cleaning of boots between

ponds and making sure the vehicle brought onto the site is cleaned of material from previous

sites (see Section 5.2 Table 4).


• interfere substantially with the recovery of the species?

The proposed works will increase the quality of frog habitat in the long term with the removal

of juvenile woody vegetation which, if left unchecked, would be expected to gradually increase

in size and abundance and shade out sedge habitat. Sedge habitat will only be trimmed. Any

removal of sedges in drains will only occur over <50% of the drainage width and will be limited

to during dry conditions. The drains are not considered to be high quality habitat for threatened

frog species. Currently GCAPL regularly monitors wallum sedge frog populations and aims to

improve or maintain the value of habitat for this species. GCAPL’s existing biennial terrestrial

fauna monitoring program will identify any trends in frog populations as a result of vegetation

management actions, which will enable a prompt response.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed works will not interfere with the recovery

of the wallum sedge frog (National recovery plan for the wallum sedgefrog and other wallum-

dependent frog species (Meyer et. Al 2006)).

Assessment under Significant impact guidelines 1.2 (SEWPaC 2013).

These guidelines are designed to provide a framework for self-assessment of an action on

Commonwealth land or if an action taken by a Commonwealth agency is likely to have a

significant impact on the environment. This is achieved using four steps, which are addressed

in detail below (SEWPaC 2013).

Step 1: Environmental context

The first step in the assessment process is to understand the environment to be impacted.

This is addressed through four key questions, which are addressed for this proposal below:

1) What are the components or features of the environment in the area where the action

will take place?

This VMP relates to Commonwealth airport land leased to GCAPL (Figure 1). The VMP

applies broadly to the entire leased area and provides specific vegetation management

measures in order to maintain operational and functional requirements in habitat for significant

frog species, environmentally significant areas (ESA), access tracks including those through

bushland areas, and drainage channels.

The airside areas to be impacted occur on a diversity of vegetation types, from areas of mown

grass to swamp sclerophyll open forest with a regenerating heath understorey and the margins

of woodland areas with open heath understorey (Gold Coast Airport 2016; Ecosure 2013).

The area is secondary growth vegetation that is subject to periodic inundation and

characterised by acidic, sandy soils. These soils are potential acidic soils that may require

management during any disturbance (See Section 5).

The wallum habitat present on the western parts of the airside (areas A-E on Figure 1 of this

document provides habitat for acid frogs including the Commonwealth listed wallum sedge

frog (Litoria olongburensis) and state listed rocketfrog (Litoria freycineti) and wallum froglet


(Crinia tinnula). Grass trees (Xanthorrhoea sp.) and Melaleuca sp. Currently also provides

habitat for grey-headed flying foxes, several state listed microbat species, common planigale

(Planigale maculata) and small woodland bird species.

The area has evidence of previous use by aboriginals including; middens, stone artefacts and

scatters. This type of culture heritage site is common to coastal heathland across this region

(Barry 2005).

2) Which components or features of the environment are likely to be impacted by the

action?

Mowing and drainage maintenance will primarily occur in areas of native and exotic grasses,

however some sedge species, providing habitat for acid frogs will be impacted. The ILS

project, drainage works and mowing does not extend into woodlands in the western precinct.

3) Is the environment which is likely to be impacted, or are elements of it, sensitive or

vulnerable to impacts, and/or are components of it, rare, endemic, unusual, important

or otherwise valuable?

There are no endemic elements of the environment that will be impacted, the species found

are a subset of those found within typical wallum habitat. The GCA population of wallum sedge

frogs is considered to be an important population (see previous assessment). However, the

area of habitat to be removed is relatively small, with the majority of habitat on the western

side of the runway to be retained. See previous impact assessment for further detail on

potential impacts to wallum sedge frogs.

4) What is the history, current use and condition of the environment which is likely to be

impacted by the action?

The GCA was first used in 1936 as an emergency landing ground for aircraft flying between

Sydney and Brisbane. Prior to this, sandmining, land reclamation and rehaping have modified

the area significantly (see GCAPL [2011] for more details on history).The vegetation within the

area of impact is primarily secondary growth, however there are a number of areas considered

to meet the criteria for threatened ecological communities and there is known habitat for

threatened species.

The area is currently maintained to discourage large birds that pose a high risk of aircraft strike

(see GCA Wildlife Hazard Management Plan), it is also managed to provide habitat for native

species that do not pose a significant strike risk. The northern part of site (Figure 2) is used

for emergency drill procedures and an access road follows the perimeter of the airside area.

Step 2: Potential impacts

There are three main components of the action:- removal of sediment and vegetation to

maintain adequate drainage; mowing; and vegetation trimming as part of ongoing

maintenance. These impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.

Key aspects to determining if the impacts on Commonwealth land or by a Commonwealth

agency are significant (SEWPaC 2013) is to evaluate the intensity, scale, duration and


timing/frequency of these impacts. For this activity, they are summarised below.

Appendix 1 Table 1 Summary of significance of impacts

Intensity Summary

Scale The scale of works are confined to select areas of the leased area of airport, impacts will not extend beyond the local scale.

Intensity Intensity of operation and maintenance activities are low, since they consist of mowing and trimming of trees and removal of small amounts of vegetation in drains.

Duration, timing and frequency The proposed activities will occur periodically and will be concentrated outside of the wet season when potential impacts to fauna will be at their lowest

Step 3: Impact avoidance and mitigation

Section 5 outlines in detail the steps that will be taken to avoid or mitigate potential impacts to

the environmental values of the area. In summary, these measures are:

• Minimise clearing of vegetation, especially in areas of known or potential wallum

sedge frog habitat.

• When drains within areas of frog habitat are required to be cleared, less than 50% of

the drain will be cleared at any one time, to preserve frog habitat

• Mowing in frog habitat areas outside of drains and never-mow areas will be to a

minimum height of 300mm

• Prior to commencement of clearing, a fauna spotter catcher, with specialist skills in

the survey, identification and management of acid frogs will be engaged to carry out

pre-clear surveys (including tadpole surveys) and fauna load reduction. Frog fencing

will be used in strategic areas during construction of the ILS to avoid injury to frogs.

Step 4: Are the impacts significant?

There will be no impacts on; landscapes, soils, coastal landscapes or processes, ocean forms,

ocean processes, ocean life or water resources. It is also highly unlikely that the activity will

generate significant pollutants, chemicals or toxic substances.

There will be impacts on plants, through trimming, mowing and vegetation removal for drain

clearance, however these impacts are expected to be minimal and unlikely to involve any long

term impact to the vegetation communities within the GCA area.

For the reasons summarised in Appendix 1 Table 1, it is not expected that the operational

maintenance requirements of the airport would have a significant impact on Commonwealth

land and therefore a referral is not recommended.


Appendix 2 Vegetation management plan

A A

AA

AA

AA

AA



Figure 3: Vegetation management planQueensland Airports Limited

Commonwealth land operational vegetation management plan

0 200 400100

Metres°

Data Sources: QAL, 2015; Aerial image: Nearmap, 2015ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.



Gold Coast Airport boundaryState boundary (QLD/NSW)

BDP* - managed by CoGC** - 80 mm - mowwithin 3 m of GCAPL boundaryBDP* - managed by CoGC** - 200 mm - oncreek bank and 2 m of batterBDP* - managed by CoGC** - 300 mm -grasslands, mow at 300 mm

PR1444_MP_OP_Fig3_VegMgtPlan_R2A4

Helicopter area - mow 200mmNDB site - mow at 200mmFences and tracks - grassmaintained short and vegetationtrimmed to maintain clearance foraccess and security reasons *Native vegetation - never mowSignificant frog habitat - manageas per VMP and Appendix 3Frog habitat - manage as per VMPand Appendix 3Eastern Grasslands - mow at300mm prior to seeding orreaching 450mm, whichevercomes first #Western Grasslands - mow at300mm prior to seeding orreaching 450mm, whichevercomes first #Grasslands east of the centraldrain - mow at 80mm as requiredRunway strip - mow at 200mmprior to seeding or when reaching300mm, whichever comes first #Central drain - mow at 300mmonce per yearAboriginal stone artefact scattersite - hand mow or ride on mower(no tractor/slasher) as high aspossible up to 300mmVegetation managed at 1-2mbelow 5% plane

* BDP: Betty Diamond Park** CoGC: City of Gold Coast

* In consultation with GCAPL Environment Department# Or depending on conditions and with consideration of wildlife hazard risk


Appendix 3 Frog habitat drain maintenance plan


Appendix 4 Standard FSC methods

1. Reference documents: State and Federal Legislation, Contract Scope of Works, Fauna and Flora Management Plan, Species Management Plan, Mapping and Clearing Plans.

2. Ground truth: Familiarisation of the site and surrounding areas, assess habitat, establish mapping, define retained areas and determine clearing methodology (staging and direction of clearing, recommended machinery).

3. Pre-clear survey of specified clearing area: GPS mark and clearly flag habitat features including Hollow Bearing Trees (HBT’s) and ground features (hollow logs, log and rock piles and dense ground cover). Identify habitat areas of potentially high fauna abundance for suitable trapping locations. Map identified information for distribution to relevant personnel involved with the clearing process.

4. Fauna reduction trapping and relocation: a minimum of 4 days trapping in suitable habitat areas to reduce

the number of animals likely to be encountered during the clearing process.

6B. Woodland 6A. Grassland and Low Regrowth

B2 Recommended Clearing Procedure: Excavator with tree grab

(preferred) - FSC will monitor the disturbance area walking with the machine to search for wildlife that may still be present, keeping in communication with the machine operator who will inform the FSC if they see any animals in the path of the machine. Flagged ground structures and HBT’s must be avoided and protected during initial clearing and vegetation windrowed to allow access with Elevating Work

B3. Clearing of Ground Features: Refer to A3

A1. Pre-clear walk through: FSC checks immediate area for wildlife and opportunistically captures and relocates discovered animals.

A3. Clearing of Ground Features: Excavator: Significant ground features should be avoided by the bulldozer and dismantled utilising an excavator with grab attachment under supervision of the FSC.

A2. Recommended Clearing Procedure: Bulldozer: FSC will monitor the disturbance area walking with the machine to search for wildlife that may still be present, keeping in communication with the machine operator who will inform the FSC if they see any animals in the path of the machine. Flagged ground features must be avoided and protected during initial clearing.

5. Vegetation Clearing: A FSC must be present for any vegetation removal or potential habitat disturbance including disposal of cleared vegetation debris piles (mulching). Habitat features (HBT’s and significant ground features) require special consideration during the clearing process and must be inspected and wildlife removed before clearing of the feature takes place.

B4. Clearing of Habitat Trees: Once access has been achieved during initial clearing, HBT’s will be inspected by FSC for wildlife. After inspection and wildlife removal, the HBT may be cleared by any means. HBT’s inaccessible to EWP can be lowered gently for FSC inspection utilising an excavator with rotating grab attachment. Refer to SOP for safe working at heights procedure.

6. Fauna and Habitat Relocation: A relocation site must be defined before clearing commences or any wildlife is captured. Site selection will be based on similarity in habitat structure and type, fauna requirements and proximity to the clearing site. Nest boxes will be erected in trees in the relocation site prior to translocation of displaced arboreal (tree dwelling) wildlife. Where necessary the relocation site will be enhanced with habitat features salvaged during the clearing process.

B1. Pre-clear walk through: Refer to A1

© Ecosure Proprietary Limited 2016 Commercial in confidence. The information contained in this document produced by Ecosure Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Ecosure Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this documents, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Ecosure Pty Ltd.

Revision History

Revision No.

Revision date

Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

00 09/02/2016 Draft Vegetation Management Plan for Airside Operations Commonwealth land

Trudy Thompson, Catchment Consultant

Elvira Lanham, Principal Ecologist

Beth Kramer, Senior Environmental Scientist

01 8/03/2016 Incorporating comments from Queensland Airports Limited

Jess Baglin, Senior Environmental Scientist


02 24/05/2016 Incorporating comments from GCAPL and the AEO



03 27/05/2016 Incorporating comments from GCAPL

Nicola Catanzariti, Ecologist








Distribution List

Copy # Date Type Issued to Name

1 05/07/2016 Electronic Gold Coast Airport Pty Ltd Norbert Benton

2 05/07/2016 Electronic Queensland Airports Limited Melissa Landriscina

3 05/07/2016 Electronic Ecosure Administration

Citation: Ecosure (2016), Vegetation Management for Airside Operations on Commonwealth Land, Report to Queensland Airports Limited, Burleigh Heads

Report compiled by Ecosure Pty Ltd

ABN: 63 106 067 976

[email protected] www.ecosure.com.au

PR1444-RE.Vegetation Management Plan Airside Operations (Commonwealth).FI.R2

Adelaide

PO Box 145

Pooraka SA 5095

P 1300 112 021

M 0407 295 766

Brisbane

PO Box 675

Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

P 07 3606 1030

Gold Coast

PO Box 404

West Burleigh QLD 4219

P 07 5508 2046

F 07 5508 2544

Rockhampton

PO Box 235

Rockhampton QLD 4700

P 07 4994 1000

F 07 4994 1012

Sydney

PO Box 880

Surry Hills NSW 2010

P 1300 112 021

commonwealth land operational vegetation management plan · management plan (cemp) for the ils...

Documents