Report for Beveridge Williams - latrobe.vic.gov.au · The Green and Golden Bell Frog is also a...

Report for Beveridge Williams

Targeted Surveys for the endangered Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) and Green & Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) at 101 Cairnbrook Road, Glengarry

January 2017

Tania Brooker & William Doherty

i Indigenous Design Environmental Management

Citation

Brooker, T. & Doherty, W. (2017), Targeted surveys for the endangered Growling Grass Frog (Litoria

raniformis) and Green & Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) at 101 Cairnbrook Road, Glengarry.

Indigenous Design Environmental Management, Research, Victoria.

Indigenous Design Environmental Management

1635 Main Road, Research

www.iddesign.com.au

Disclaimer

Indigenous Design Environmental Management and any associated contractors engaged for this

project have endeavoured to provide an accurate and current document. However, this document is

not guaranteed to be without flaw or omissions. The information and recommendations provided

are current at the time of writing but do not account for any changes in circumstances after the time

of publication. Indigenous Design Environmental Management accepts no liability for any error, loss

or other consequence caused or arising from using the information provided within this report.

ii Indigenous Design Environmental Management

Acknowledgements

Nicole Stow – Town Planner, Beveridge Williams

Ben Imbery – Senior Consultant, Indigenous Design Environmental Management

Aaron Jenkins – Aquatic Ecologist, Aquatica Environmental Pty Ltd

Version Control

Status Date Revision type Reviewed by Amended by

Draft 1.1 27/01/2017 First draft, first review T.Brooker T.Brooker

Draft 1.2 30/01/2017 First draft, second review N. Noy W. Doherty

Final 30/01/2017 Final released to client

Targeted frog surveys, 101 Cairnbrook Road, Glengarry | January, 2017

3 Indigenous Design Environmental Management

Contents

Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Species Information ................................................................................................................ 5

1.3 Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 6

2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Data and Literature Review .................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Habitat Assessment ................................................................................................................ 8

2.3 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Limitations............................................................................................................................... 9

3 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Habitat Description ............................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Habitat Assessment .............................................................................................................. 10

3.3 Passive Surveys ..................................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Active Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.4.1 Diurnal survey results ................................................................................................... 13

3.4.2 Nocturnal Survey Results .............................................................................................. 13

4 Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................... 16

References ............................................................................................................................................ 17

Photos ................................................................................................................................................... 18

Maps ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

Map 1 – Growling Grass Frog VBA Records within 20km radius of 101 Cairnbrook Road, Glengarry

.......................................................................................................................................................... 22

Map 2 – Targeted Frog Survey Locations at 101 Cairnbrook Road, Glengarry ................................. 23



Executive Summary

Indigenous Design Environmental Management was engaged by Beveridge Williams to undertake a

targeted survey and habitat assessment for Litoria raniformis (Growling Grass-frog) and Litoria aurea

(Green and Golden Bell Frog) at the proposed development site of 101 Cairnbrook Road in

Glengarry.

This assessment follows an initial broadly-scoped Ecological Assessment (Imbery, 2016) which

assessed the site for the presence of rare or threatened flora and fauna and evaluated the

implications on native vegetation associated with the proposed development. This assessment also

looked at the current habitats present on site and assessed them against the requirements of rare or

threatened flora and fauna that may occur in the area. Further detail was recommended be

obtained for several threatened species including the Growling Grass Frog and the Green and Golden

Bell Frog to determine the presence or absence of these species at the site.

Four nocturnal active listening and spotlighting surveys were undertaken in habitat considered to be

suitable for these threatened frog species. Diurnal passive listening and searching were also

undertaken on two occasions. Surveys were conducted within the known breeding / calling period

(October – March) and during weather conditions conducive to calling and activity of these species.

Despite suitable timing, weather conditions and the presence of other species of calling frogs, the

nocturnal surveys for the Growling Grass Frog and Green and Golden Bell Frog failed to detect these

species at the site. Whilst an assessment determined that the habitat on site was found to be

suitable for these species, it is considered less than ideal and therefore unlikely to support significant

populations of these species given current and past management regimes.

Nocturnal surveying identified frogs in Eaglehawk Creek to the east and south of the development

site. Best practice stormwater management design and construction should be incorporated into the

development of this site to ensure there are no negative impacts on this downstream waterway that

currently provides identified frog habitat.

The construction of drainage necessary for this development could also be constructed to reproduce

ideal frog habitat and this coupled with minimising impacts on the Eaglehawk Creek would allow the

site and surrounds to cater for the species in the case that it does persist in the local area

undetected.



1 Introduction

1.1 Project Background

Indigenous Design Environmental Management has been commissioned by Beveridge Williams to

undertake an assessment of habitat potential and conduct targeted surveys for Litoria raniformis

(Growling Grass Frog) and Litoria aurea (Green and Golden Bell Frog) in and around the proposed

development site at 101 Cairnbrook Road in Glengarry.

The Growling Grass Frog is listed as nationally ‘vulnerable’ under the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 (DEE, 2016a). In addition to its national listing, the

Growling Grass Frog is listed as a threatened species under the Victorian State Flora and Fauna

Guarantee (FFG) Act 1988 (DELWP, 2016) and 'endangered' by the State advisory list (DEPI, 2014).

The Green and Golden Bell Frog is also listed as nationally ‘vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act 1999

(DEE, 2016a). In Victoria, it is listed as ‘vulnerable’ by the State advisory list (DEPI, 2014) though it

has no legislative protection under the Victorian FFG Act 1988 (DELWP, 2016).

This survey forms part of a larger ecological assessment (Imbery, 2016) that has assessed the net

gain requirements associated with unavoidable native vegetation removal to facilitate the

development of 101 Cairnbrook Road.

The scope of this assessment and survey is:

• Assess the site’s habitat for potential to host the Growling Grass Frog and Green and Golden

Bell Frog; and

• Determine whether the Growling Grass Frog and/or Green and Golden Bell Frog are present

through targeted nocturnal surveys.

The outcomes of this study are to be used by Beveridge Williams and planning authorities to

determine the effects (if any) that the proposed development may have on any potential resident

Growling Grass Frog and/or Green and Golden Bell Frog or significant habitat.

1.2 Species Information

The Growling Grass Frog is a member of the Hylidae family.

‘The Growling Grass Frog is one of the largest frog species in Australia. It reaches up to 104 mm in

length, with females usually larger (60-104 mm) than males (55-65mm). Growling Grass Frogs vary in

colour and pattern but in general are olive to bright emerald green, with irregular gold, brown, black

or bronze spotting. Their backs are warty and usually have a pale green mid-dorsal stripe. The

eardrum is pronounced. A cream or yellow stripe underlined by a dark brown stripe runs from the

nostril, through the eye, above the inner ear and down the sides of the body to the groin as a dorso-

lateral fold. On their bellies, Growling Grass Frogs are white and coarsely granular. During the

breeding season males may become yellow or dark grey/black under the throat. The groin and

posterior of the thighs are turquoise blue’



(Barker and Grigg 1977; Robinson 1993; Barker et al. 1995; Tyler 1978; Tyler & Barrie 1996; DEC NSW

2005; cited in DEE, 2016b)

The Growling Grass Frog is considered to have a natural range encompassing south-eastern

mainland Australia and most of Tasmania. The species typically occupies slow moving or still waters

of creeks, dams or lagoons and is often found amongst emergent vegetation of species such as

Phragmites australis (Common Reed), Typha spp. (Bull-rushes) and Eleocharis spp. (Spike-rushes)

within and surrounding the water (DEC NSW, 2005).

The Green and Golden Bell Frog is also a member of the Hylidae family.

‘The Green and Golden Bell Frog is a large dull olive to bright emerald-green frog reaching 85 mm in

length). The frog has a number of distinguishable features which aid its identification; the dorsum

(back) of the frog has large irregular blotches ranging from brown to rich golden-bronze and has a

yellowish stripe running from behind the eye to the lower back which is bordered by a black stripe

that can extend through the eye to the nostrils. The hind toes of the frog are almost fully webbed but

the fingers of the front feet lack webbing. The frog also has a distinct tympanum (ear membrane).’

(Cogger 2000; cited in DEE, 2016c)

The Green and Golden Bell Frog has a range on the eastern coast, encompassing northern New

South Wales through to north-eastern Victoria extending inland into the southern and central

tablelands. This habitat preference for the Green and Golden Bell Frog is not well understood and

difficult to define. The species has been detected utilising a wide range of water bodies including

natural and man-made structures. Fast flowing streams appear to be one of the few water bodies

not utilised. Features that appear to make habitat more likely to be occupied include shallow, still or

slow flowing water bodies that are unpolluted and without heavy shading. Associated terrestrial

habitat includes extensive grassy areas and an abundance of shelter sites such as rocks, logs and

tussock vegetation.

A search of the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DELWP, 2016a) shows that the most recent Growling

Grass Frog record within 20km of the survey site was located in Flynn, approximately 12.5km away

and dates to 1973. Map 1 displays the Victorian records of the Growling Grass Frog taken from

DELWP’s Victorian Biodiversity Atlas within 20km of Glengarry (DELWP, 2016a). No records exist for

the Green & Golden Bell Frog within 20kms of the site, with the closest being 50kms to the East,

recorded in 2014 (DELWP, 2016a).

1.3 Study Area

The proposed development site, 101 Cairnbrook Road at Glengarry, is an approximate 18 hectare

site bounded by the Gippsland Plains Rail Trail (GPRT) and Glengarry township in the west,

Cairnbrook Rd to the south and farmland to the north and east (see Figure 1).

Glengarry is approximately 170km from Melbourne’s CBD. The site is located within the Latrobe City

Council, the Gippsland Plains bioregion and within the West Gippsland Catchment Authority. The

property is predominantly used for agriculture and is moderately grazed. The vegetation is mostly

composed of open modified pasture with little native vegetation present.



The site is gently undulating with a slight fall to the south. A shallow drain flows in a southerly

direction through the site and a pair of farm dams, originating via a large constructed table drain

north of the study area. The drain exits the property at the southern boundary until it converges

with Eaglehawk Creek and then the Latrobe River.

Figure 1: General landmarks and features of the site



2 Methodology

2.1 Data and Literature Review

Targeted surveys were undertaken within the seasonal and environmental constraints described in

Heard et al, 2008. Survey methodology was followed according to that detailed in the Species

Profile and Threats Database (DEE, 2016b) and the Threatened Frog Survey Guidelines (DEWHA,

2010).

2.2 Habitat Assessment

An assessment of the site’s potential to provide habitat for the Growling Grass Frog and Green and

Golden Bell Frog was undertaken in early December as the first stage of this survey to determine

whether nocturnal call play-back surveys would be necessary. All waterbodies and their surrounds

were inspected for the presence of habitat matching the requirements for both frog species.

Combined with site observations, aerial imagery and the DSE’s Biodiversity Interactive Map (DSE,

2009), water-bodies outside of the study site and the site’s connectivity with these was also

assessed.

Assessment of potential habitat was undertaken in line with the guidelines set out by DEWHA

(2010).

2.3 Field Survey

Targeted active and passive call surveys for the Growling Grass Frog and Green and Golden Bell Frog

were undertaken within the seasonal and environmental constraints described by Heard et al (2008)

and detailed in DEWHA (2010). Active listening refers to when the frogs are being stimulated to

respond to pre-recorded species specific calls. Passive listening describes the approach undertaken

during the habitat surveys where incidental frog calls were heard.

These survey constraints include the following:

• Within the calling/breeding season for the species i.e. (October to March);

• Daytime air temperatures greater than 15ºC, with moderate to no wind; and

• Night time air temperatures greater than 12ºC, with moderate to no wind.

The locations for these surveys was determined during the habitat assessment and included the

inspection of the waterbodies and drainage lines identified by the Ecological Assessment (Imbery,

2016) to determine suitable areas. 5 locations were identified (see Photos 1 - 5).

Active listening was undertaken with the use of a small compact disc player which was used to play a

pre-recorded loop of the Growling Grass Frog and the Green and Golden Bell Frog’s call at the

predetermined locations. The survey site is displayed in Map 2. One observer was located either side



of the CD player. Each observer then dispersed within the survey area to a distance where the pre-

recorded call was almost inaudible to listen for return calls.

Spotlighting was also undertaken intermittently during the nocturnal survey within areas of semi-

aquatic vegetation and still water to inspect for movement or eye-shine of adult frogs.

All water bodies at the site were surveyed using the active call method and spotlighting. Each

potential site was surveyed for 10 minutes.

Diurnal surveys were also undertaken to search for frogs during daylight hours. This included passive

listening where incidental frog calls were recorded and active searching involving the inspection of

waterside vegetation for basking frogs and dip netting of the large dam for frog tadpoles.

2.4 Limitations

Surveys were undertaken within the recommended season and weather conditions (Heard et al

2008) to maximise the potential of detecting the species if present. The breeding season of frogs,

however, can be variable and dependant on numerous environmental factors such as rainfall,

temperature and other local influences. It is therefore possible that if a local individual or population

of the species exists, it may not be detectable (by calling) at a particular given time within the

breeding season (October to March).



3 Results

3.1 Habitat Description

‘A shallow drain flows in a southerly direction through the site and a pair of farm dams, originating

via a large constructed table drain north of the study area. The drain exits the property at the

southern boundary until it converges with Eaglehawk Creek and then the Latrobe River.

The drains were all found to be dry, with indication of recent drying in sections of the drains. These

drains were clearly ephemeral suggesting they could only provide for dispersal habitat.

The pair of farm dams are located on the central western border and are vegetated with a range of

inundated terrestrial, emergent and aquatic species, some of which indicated permanent or near-

permanent water. Stock have access to all sides of the dams and there is significant erosion, habitat

damage and reduced water quality.

The southern dam was mostly open with fringing emergent and aquatic vegetation including Ottelia

ovalifolia (Swamp Lily), Cyperus sp. (Sedge), Juncus sp. (Rush), Lemna sp. (Duckweed) and

filamentous algae indicative of high nutrient levels. The northern dam was heavily chocked with

Typha sp. (Cumbungi).’

(Jenkin, 2016)

3.2 Habitat Assessment

The assessment of Growling Grass Frog habitat, detailed in Table 1, indicates that the proposed

Cairnbrook Road development contains habitat for the species, connects to other waterbodies and is

within its current range. There is therefore the potential for this species to occur at this site.

The assessment of Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat, detailed in Table 2, indicates that the

development site contains habitat for the species, connects to other waterbodies but is outside of its

current known range. The species is therefore unlikely to occur at this site.

Additionally, the presence of other frog species at the site indicates that although the site is isolated

and somewhat degraded as frog habitat, it is tolerable to frogs.



Table 1 - Results of Growling Grass Frog habitat assessment

Assessment Question Growling Grass Frog

Is the site within the expected range of the species? Yes

Are there records of the species within the local area/catchment? Yes

Does the site support potentially suitable habitat for the species?

Yes – one constructed

dam with moderate

amounts of emergent

vegetation with an

ephemeral drainage

channel.

Are there other frog species on site? If so, what species?

Yes – Peron’s Tree

Frog, Verreaux’s Tree

Frog and Common

Froglet

What vegetation occurs on and around the site?

Grazed paddocks,

sparse semi-aquatic

riparian vegetation,

tall rushes in northern

dam.

How close is the nearest water body? On –site

How many water bodies occur within 10 km? 20+

Is there habitat connectivity (terrestrial or aquatic) between water

bodies on site, and between on-site water bodies and those on

neighbouring sites?

No – The ephemeral

drainage channel is

grazed and disturbed

Is there any evidence of disturbance on site?

Yes - some grazing of

dam and surrounding

paddocks.

Has this habitat been modified as a result of previous development

actions? Yes

Are water bodies infested with Mosquito Fish or other predatory

species that may prey on the species?

Yes – Goldfish were

identified in the dam.

Are there other threats to the species occurring on site? No obvious signs of

other threats



Table 2 - Results of Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat assessment

Assessment Question Green and Golden Bell

Frog

Is the site within the expected range of the species? No

Are there records of the species within the local area/catchment? Yes

Does the site support potentially suitable habitat for the species?

Yes – one constructed

dam with moderate

amounts of emergent

vegetation with an

ephemeral drainage

channel.

Are there other frog species on site? If so, what species?

Yes – Peron’s Tree

Frog, Verreaux’s Tree

Frog and Common

Froglet

What vegetation occurs on and around the site?

Grazed paddocks,

sparse semi-aquatic

riparian vegetation,

tall rushes in northern

dam.

How close is the nearest water body? On –site

How many water bodies occur within 10 km? 20+

Is there habitat connectivity (terrestrial or aquatic) between water

bodies on site, and between on-site water bodies and those on

neighbouring sites?

No – The ephemeral

drainage channel is

grazed and disturbed

Is there any evidence of disturbance on site?

Yes - some grazing of

dam and surrounding

paddocks.

Has this habitat been modified as a result of previous development

actions? Yes

Are water bodies infested with Mosquito Fish or other predatory

species that may prey on the species?

Yes – Goldfish were

identified in the dam.

Are there other threats to the species occurring on site? No obvious signs of

other threats



3.3 Passive Surveys

Passive surveying was conducted on two occasions; during the initial habitat assessment on 1st

of

December and in the afternoon of the 9th

of December. These survey attempts involved listening for

frog calls for 10 minutes (without any stimulation such as pre-recorded calls) at each of the five

prospective sites. No frogs were observed basking amongst emergent aquatic vegetation or on

embankments nor heard during these surveys.

3.4 Active Surveys

Four nocturnal active listening surveys were undertaken as per the methodology described in

Section 3.

3.4.1 Diurnal survey results

As part of the aquatic assessment undertaken by Aquatica Environmental (Jenkins, 2016), dip netting

of the dam system contained within the site was undertaken on the 1st

of December 2016. No frog

tadpoles or adults were captured during this survey (Jenkins, 2016).

3.4.2 Nocturnal Survey Results

Three nocturnal surveys were undertaken in December 2016 on the 1st

, 12th

and 19th

. The fourth

nocturnal survey was undertaken on the 4th

of January, 2017. The surveys began at dusk at

approximately 9:00 pm.

Conditions for the survey were favourable and within the constraints described by DEWHA (2010).

The temperature for the duration of the survey was between 15.0 and 22.7 degrees Celsius. Wind

speeds were low, ranging from 6 to 24 km/h with gusts up to 33 km/h.

Table 3 details the weather conditions at the time of the survey recorded at the Latrobe Valley

airport weather station approximately 13km south-west of the study site.

Table 3 - Weather conditions recorded at Latrobe Valley Airport on frog survey nights (BOM, 2017)

Date/Time Temp Dew Rel

Wind

Press Rain

EDT °C Point Hum QNH since 9 am

% Dir

Spd Gust hPa mm

km/h km/h

1/12/2016

10:30pm 15 12.5 85 ENE 6 9 1007.4 0

01/12/16

10:00pm 15.4 12.7 84 NE 9 13 1007.4 0

01/12/2016

09:30pm 16.4 13.1 81 NE 11 17 1007.1 0

01/12/16

09:00pm 17 13.1 78 ENE 9 15 1007 0



Date/Time Temp Dew Rel

Wind

Press Rain

EDT °C Point Hum QNH since 9 am

% Dir

Spd Gust hPa mm

km/h km/h

12/12/16

10:30pm 18.7 11.5 63 E 13 17 1015.7 0

12/12/16

10:00pm 19 11.8 63 ENE 15 20 1015.9 0

12/12/16

09:30pm 20 12 60 ENE 20 30 1015.4 0

12/12/16

09:00pm 20.8 13 61 NE 24 33 1015.2 0

19/12/16

10:30pm 18.7 10.3 58 NE 11 13 1007.6 0

19/12/16

10:00pm 20.1 9.9 52 ENE 11 13 1008.3 0

19/12/16

9:30pm 20.6 10.1 51 NE 13 17 1007.9 0

19/12/16

9:00pm 22.7 10.2 45 ENE 13 19 1007.8 0

04/1/17

10:30pm 18.9 15 78 ENE 13 19 1017.1 0

04/1/17

10:00pm 19.2 14.9 76 E 13 20 1017.2 0

04/1/17

9:30pm 20.1 15.1 73 E 13 22 1017.2 0

04/1/17

9:00pm 20.9 15 69 E 13 19 1017.2 0

No Growling Grass Frogs or Green and Golden Bell Frogs were detected during these surveys. Three

non-target species: Litoria peronii (Peron’s Tree Frog), Litoria verreauxi (Verreaux’s Tree Frog) and

Crinia signifera (Common Froglet) were incidentally recorded during the survey, however none of

these species are listed by State or Commonwealth legislation as being rare or threatened. Peron’s

Tree Frogs are considered to be of regional significance as they are located at the edge of their

known range.

The first area surveyed was the creek line of Eaglehawk Creek to the south-east of the property.

Three frog species: Peron’s Tree Frog (during all 4 survey efforts), Verreaux’s Tree Frog (during 3

survey efforts) and the Common Froglet (during 1 survey effort) were heard calling during the

playback particularly to the south of the creek, though occasionally frogs were heard to the north of

the site. No frogs were discovered during spotlight searches of the creek line.



The second area surveyed was the ephemeral drainage channel in the south west of the property.

Peron’s Tree Frogs were heard calling on site during the first survey effort however during the later

survey efforts Peron’s Tree Frogs (all 3 remaining surveys) and Verreaux’s Tree Frogs (1 survey) were

heard calling from Eaglehawk Creek. No frogs were discovered during spotlight searches of the

drainage channel, which contained standing water on only the last survey night.

The drainage channel in the south of the GPRT was the third area surveyed. Peron’s Tree Frogs (2

surveys), Verreaux’s Tree Frogs (2 surveys) and the Common Froglet (1 survey) were heard calling

from the east of the site in the direction of Eaglehawk Creek. No frogs were discovered during

spotlight searches of the GPRT drains, which again only contained standing water on the last survey

night.

The on-site dam was the fourth area to be surveyed. Verreaux’s Tree Frogs (3 surveys), Peron’s Tree

Frog’s (2 surveys) and the Common Froglet (1 survey) were heard calling from the direction of

Eaglehawk Creek. Two Verreaux’s Tree Frog individuals were discovered during spotlight searches of

the dam even though they did not call during the playback session. Photos were taken (see Photo 6)

and independently verified as Verraux’s Tree Frog by a zoologist.

The final area surveyed was a small body of still water on the GPRT adjacent to the north west

corner of the property. Frogs were heard during playback sessions in 3 survey efforts. Peron’s Tree

Frogs were heard calling from further north along the GPRT whilst Verreaux’s Tree Frogs and the

Common Froglet were heard calling from the direction of Eaglehawk Creek. No frogs were

discovered during spotlight searches of this still water.

The fact that there were frogs calling at the time of the study, two species of which are from the

same genus as the target species, indicates that conditions for the surveys were favourable.



4 Conclusion and Recommendations

Assessments detailed in Table 1 and Table 2 concluded that habitat at Cairnbrook Road is suitable -

although lacking in some components - for both the Growling Grass Frog and Green and Golden Bell

Frogs in line with DEWHA (2010).

Targeted call play-back and spotlighting surveys failed to locate any populations or individuals of

Growling Grass Frogs or Green and Golden Bell Frogs at the proposed Cairnbrook Road development

despite favourable survey conditions. Table 4 summarises the outcomes of assessments and surveys

for the habitat and presence of the Growling Grass Frog and Green and Golden Bell Frog at

Cairnbrook Road.

Table 4 - Summary of assessment and survey outcomes

Litoria raniformis (Growling Grass Frog) &

Litoria aurea (Green and Golden Bell Frog)

Suitable Habitat Species Presence

YES NO

It is considered unlikely that the proposed development at Cairnbrook Road will have any impacts

upon important habitat or populations of the Growling Grass Frog or Green and

Golden Bell Frog. No records of the Green and Golden Bell Frog exist within the local area and whilst

a lack of recent (post 1973) records of the Growling Grass Frog in the local region may indicate that

the species is locally extinct, a precautionary approach should be followed for all actions that may

potentially impact on suitable habitat. The mobile nature of frogs means their presence in future

cannot be ruled out.

Surveys detected the presence of frogs within the dam (sighted) and Eaglehawk Creek (heard). Of

the two locations, Eaglehawk Creek represents the best habitat for frogs including the Growling

Grass Frog. Historical records also suggest that the climatic and environmental conditions of the area

were once consistent with the Growling Grass Frog’s requirements. It is therefore important that

current water quality be maintained and design and construction for the development incorporate

best stormwater management practices to ensure there are no negative impacts on this

downstream waterway.

The construction of drainage necessary for this development could also be constructed to reproduce

ideal frog habitat and this coupled with minimising impacts on the Eaglehawk Creek would allow the

site and surrounds to cater for the species in the case that it does persist in the local area

undetected.



References

BoM. (2017). Latest Weather Observations for Latrobe Valley. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from

Australian Govenment Bureau of Meterology:

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDV60801/IDV60801.94891.shtml

DEC. (2005). Southern Bell Frog (Litoria raniformis) Draft Recovery Plan. Dubbo: New South Wales

Government Department of Environment and Conservation.

DEE. (2016a). EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna. Retrieved August 1, 2016 from Commonwealth

Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-

bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna

DEE. (2016c). Litoria aurea - Species Profile and Threats Database. Retrieved August 1, 2016 from

Department of Environment and Energy, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-

bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1870

DEE. (2016b). Litoria raniformis - Species Profile and Threats Database. Retrieved August 1, 2016

from Department of Environment and Energy, Canberra.

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1828

DELWP. (2016). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act - Listed Taxa. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from

Victorian Government Department of Environment:, Land, Water and Planning.

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/364593/201612-FFG-

Threatened-list.pdf

DELWP. (2016a). Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and

Environment.

DEPI. (2014). Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria. Retrieved January 5, 2017,

from Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industry:

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/210439/Advisory-List-of-

Threatened-Vertebrate-Fauna_FINAL-2013.pdf

DEWHA. (2010). Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened frogs. Canberra: Commonwealth

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

Heard, et al (2008). Microhabitat Preferences of the Endangered Growling Grass Frog Litoria

raniformis in Southern Victoria.

Imbery, B. (2016). Ecological Assessment of 101 Cairnbrook Road, Glengarry. Indigenous Design Land

Management, Research, Victoria.

Jenkin, A. (2016). Glengarry Targeted Dwarf Galaxias Survey. Aquatica Environmental, Lower Plenty,

Victoria.



Photos

Photo 1: Site 2 – Drainage in the south of the property

Photo 2: Site 3 – on the GPRT looking south towards the survey site



Photo 3: Site 4 – farm dam within the subject site.

Photo 5: Site 5 – small dam on the GPRT.



Photo 5 – A Litoria verrauxii (Verraux’s Tree Frog) photographed in the dam at survey point 4 on the 04/01/2017.



Maps

Maps commence on the next page



Map 1 – Growling Grass Frog VBA Records within 20km radius of 101 Cairnbrook Road, Glengarry



Map 2 – Targeted Frog Survey Locations at 101 Cairnbrook Road, Glengarry

INDIGENOUS DESIGN

1635 Main Rd, Research, VIC, 3095 P (03) 9437 0555

Melbourne | Morwell | Wonthaggi E [email protected]

ABN: 64 081 044 144 www.iddesign.com.au

Report for Beveridge Williams - latrobe.vic.gov.au · The Green and Golden Bell Frog is also a...

Documents

Transcript of Report for Beveridge Williams - latrobe.vic.gov.au · The Green and Golden Bell Frog is also a...