airservices australia - department of the environment · airservices australia launceston airport...

Airservices Australia Launceston Airport

Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) Survey 2015

May 2015

GHD | Report for Airservices Australia - Launceston Airport, 32/17554 | i

Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Growling Grass Frog background .................................................................................... 3 1.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 4

2. Methods .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Desktop Research ........................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Field Assessment ............................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Identification .................................................................................................................... 6

3. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Desktop Results .............................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Field Investigations .......................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Description of survey sites as GGF habitat ...................................................................... 8

4. Survey Results ........................................................................................................................ 14

5. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 15 5.1 FTA Pond habitat .......................................................................................................... 15 5.2 GGF Regional Distribution ............................................................................................. 15

6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 16

7. References ............................................................................................................................. 17

Table index Table 1 Weather Conditions for Survey Nights at 9:00 pm ................................................................... 7

Table 2 Survey results....................................................................................................................... 14

Figure index Figure 1: FTA Pond ............................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2: Qantas hanger drainage line................................................................................................. 8

Figure 3: Dam 1 ................................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 4: Dam 2 ................................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 5: Dam 3 ................................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 6: Dam 4 ................................................................................................................................ 11

Figure 7: Seepage line ...................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 8: Springvale Creek, streamside zone .................................................................................... 12

ii | GHD | Report for Airservices Australia - Launceston Airport, 32/17554

Figure 9: Map of sample sites............................................................................................................ 13

Appendices Appendix A - (Field Data Sheets)

Appendix B GGF (Litoria raniformis) specimens observed during survey

GHD | Report for Airservices Australia - Launceston Airport, 32/17554

1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Study

The primary purpose of this study was to conduct a survey of the species Litoria raniformis (Growling Grass Frog), commonly referred to as the Green and Gold Frog in Tasmania (GGF), on behalf of Airservices Australia (Airservices) for some of its facilities at Launceston Airport (the Airport). Surveys are undertaken annually to fulfil the monitoring requirements of Airservices’ Commonwealth Part 13 Wildlife Permit (E2010-0042) to incidentally injure or kill the species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Airservices established the Growling Grass Frog Monitoring Program to meet Commonwealth monitoring requirements.

The current survey was undertaken at the decommissioned Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Drill Grounds (ARFFDG) and several surrounding sites. The ARFFDG contains a wastewater retention pond that has historically contained numbers of GGF. The secondary aim of the survey was to determine the significance of this habitat to the local GGF population by surveying adjacent offsite areas.

To meet the above requirements, GHD undertook the following:

1. Survey of a GGF reference site to demonstrate that the survey was conducted in suitable seasonal conditions for GGF;

2. Survey of GGF site(s) on-Airport to meet monitoring requirements and to establish the suitability of the surveyed sites as breeding and/or refuge habitat for the GGF;

3. Survey and habitat assessment of GGF sites off-Airport to provide broader context for on-Airport findings; and

4. Production of a final report to document the findings and conclusions.

1.2 Growling Grass Frog background

The GGF is a large (up to 104 mm), long-legged frog, green to golden brown in colour, with numerous scattered wart-like structures and golden or brown blotches (Littlejohn, 2003).

The GGF is a largely aquatic species that occupies a variety of permanent and ephemeral wetlands, including slow-flowing sections of rivers and streams, lakes, swamps, billabongs and ponds (Pyke, 2002). It can also be found considerable distances from water (Littlejohn, 2003) under certain conditions. It is also known to inhabit artificial wetlands such as irrigation canals, water-filled quarries, farm dams and water treatment ponds (Pyke, 2002).

The species breeds aquatically in the warmer months, with a peak in calling and breeding in late spring/early summer. Females produce clutches of eggs that may number in the thousands (Germano and White, 2008). Tadpoles grow quickly and can reach over 100 mm in length (Bell, 1982), typically metamorphosing after only 2 or 3 months.

Foraging appears the dominant activity in late summer and into autumn: individuals are often located in apparent ‘ambush’ positions at the waterline or in nearby terrestrial areas during this time of year (Heard et al., 2008a). Activity wanes as the temperature decreases. Torpor occurs during the coolest months of the year, at which time individuals may be located beneath cover such as rocks, logs and vegetation close to water (Pyke 2002).

Surveys for the GGF generally aim to maximise the chance of detecting the species. Given the frogs’ seasonal activity pattern, the suitable period for surveys is during the warmer months (late

4 | GHD | Report for Airservices Australia - Launceston Airport, 32/17554

September to late March), and the best time is typically November-December, when frogs are most likely to be calling, and are therefore most detectable.

1.2.1 Conservation Status

Once widespread and abundant, the GGF is now listed as ‘endangered’ on the IUCN Red List 2009, and ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act. In Tasmania it is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the State’s Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.

1.3 Study Area

1.3.1 Airport site

GGF have been known to occupy a waste water pond at the ARFFDG, known as the Fire Training Area Pond (FTA Pond). The ARFFDG is located on the edge of an elevated plateau on the north-eastern side of the Airport’s main runway. The ARFFDG is no longer operational. The site now consists of the former concrete training pad which was recently covered with a low profile metal roof designed to prevent rainfall making contact with the underlying concrete structure. Rainwater runoff from the roof is diverted to the FTA Pond via the use of the existing wastewater tank and pipe work associated with the hydrocarbon separator.

The retention pond is approximately 10 metres by 10 metres and 1 metre deep (when full) with an embankment on the eastern, southern and western edges. Fringing vegetation consists of pasture grasses, blackberry and a small stand of bulrushes.

1.3.2 Land adjacent airport

In order to determine the broader context of frog habitat at the airport site and the availability and suitability of habitats in the broader landscape, off-airport surveys were conducted on the Marananga Property owned by R & L Summers. This property borders the eastern perimeter of the Airport and is generally downstream of the ARFFDG area. Springvale Creek runs through this property. Overall seven sites were surveyed on the property. The habitats included five dams, one spring seepage point, and a stretch of Springvale Creek.

1.4 Limitations

This Airport GGF Survey Report (“Report”):

1. has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd for Airservices Australia;

2. may only be used and relied on by Airservices Australia;

3. must not be copied to, used by, or relied on by any person other than Airservices Australia without the prior written consent of GHD;

GHD and its servants, employees and officers otherwise expressly disclaim responsibility to any person other than Airservices Australia arising from or in connection with this Report.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the services provided by GHD and the Report are excluded unless they are expressly stated to apply in this Report.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this Report:

were limited to those specifically detailed in Section 2 of this Report;

was conducted at an appropriate time even though it was late in the survey season (February).

GHD | Report for Airservices Australia - Launceston Airport, 32/17554 | 5

GHD expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from or in connection with any of the Assumptions being incorrect.

Subject to the paragraphs in this section of the Report, the opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation and may be relied on until 12 months, after which time, GHD expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from or in connection with those opinions, conclusions and any recommendations.


2. Methods 2.1 Desktop Research

GHD ecologists conducted a brief review of three existing GGF annual monitoring reports pertaining to the ARFFDG and surrounding area, to obtain an understanding of the recent history of GGF in the area and relevant existing contextual information regarding the importance of the pond as habitat in the landscape. The reports investigated were:

Eco Logical Australia (2010) Growling Grass Frog Assessment. Report to Airservices Australia. 21 May 2010.

Eco Logical Australia (2011) Growling Grass Frog Monitoring Program. Report to Airservices Australia. May 2011.

Airservices Australia (2013) Launceston ARFF Drill Ground Growling Grass Frog Monitoring Program. 2013 Annual Monitoring Report. Report to Airservices Australia. 29 Nov 2013.

GHD also utilised Tasmania’s Natural Values Atlas (https://www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au) to investigate historical records of the GGF within the vicinity of Launceston Airport.

2.2 Field Assessment

Two ecologists from GHD conducted a GGF survey of the study area from 11-12 February 2015.

The survey method was determined following review of Heard et al. (2006) and after review of the EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.14 (DEWHA 2009). The sites were surveyed over two evenings, after dusk, and included the following components on both evenings:

Active Searches;

– Intensive nocturnal active searches using spotlights/head-torches. Approximately 45 minutes was spent searching the ARFFDG, with approximately 20 minutes spent at each of the off-airport sites. Searching was undertaken in a systematic approach where ground shelter such as rocks, logs and other debris was searched also.

– Opportunistic searches during daylight hours for a period of 15 min at each site, which included dip netting for tadpoles and active searching under rocks, logs etc.

Call identification - 10 minutes listening upon arrival at each site; and

Call Playback - 5 minutes of intermittent GGF call playback using broadcasts of pre-recorded GGF calls, in an effort to invoke calling from frogs. This was followed by 10 minutes of listening and was repeated three times.

Call playback was conducted in conjunction with nocturnal searches as both methods are complementary to one another and increase the overall efficiency of the survey.

The data sheet used to record the site specific information is presented in Appendix A.

2.3 Identification

All identified GGFs were counted and classified into one of the following size classes:

Adults: fully grown individuals 50-80 mm length;

Sub-adults: juvenile frogs 25-55 mm in length; and

Tadpoles.


3. Results 3.1 Desktop Results

The three reports relevant to the GGF at the ARFFDG site demonstrate that the pond is a breeding location for GGF, at least in some years. Large numbers of GGF (82 GGF and 200+ tadpoles) were reported in 2010 (Eco Logical Australia, 2010), with fewer (41 GGF and 12 tadpoles) reported in 2011 (Eco Logical Australia, 2011) and fewer again (20 GGF and 50+ Tadpoles) in 2013 (Eco Logical, 2013).

Tasmania’s Natural Values Atlas contained one undated record of GGF within the vicinity of the Airport. This record is from the “Fire training ponds, Launceston Airport”, so is presumably the same pond. The nearest record beyond that is near Evandale, approximately 5.3 km away. The Natural Values Atlas shows the record at the Airport to be at the very eastern edge of the known GGF distribution in this part of Tasmania (i.e., west of the Ben Lomond massif; there are additional records on the east coast).

In addition to the Natural Values Atlas data, The Department of State Growth has recently conducted extensive GGF surveys to the west of the Airport as part of the Perth to Breadalbane road upgrade project. The sites surveyed for the Perth to Breadalbane road upgrade project are within the same catchment as the FTA Pond and downstream sites surveyed for the incumbent study. As such they are particularly relevant to the scope of the incumbent study. The surveys for the Perth to Breadalbane road upgrade confirmed the presence of GGF in five dams within the survey area.

3.2 Field Investigations

A preliminary site inspection of the Marananga property was conducted on the 29th January 2015 to scope out the most appropriate sites for the upcoming survey. On this preliminary visit, GHD ecologists and Airservices staff met with Mr Rodney Sommers who accompanied the delegation around the Marananga Property. A number of sites were identified to be revisited for the survey.

The field investigations for GGF at those sites and the Airport site were conducted between 11 and 12 February 2015.

3.2.1 Site conditions

The weather conditions over the two survey nights varied. The weather on the first night was conducive to frog activity. Overall it was a warm and relatively still night. In contrast, the second survey night of 12 February was relatively windy and the temperature was much cooler; the second night was less ideal for frog activity but still considered adequate.

Details regarding the weather conditions over the two survey nights are provided in Table 1

Table 1 Weather Conditions for Survey Nights at 9:00 pm

Parameter Units 11/02/2015 12/02/2015 Temperature °C 19 11

Humidity % 89 56

Wind Speed km/hr 7 27

Wind Direction - S ENE

Cloud Cover % 80 10


3.3 Description of survey sites as GGF habitat

A total of nine sites were assessed. Two of these were located within the perimeter of the Launceston Airport, while the remaining seven sites were situated on the Marananga property to the east. This section provides a brief description of the survey locations as GGF habitat.

A map of the survey sites relative to the proximity of the Airport is presented in Figure 9.

3.3.1 Airport

FTA Pond

The FTA Pond is small pond adjacent to the decommissioned fire drill ground. The dam contained emergent vegetation around the edges and long grass and blackberry along most banks. Due to its drill ground function, the pond typically holds water that contains residual runoff containing hydrocarbons from previous ARFFDG activities. At the time of the surveys the pond was largely dry with a small central pool of mud slurry (20 cm depth) measuring approximately 4 x 4 meters in area (Figure 1). At the time of the survey, the water’s edge had receded away from the surrounding vegetation.

Site 4; Qantas Hanger Drainage Line

Site 4 consisted of two converging drainage lines located to the north of the Qantas hanger. At the time of the surveys the site had 5 -10 cm of water lying in the bottom of the drainage lines, with tall grass along the banks. The drainage channel is approximatey 1.5 m wide and 50 m long (Figure 2).

Figure 1: FTA Pond

Figure 2: Qantas hanger drainage line


3.3.2 Marananga Property

Dam 1

Dam 1 is located 185 meters to the south east of the FTA Pond outside of the airport boundary. This dam was circular in shape and approximately 10 m in diameter (Figure 3). The pond base dropped off steeply from the edges and the overall maximum depth was greater than 1.5 meters. There was no aquatic vegetation within the dam, or around the dam edges. The habitat consisted entirely of open deep water. Much of the dam’s banks were covered in the gorse weed, which limited access.

Dam 2

Dam 2 is located a further 200 m downslope of Dam 1 on the same drainage line. Dam 2 has similar proportions to Dam 1 with a perimeter of approximately 50 m. The there was an abundance of aquatic vegetation in Dam 2 (Figure 4). The dominant vegetation was cumbungi (Typha latifolia) which has formed a ring around the wetted perimeter of the dam. The central deeper (>1.5 m) section of the dam consisted of open water. There was a small portion of the dam’s perimeter where there were obvious signs of stock access; however the majority of the perimeter was protected by the cumbungi.

Dam 3

Dam 3 is again located on the same drainage line as Dams 1 and 2. Dam 3 is a further 360 meters to the north-east of Dam 2. This dam is considerably larger than Dams 1 and 2 with a perimeter of approximately 270 meters (Figure 5). The dam is approximately 100 m long and 70 m wide. There was an abundance of aquatic vegetation surrounding the dam, including fringing, emergent and submerged vegetation. The fringing vegetation consisted of gorse weed, common spiky rush (Eleocharis acuta) and Juncus sp. The emergent vegetation was largely cumbungi (Typha latifolia); submerged milfoil (Myriophyllum) was also present. There were large expanses of open water within this dam.

Dam 4

Dam 4 is the fourth in a chain of dams that run down the drainage line heading east of the airport boundary. This site is approximately 90 m downstream of Dam 3. Similar to Dam 3, this dam is large with a perimeter of approximately 338 m, length of 100 m and a width of 80 m (Figure 6). Common spiky rush and Juncus sp., were present in the trailing upstream margin. However there was a distinct absence of emergent macrophytes within the water, unlike previously described sites.

Dam 5

Dam 5 is located in a short, separate drainage line approximately 400 m south-east of the Springvale Creek sampling point (see below). This dam was approximately 15 m in width and 30 m in length. There was no aquatic vegetation within the dam, or around the dam edges. The dam level was below maximum with cracked clay flats present within the dried inundation area. The habitat consisted entirely of open deep water. Much of the dam’s banks were covered in gorse weed.


Seepage Line

This site is located between Dam 1 and Dam 2, and was characterised by a moist gully where springwater appears to seep from the surface of the ground (Figure 7). This site was chosen because the land owner mentioned that ‘green frogs’ had been seen there in the past. The site was dominated by exotic species such as box thorn, willow and blackberry. Surounding the site there was an abundance of fallen woody debris and rocks which would provide good cover for frogs.

Springvale Creek

Springvale Creek transects the Marananga Property and joins the drainage line in which dams 1 through to 4 occur. Springvale Creek rises in the Devon Hills region, approximately 2 km south-west of the Airport. Springvale Creek is characterised by a small incised channel less than 0.5 m width and greater than 1 m in depth that flows through riffle/run sections. Willow and boxthorn are the dominant vegetation types, with open sections of grass between individual trees. The particular site investigated for this study was located in an open grass section between stands of willows (Figure 8).


i

Figure 3: Dam 1

Figure 4: Dam 2

Figure 5: Dam 3

Figure 6: Dam 4


Figure 7: Seepage line

Figure 8: Springvale Creek, streamside zone

2 Salamanca Square Hobart TAS 7000 Australia T 61 3 6210 0600 F 61 3 6210 0601 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com

Dam 5

Dam 4Dam 3

Dam 2

Dam 1

Site 4

Seepage

FTA Pond

Springvale Ck

517,000

517,000

518,000

518,000

519,000

519,000

520,000

520,000

521,000

521,000

5,400,

000

5,400,

000

5,401,

000

5,401,

000

G:\32\17554\GIS\Maps\Working\3217554_101_FrogSurvey_RevA.mxd© 2015. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD (and DATA CUSTODIAN) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

LEGEND0 80 160 240 320 40040

MetresMap Projection: Transverse Mercator

Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Airservices AustraliaGrowling Grass Frog Survey

Frog Survey LocationsFigure 9

Job NumberRevision A

32-17554

11 Mar 2015Date

Data source: Data Custodian, Data Set Name/Title, Version/Date. Created by: drockliff

Paper Size A3

Survey Locations


4. Survey Results Over the two nights of survey, a total of 241 individual frogs were identified, belonging to four species (refer to Table 2).

The species identified during the survey were GGF (Litoria raniformis), Spotted Marsh Frog (Limnodynastes tasmaniensis), Brown Tree Frog (Litoria ewingi) and Common Froglet (Crinia signifera). The Brown Tree Frog was the most abundant species detected during the assessment. All species except the GGF were heard calling at some point during the survey; GGF were not calling, nor did any frogs respond to call playback.

The GGF was identified at seven of the nine sample locations surveyed. This included one site within the Airport boundary and six sites on the Marananga property. In total 99 individual GGFs were observed during the survey. These individuals ranged between large adults (37 individuals) and sub-adults (62 individual). No tadpoles were captured at any of the sites.

Images of GGF observed during the survey are displayed in Appendix B.

GGF counts varied between sites. Dam 1 had the highest count (22) of large adults and no sub-adults, whereas Dam 3 contained 33 sub-adults and only one large adult. The spread of frog developmental stages suggests that particular dams may be used for breeding and other dams for foraging.

The majority of GGFs detected were on the Marananga Property, with only four individuals counted at the FTA Pond. No frogs were detected at Site 4 at the Airport. The FTA Pond was almost dry at the time of the survey and therefore presented limited habitat for GGFs at that time. One frog was observed in the mud slurry of the pond, while the other three individuals were located in the long grass at the edge of the pond. All four individuals were sub-adults indicating that FTA Pond may have been a breeding location for the frogs in the 2014/15 breeding season. Alternatively, the sub-adults may have emerged from other ponds and then dispersed to the pond. Given the dry nature of the site and the observation occurrence of only four individuals when compared to the many sub-adults found outside the Airport boundary, the FTA Pond appears to provide marginal breeding habitat for GGFs.

Table 2 Survey results

Species Airport Marananga Property

FTA Site 4

Dam 1

Dam 2

Dam 3

Dam 4

Dam 5

Springvale Ck

Seepage Point

Litoria raniformis Adult

22 4 3 1 2 1

Sub-adult 4

8 33 1

20

Tadpole

Calling

Litoria ewingi Adult 12 Sub-adult 60 15 12 4 28 Tadpole Calling Yes Yes Yes Yes

Limnodynastes tasmaniensis

Adult 8 Sub-adult

2

Tadpole Calling Yes

Crinia signifera Calling Yes

Observation

1


5. Discussion 5.1 FTA Pond habitat

The presence of sub-adult GGFs in the FTA Pond suggests GGFs are likely to breed in this habitat. However given the shallow mud slurry in the bottom of the pond at the time of survey, it is highly unlikely that slow developing tadpoles would be able to survive such conditions. Therefore, the pond may be suitable for GGF breeding, but with a strong selective constraint that may result in some unsuccessful breeding events. It is widely acknowledged that the GGF is dependent on permanent freshwater habitats for breeding. The ideal breeding habitat is the shallow part of lagoons (up to approximately 1.5 m) where there is generally a dense and complex emergent and submerged vegetation structure. Breeding sites in Tasmania often contain vegetation communities dominated by emergent plants such as water ribbons (Triglochin) and spikerush (Eleocharis) and submerged plants such as water milfoil (Myriophyllum), marsh-flower (Villarsia), and pondweed (Potamogeton). However, other plant communities can form equally suitable habitat (Threatened Species Unit, 2001).

The FTG pond is known to dry up at times, but more often in the past it has had sufficient water for GGF habitation during breeding season. The dam's ability to hold water is declining over time and as such the summer months represent a period where water levels (or volume) are subject to significant variability, becoming much more sensitive to rainfall events. The water it holds water is likely to be of low quality and is potentially unhealthy to GGF in the long term. For these two reasons, the dams status as a breeding habitat is considered marginal. This is especially apparent when compared to other waterways surveyed as part of this study in close proximity, where water levels and the number of sub-adult frogs (as a surrogate for evidence of breeding) were higher.

5.2 GGF Regional Distribution

This survey identified that the GGF population extends well beyond the boundary of the Airport. The area surveyed was strictly limited to where access was granted, so this survey does not attempt to provide a definitive indication of the extent of the regional population. However, this survey does suggest that the core habitat for the local GGF population is outside the Airport land, and that the known Airport habitat appears to be marginal in quality and ongoing stability compared with that available in the surrounding land. This is reflected through the number of GGFs surveyed outside the boundary of the Airport. A total of 95 GGFs were identified from the Marananga Property compared to the four individuals observed in the FTA Pond.

The similarities of results between this study and the work of Wapstra (1999) and Eco logical (2010) show a historical connection and usage of the relevant Marananga ponds as longer-term GGF habitat. Detection of the species across three surveys suggests that there has been continual occupation of the sites by the species throughout this 16 year period.

The GGF is a highly mobile species, capable of moving up to one kilometer in 24 hours (K. Jervis undated, pers. comm. cited in Robertson et al., 2002; S. Wassens undated, pers. comm. cited in NSW DEC, 2005). The abundance of sub-adult frogs within Dams 2 and 3 suggests these are breeding habitats, as many of the young frogs still had darkened tail stubs as a result of recent metamorphosis. The absence of large frogs at these locations may indicate that they move to other habitats after breeding.


6. Conclusion The study was undertaken in accordance with the monitoring requirements as per the EPBC Act Wildlife Permit held by Airservices for the FTG pond. The secondary purpose of this assessment was to better understand how the GGF uses the FTA Pond and determine whether GGFs are widespread in the local landscape.

It can be confirmed that GGF use this site within the boundary of the Airport. On the basis of information obtained from this assessment and other reports from previous years, the FTA Pond is likely to represent a breeding site for GGF and other frog species. GGF reproduction is likely dependant on certain attributes of the pond for successful breeding through to metamorphosis. The ability of this pond to provide these attributes reliably on an annual basis is uncertain, given its likely poor water quality and its seemingly increasing propensity to dry out in summer due to structural integrity issues. During the 2014/2015 summer, it appears that some tadpoles achieved metamorphosis prior to the pond drying out. However, if drying had occurred a month or so earlier, then GGF breeding at that site may have failed. The pond has a small natural catchment and in the past it has been artificially recharged to some degree through firefighting training drills; as the firefighting training no longer occurs at this site, pond recharge is through rain events only. From this perspective the FTA Pond may provide marginal and unreliable breeding habitat for GGF.

If the FTA Pond was the only potential habitat and supported the only known GGF frogs within the local landscape, then the pond would be considered to support a ‘significant’ population. However, this survey has shown that there are additional and more suitable breeding habitats in close proximity, and that those habitats collectively support far larger numbers of GGFs. This regional population is likely to be considered under State (Tasmanian) and Commonwealth criteria as an important population; from the survey it is apparent that the four GGFs within the FTA Pond at the Airport form a fraction of this local population.


7. References DEWHA (2009). Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.14: Significant Impact Guidelines for the Vulnerable Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis). Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts, Canberra.

Eco Logical Australia (2011). Growling Grass Frog Monitoring Program. Prepared for Airservices Australia.

Eco Logical Australia (2013). Growling Grass Frog Monitoring Program. Prepared for Airservices Australia.

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC) (2005). Southern Bell Frog (Litoria raniformis) Draft Recovery Plan. [Online]. Sydney, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). Available from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/recoveryplanDraftSouthernBellFrog.pdf

Heard, G.W., Robertson, P. and Scroggie, M.P. (2006). Assessing detection probabilities for the endangered growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis) in southern Victoria. Wildlife Research 33, 557–564.

Robertson, P., G. Heard & M. Croggie (2002). The ecology and conservation status of the growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) within the Merri Creek Corridor, Interim report: distribution, abundance and habitat requirements. Report to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria. Wildlife Profiles Pty Ltd and the Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research.

Threatened Species Unit (2001). Listing Statement: Green and Golden Frog Litoria raniformis. [Online]. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tas. Available from: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Litoria-raniformisLS.pdf

Wapstra, E. (1999) Assessment of the Green and Gold Frog (Litoria raniformis) at the Launceston Airport. Report to the Threatened Species Unit, Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and Launceston Airport. April 1999


Appendices


Appendix A - (Field Data Sheets)


Appendix B GGF (Litoria raniformis) specimens observed during survey


Plate 1 light and dark GGF Dam 3

Plate 2 Juvenile GGF, FTA Pond

Plate 3 Adult GGF, Dam 1

Plate 4 Juvenile GGF, Springvale Ck


Plate 5 Juvenile GGF, Dam 2



Plate 8 Juvenile GGF in dipnet

GHD

2 Salamanca Square Hobart 7000 GPO Box 667 Hobart 7001 T: 03 6210 0600 F: 03 6210 0601 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2015

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. G:\32\17554\WP\62690.docx

Document Status

Rev No.

Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date

Draft S. Lukies D. Elson

R. Retallick

S. Lukies

12/03/15

Rev01 S. Lukies D. Elson

R. Retallick

S. Lukies

30/04/15

Rev02 S. Lukies D. Elson

R. Retallick

S. Lukies

20/05/15

www.ghd.com