FINAL REPORT:
Targeted Survey for the Nationally Significant
Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis, Ash Road,
Leopold, Victoria
PREPARED FOR:
St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd
December 2011
Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd
HEAD OFFICE: 420 Victoria Street, Brunswick VIC 3056 MELBOURNE: PO Box 298, Brunswick VIC 3056 GEELONG: PO Box 8048, Newtown VIC 3220
Table of Contents
Summary ....................................................................................................................5
1
Introduction .....................................................................................................7
1.1
Background .......................................................................................................7
1.2
Scope of Assessment .......................................................................................7
1.3
Study Area ........................................................................................................8
1.4
Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis..............................................................8
2
Methods .........................................................................................................11
2.1
Nomenclature ..................................................................................................11
2.1.1 Database / Background Searches...................................................................11
2.2
Targeted Surveys ............................................................................................11
2.2.1 Nocturnal surveys ...........................................................................................11
2.1
Diurnal surveys and habitat assessment .........................................................12
2.3
Assessment Limitations ..................................................................................12
3
Results ...........................................................................................................13
3.1
Previous records .............................................................................................13
3.2
Targeted surveys ............................................................................................13
3.3
Habitat assessment.........................................................................................14
3.2
Habitat description ..........................................................................................15
4
Legislative and Policy Implications .............................................................16
4.1
Legislative and Policy Implications ..................................................................16
4.2
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...................16
4.3
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 .............................................................17
4.4
Wildlife Act 1975 and Wildlife Regulations 2002 .............................................18
5
Mitigation measures .....................................................................................20
6
Further Recommendations ..........................................................................21
6.1
During Construction ........................................................................................21
6.2
Post Construction ............................................................................................21
7
Conclusion ....................................................................................................22
Plates ........................................................................................................................23
Figures ......................................................................................................................26
Appendices ..............................................................................................................30
References ...............................................................................................................38
2
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Tables
Table 1: Summary table of weather conditions during Growling Grass Frog surveys ............ 13
Table 2: Summary results of habitat assessments within the study area. ............................ 14
Table 3. Water Quality/In-situ Horiba results for habitat assessments within the study area.
..................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4. Threatening processes under the FFG Act potentially applicable to the proposed
works. ........................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 1. Location of Study Area, ......................................................................................... 27
Table A1.1. Rare or Threatened categories for listed Victorian taxa. .................................... 31
Table A1.2. Defining Ecological Significance. ....................................................................... 32
Table A1.3. Defining Site Significance. ................................................................................. 34
Table A1.4. Defining Vegetation Condition. .......................................................................... 35
Table A1.5. Defining Habitat Quality. .................................................................................... 36
Table A2.1. Amphibian species recorded during the present surveys and within 10
kilometres of the study area. ......................................................................................... 37
3
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Acknowledgments
We thank the following people and government agencies for their contribution to the project.

Chris Mason (St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd) for project and site information.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) for use of data
available on the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife (AVW) and Victorian Biodiversity
Atlas (VBA).
Cover Photo: View of a large waterbody within the Ash Road study area, Leopold, Victoria (Ecology and Heritage Partners
Pty Ltd).
The following Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd employees either undertook
the field assessments and/or contributed to the preparation of this report: Andrew
Taylor, Aaron Organ, Kim Weston, Mark Stockdale and Robyn Giles.
Project #3061
Copyright © Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd
This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for the
purposes for which it was commissioned. The use, or copying, of this
document in whole or part without the permission of Ecology and
Heritage Partners Pty Ltd is an infringement of copyright.
Disclaimer
Although Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd have taken all the
necessary steps to ensure that an accurate document has been
prepared, the company accepts no liability for any damages or loss
incurred as a result of reliance placed upon either the report or its
content.
4
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
SUMMARY
Introduction
Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd was commissioned by St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd
to undertake targeted survey for the nationally significant Growling Grass Frog Litoria
raniformis for a proposed residential rezoning and planning application for land located west
of Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria.
Methods
The Atlas of Victorian Wildlife and Victorian Biodiversity Atlas were used to obtain previous
records of all frog species in the local area.
Nocturnal surveys for L. raniformis were undertaken between 25 and 29 November 2011 in
accordance with the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s Biodiversity Precinct
Structure Planning Kit. Targeted surveys focused on four waterbodies within the study area
and included call identification and active searching for metamorphs.
A diurnal survey for L. raniformis and habitat assessment were undertaken on 28 October
2011 to document habitat data including in-situ water quality, the presence of fish and levels
of aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation. The assessments were undertaken in accordance with
the Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit guidelines.
Results
No Growling Grass Frogs were recorded during diurnal searches or nocturnal surveys within
the study area.
Four locally common frog species (Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensi,
Pobblebonk Frog Limnodynastes dumerilii, Southern Brown Tree Frog Litoria ewingii and
Common Froglet Crinia signifera), were heard calling within the study area during both the
diurnal and nocturnal surveys.
Conclusion
Litoria raniformis was not detected within the study area during targeted surveys, despite
hearing the species calling and actively foraging at a known reference site approximately 25
kilometres north-west of the study area within Cowies Creek.
Based on the result of targeted surveys there is a low to moderate likelihood that L. raniformis
currently resides within the study area on a permanent basis for breeding purposes. While
Reedy Lake is likely to act as a permanent water source for the species, there is a moderate
likelihood that L. raniformis may disperse / use suitable habitat within the study area during
favourable environmental conditions (i.e. extended rainfall).
5
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Therefore, an Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 referral to the
Commonwealth Environment Minister for L.raniformis is unlikely to be required.
If the future development requires the direct removal, salvage, temporary holding or
translocation of any terrestrial fauna species (including birds, mammals, frogs and reptiles),
then an additional ‘Management Authorisation’ may be required under the Wildlife Act 1975.
Appropriate mitigation measures should also be considered and implemented to minimise any
potential impacts to terrestrial and aquatic values present within the proposed residential
development within the study area.
6
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd was commissioned by St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd
(STQC) to undertake a targeted surveys for the nationally significant Growling Grass Frog
Litoria raniformis (herein referred to as L. raniformis) for a proposed residential rezoning and
planning application for land located west of Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria (Figure 1).
The land includes four existing waterbodies that may provide suitable habitat for L. raniformis
(Figure 1). The study area is in proximity to one wetland of international significance Port
Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Ballerine Peninsula, which is within a 10_kilometre
radius of the study area (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011). As the study area contains a
drainage line that supplies water to Lake Connewarre, which forms part of the Port Phillip
Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula RAMSAR site complex, a referral is
currently being prepared.
An Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) referral to
the Commonwealth Environment Minister is currently being prepared by Ecology and
Heritage Partners to outline any potential impacts to Lake Connewarre as part of the proposed
development. A detailed stormwater management strategy has been prepared by Peter Berry
and Associates Pty Ltd (2011), which outlines the future treatment of stormwater within the
proposed development site. As the proposed runoff is likely to be less than pre-development
levels and equivalent overall to the rural runoff from the current undeveloped land, it is
unlikely that Lake Connewarre will be directly impacted by the development.
However, as the stormwater management strategy is likely to directly impact suitable L.
raniformis habitat through the removal and/or modification of waterbodies within the study
area. Targeted surveys were aimed to quantify the current use of these waterbodies by L.
raniformis. Furthermore, the surveys were required to provide advice on any potential
impacts associated with the construction of the proposed residential development or
implementation of the stormwater management strategy, including advice on appropriate
mitigation measures to ensure that this species is not adversely impacted by the works.
1.2 Scope of Assessment
Specifically, the objectives of the assessment were to:

Review relevant data on the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) and Atlas of
Victorian Wildlife (AVW), and all available literature in relation to the occurrence of
L. raniformis within and adjacent to the study area;

Undertake a targeted survey for L. raniformis by two experienced Zoologists. Two
nights of spotlighting was conducted for L. raniformis during the species active period
(October – December) when the species is known to be calling and when detection is
highest;
7
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria

Determine the current status of the L. raniformis, its distribution and (if possible)
population size, the relative importance of habitats, and the overall significance of
populations in the study area (if present);

Provide information with respect to the implications of the Commonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) associated with the drainage works in
the vicinity of the study area; and,

Provide further recommendations and information on mitigation measures that could
be adopted or implemented along the proposed drainage line to ensure that populations
of significant fauna species persist in the vicinity of the study area in future.
1.3 Study Area
The study area is located west of Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria, approximately 12 kilometres
south east of Geelong and covers 26 hectares of private land currently used for hobby farms.
The study area is bounded by existing residential development on Como Road to the south
and Hazelwood Crescent to the north. New areas of residential development are currently
being constructed to the west of the study area. Lake Connewarre is located approximately
one kilometre south of the study area and contributes to the Port Phillip Bay (Western
Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar site complex.
According to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Biodiversity
Interactive Map (DSE 2011), the study area occurs within the Otway Plain bioregion. The
study area also falls within the jurisdiction of the Corangamite Catchment Management
Authority and the City of Greater Geelong municipality. The study area is currently zoned
Farming Zone (FZ) and is not subject to any environmental overlays (DPCD 2011).
1.4 Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis
Litoria raniformis has several common names, including Growling Grass Frog, Warty Bell
Frog, Southern Bell Frog, Warty Swamp Frog and Green and Golden Frog. Growling Grass
Frog is a large green frog (females may exceed 100 millimetres) varying in colour from olive
to emerald green (and sometimes dark brown) with a distinctive tympanum (ear membrane).
The dorsum (back) is warty with short skin folds, with irregular bronze/ gold or brown
coloured blotches (Cogger 1996) (Plate 1).
The coarsely granular underside is generally off-white and the posterior of the thighs and
groin are turquoise (Barker et al. 1995). Litoria raniformis is listed as Vulnerable under the
EPBC Act and Vulnerable in the National Action Plan for Australian Frogs (Tyler 1997). It is
also listed as a threatened species under the FFG Act and endangered in the Advisory List for
Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DSE 2009).
8
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Plate 1 Growling Grass Frog (Source: Aaron Organ - Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd).
Overall the species is of national conservation significance and a National Recovery Plan
identifying key priorities for protection and enhancement of the species has prepared
(Clemann and Gillespie 2010).
Although formally widely distributed across southern eastern Australia, including Tasmania
(Littlejohn 1963; 1982; Hero et al. 1991), the species has declined markedly across much of
its former range due to native vegetation clearance, agricultural intensification and grazing,
and development of terrestrial and aquatic habitats (DEWHA 2009b).
The resulting restriction of opportunities for dispersal, breeding and colonisation of adjacent
areas of suitable habitat due to habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation has contributed to
the species decline (DEWHA 2009a). This has been most evident over the past two decades
and in many areas, particularly in south and central Victoria, populations have experienced
apparent declines and local extinctions (Mahoney 1999).
This species is largely associated with permanent or semi-permanent still or slow flowing
waterbodies (i.e. streams, lagoons, farm dams and old quarry sites) (Hero et al. 1991; Barker
et al. 1995; Cogger 1996; Ashworth 1998). Frogs can also utilise temporarily inundated
waterbodies for breeding purposes providing they contain water for at least three to four
months over the breeding season (DEWHA 2009a).
Based on previous investigations, there is a strong correlation between the presence of the
species and key habitat attributes at a given waterbody.
For example, the species is typically associated with waterbodies supporting extensive cover
of emergent, submerged and floating vegetation (Robertson et al. 2002). Emergent vegetation
provides basking sites for frogs and protection from predators, while floating vegetation
provides suitable calling stages for adult males, and breeding and oviposition (egg deposition)
sites. Terrestrial vegetation (grasses, sedges), rocks and other ground debris around wetland
perimeters also provide foraging, dispersal and over-wintering sites for frogs (Pyke 2002).
Additionally, waterbodies located within 300–500 metres of each other, which support key
habitat characteristics, are more likely to support a L. raniformis population, compared to
isolated sites lacking important habitat features (Hamer and Organ 2008).
9
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Recent studies indicate that the spatial orientation of waterbodies across the landscape is an
important habitat determinant influencing presence of the species at a given site (Robertson et
al. 2002; Hamer and Organ 2008; Heard et al. 2010).
Litoria raniformis has been observed foraging more than 100 metres from wetland habitat (A.
Organ, pers. obs.), highlighting the need for suitable buffers around waterbodies when
considering habitat conservation.
10
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
2 METHODS
2.1 Nomenclature
The names of terrestrial vertebrate fauna (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians) follow the
VBA (2010).
2.1.1 Database / Background Searches
The following resources and databases were reviewed:

The VBA (2010) and AVW (2011) databases for fauna records;

Information relating to matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) (listed
taxa and ecological communities) protected under the EPBC Act was obtained from
the Protected Matters Search Tool (SEWPaC 2011);

Planning Schemes Online to ascertain current zoning and environmental overlays
(DPCD 2011);

Undertake discussions with local community groups (Geelong Field Naturalist Club
GFNC) and government authorities (DSE and Parks Victoria) to obtain additional
information on L. raniformis throughout the local area; and,

Relevant environmental legislation and policies.
2.2 Targeted Surveys
The study area was identified as supporting suitable habitat with the potential to support L.
raniformis. Targeted surveys were undertaken to investigate with an extant population of the
species is present within and/or immediately surrounding the study area to inform any future
planning approvals.
2.2.1 Nocturnal surveys
Nocturnal surveys for L. raniformis were undertaken on 25 and 29 November 2011 in
accordance with the Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit guidelines (DSE 2010).
Targeted surveys focused on four waterbodies within the study area and included call
identification and active searching for metamorphs.
Weather conditions were appropriate, with day air temperatures exceeding 15°C, and night
temperatures greater than 12°C. A known reference site located within a retarding basin
adjacent to the City of Greater Geelong Works Operation Centre (Melways: Map 431 F12),
was visited to indicate if L. raniformis were active during nocturnal surveys.
Nocturnal surveys involved quiet at each waterbody (Figure 2), recordings of the
advertisement call of a male L. raniformis were played back several times to elicit a response
from any adult males present.
11
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Afterwards, surveyors listened for any response from calling male L. raniformis. On
completion of call play-back, surveyors used 30 Watt, 12 volt hand-held spotlights to search
for any frogs on the margins or surface of the survey locations and in areas of emergent or
floating vegetation. The accessible terrestrial habitat surrounding each waterbody was
searched using spotlights and overturning any suitable ground debris. All frog species
observed or heard calling were recorded to inform the suitability of the study area for breeding
frogs.
2.1
Diurnal surveys and habitat assessment
Targeted diurnal surveys were also undertaken in accordance with the Biodiversity Precinct
Structure Planning Kit (DSE 2010), across the study area on 28 October 2011. A Zoologist
walked throughout areas of potentially habitat within the study area, searching for frogs
basking or resting on vegetation in or beside the water, and listening for any frogs entering the
water when disturbed. Active searching of vegetation and moveable debris was undertaken
looking for any frogs within, or beneath structures.
A diurnal habitat assessment was also undertaken on 28 October 2011 to record in situ water
quality, the presence of fish and levels of aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation, in accordance
with DSE (2010) guidelines. All in situ water quality data was collected using a calibrated
Horiba™ multi-probe and meter for the following parameters: dissolved oxygen, pH,
electrical conductivity and temperature. Turbidity was recorded using an ‘A Hach - Portable
Turbidimeter (Model 2100P)’.
2.3 Assessment Limitations
During the L. raniformis surveys waterbodies were visited on two occasions during optimal
climatic conditions (i.e. calm, mild, over 15ºC), during the known active season for the
species. Targeted surveys for L. raniformis were undertaken by experienced personnel during
the active period (October to February), in accordance with methods recommended by DSE
and SEWPaC (Heard et al. 2010; DEWHA 2009a, 2009b; DSE 2010), and was therefore
considered appropriate to meet the objectives of this assessment.
Overall, the results from targeted surveys, and the authors’ understanding of the current
distribution of L. raniformis in the surrounding area is considered sufficient in demonstrating
that the study area does not currently support a population of the species. However, as an
extant population may reside in proximity to the study area (i.e. Reedy Lake), and L.
raniformis individuals may disperse into the study area in the future. A precautionary
approach has been taken in the provision of mitigation measures and further recommendations
regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development.
12
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
3 RESULTS
3.1 Previous records
The VBA (2010) contains nine records of L. raniformis within a 10 kilometre radius of the
study area, with the last VBA record occurring within Reedy Lake in 1997 (Figure 3;
Appendix 2.1). However, two male L. raniformis were heard calling on 2 October 2011 on
the eastern side of Reedy Lake, which is located approximately two kilometres west of the
study area (T, Pescott, GFNC, pers. comm.).
Given the proximity of these records, an extant population may currently reside in proximity
to the study area (i.e. Reedy Lake). Accordingly, there is a moderate likelihood that L.
raniformis may disperse and/or use suitable habitat within the study area in the future during
favourable environmental conditions (i.e. extended rainfall). No additional L. raniformis
records were obtained during discussions with Parks Victoria and DSE.
3.2 Targeted surveys
The species is regularly heard calling at a known reference site approximately 25 kilometres
north west of the study area within a retarding basin adjacent to the City of Greater Geelong
Works Operation Centre (Melways: Map 431 F12).
No L. raniformis were recorded during diurnal searches or nocturnal surveys within the study
area. Four locally common frog species (Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensi,
Pobblebonk Frog Limnodynastes dumerilii, Southern Brown Tree Frog Litoria ewingii and
Common Froglet Crinia signifera), were heard calling during both the diurnal and nocturnal
surveys (see Appendix 2.1 for approximate abundances). A list of frog species recorded
within 10 kilometres of the study area is provided below (Appendix 2.1).
Table 1: Summary table of weather conditions during Growling Grass Frog surveys
Starting
Time
(24hr)
Air
Temperature
(oC)
Relative
Humidity
(%)
Cloud
Cover
(Octas)
Wind
(0-4)
Moon
(stages)
General Conditions
28/10/11
10:00
29
55
4/8
1
N/A
Warm, slightly
overcast and calm
25/11/11
20.45
22
65
5/8
0-1
New
moon
Mild, light breeze,
overcast
29/11/11
20:45
25
55
1/8
0-1
New
moon
Warm, light breeze,
clear
Date
Weather conditions during the surveys were suitable for L. raniformis to be active and calling
during both the diurnal and nocturnal surveys; where air temperatures exceeded 15oC during
the day and 12oC at night (Heard et al. 2010; DEWHA 2009a; 2009b; DSE 2010) (Table 1).
13
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
3.3 Habitat assessment
A summary of the habitat assessment for each waterbody within the study area is provided
below (Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2: Summary results of habitat assessments within the study area.
Habitat Assessment
Location
Waterbody 1
Waterbody 2
Waterbody 3
Waterbody 4
Approx. size of survey area
(metres)
15 x 20
25 x 10
20 x 15
50 x 35
Emergent vegetation (%)
5
75
35
5
Submerged vegetation (%)
60
<5
60
5
Open water (%)
95
25
65
95
Floating vegetation (%)
65
90
90
15
Fringing Vegetation (%)
70
100
100
70
Paddocks with
pasture grasses used
for cattle grazing
Paddocks with
pasture grasses used
for cattle grazing
Market gardens /
residential / private
land
Pasture grasses
used for sheep
grazing
Water quality and depth
Good
(0.2 – 1 metres)
Good
(0.2 – 0.5 metres)
Good
(0.2 – 0.5 metres)
Good
(> 1 metre)
Fish present
None observed
None observed
None observed
None observed
Yes
Not visible
Yes
Yes
Pondweed
(Potamageton spp.)
and Juncus spp.
Cumbungi (Typha
sp.) and Water Fern
(Azolla spp.). Willow
(Salix sp.) along
banks
Typha sp. and
Duckweed (Lemna
minor)
Typha sp. and
Juncus spp.
Moderate
High cover of floating
and emergent
vegetation. Grazed
but refuge available
within vegetation and
along banks (i.e.
rocks / wood)
Moderate
High cover of floating
and emergent
vegetation. Grazed by
horses refuge
available within
vegetation and along
banks
Surrounding habitat
(within 30 metres)
Frog eggs present
Dominant flora species
Overall
Habitat
Quality
Moderate - High
Grazed up to bank,
good cover of floating
and submerged
vegetation / little
fringing vegetation
High
Large waterbody,
clean water with
good refuge
throughout
emergent and
fringing vegetation
Table 3. Water Quality/In-situ Horiba results for habitat assessments within the study area.
Site
Temperature
(°C)
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/L)
Conductivity
(mS/cm)
Turbidity (NTU)
Wetland 1
22
8.01
13.14
0.21
15
Wetland 2
15
6.20
0.83
0.77
14
Wetland 3
18
5.29
0.35
0.45
14
Wetland 4
19
6.24
3.65
0.35
13
14
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
3.2
Habitat description
Each of the four waterbodies had varying levels of aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation (Table
2). While waterbodies 2 and 3 had a higher cover of floating vegetation, this is likely to
provide excellent refuge for L. raniformis from predators (Plates 3 and 4).
The presence of emergent (Cumbungi Typha sp.) and/or floating vegetation (i.e. Pondweed
Potamogeton spp.), is likely to provide suitable basking habitat for breeding or foraging
purposes (Plates 2–5).
While no L. raniformis were detected during targeted surveys, there was evidence of other
frog species breeding within waterbodies during the surveys. For example, it was noted that
waterbodies 1, 3 and 4 had frog eggs (from marsh frogs) within emergent of floating
vegetation during the assessment (Table 2). Spotted Marsh Frog, Pobblebonk Frog and
Southern Brown Tree Frog were observed foraging and calling during nocturnal surveys
(Appendix 2.1). This indicates that these waterbodies provide excellent breeding habitat for
locally common frog species despite being used for grazing and irrigation. However,
waterbodies 2 and 3 are likely to be ephemeral given their respective water depths.
Water quality parameters were consistent across all three sites and considered typical for this
catchment (Table 3). The water quality within each waterbody was considered good given the
low turbidity levels ≤15 NTU (Table 3).
As these waterbodies are in proximity to Reedy Lake, they are likely to provide potentially
suitable breeding habitat for L. raniformis in the future as they include preferred habitat
characteristics such as good water quality and a variety of aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation
(Table 2). All four waterbodies should be retained and enhanced where possible during any
proposed future developments.
15
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
4 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Legislative and Policy Implications
This section identifies biodiversity policy and legislation relevant to the proposed
development, and principally addresses the:

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act)

Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)

Wildlife Act 1975 and Wildlife Regulations 2002
4.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999
The EPBC Act establishes a Commonwealth process for assessment of proposed actions that
are likely to have a significant impact on matters of National Environmental Significance
(NES), or on Commonwealth land. An action (i.e. project, development, undertaking,
activity, or series of activities), unless otherwise exempt, requires approval from the
Commonwealth Environment Minister if they are considered likely to have an impact on any
matters of NES. A referral under the EPBC Act is required if a proposed action is likely to
have a ‘significant impact’ on any of the following matters of NES:

World Heritage properties

National heritage places

Ramsar wetlands of international significance

Threatened species and ecological communities

Migratory and marine species

Commonwealth marine area

Nuclear actions (including uranium mining)

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
An action requires approval from the Commonwealth Environment Minister if it will, or if it
is likely to, have a significant impact on an endangered or critically endangered species, or on
an ‘important population’ or critical habitat of a listed vulnerable species.
Despite targeted surveys being undertaken during an appropriate time of year and under
conditions suitable for the detection of L. raniformis, none were recorded within the study
area during targeted surveys. Based on the results of the targeted surveys there is a low to
moderate likelihood that the study area currently supports L. raniformis on a permanent basis
for breeding purposes.
16
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Implications for the proposed development
An EPBC Act referral to the Commonwealth Environment Minister for L. raniformis is
unlikely to be required, as there is a low to moderate likelihood of occurrence for this species
within the study area.
An EPBC Act referral to the Commonwealth Environment Minister is currently being
prepared by Ecology and Heritage Partners to outline any potential impacts to Lake
Connewarre as part of the proposed development.
As the proposed runoff is likely to be less than pre-development levels and equivalent overall
to the rural runoff from the current undeveloped land, it is unlikely that Lake Connewarre will
be directly impacted by the development.
4.3 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
The primary legislation for the protection of flora and fauna in Victoria is the FFG Act. The
Act builds on broader national and international policy in the conservation of biodiversity.
The broad objectives of the FFG Act are to: 1) ensure native flora and fauna survive, flourish
and maintain in situ evolutionary potential, 2) manage threatening processes, 3) encourage the
conserving of flora and fauna through cooperative community endeavours, and 4) establish a
regulatory structure for the conservation of flora and fauna in Victoria.
The Act contains protection procedures such as the listing of threatened species and/or
communities of flora and fauna, and the preparation of action statements to protect the longterm viability of these values.
Several threatening processes currently listed under the FFG Act may occur as a result of the
proposed works (Table 4). Measures to avoid or minimise these processes are provided below
(Table 4).
Table 4. Threatening processes under the FFG Act potentially applicable to the proposed works.
Threatening process
Development action
Avoidance and/or minimisation
The invasion of native vegetation by
environmental weeds
Soil disturbance and subsequent
weed
invasion into
native
vegetation remnants within the
study area, particularly where
access tracks are created.
Control the spread of environmental and
noxious weeds within the study area.
Wash machinery prior to entering the sites
to remove weed seeds. Revegetate areas
of soil disturbance with indigenous plant
species.
Increase in sediment input into
Victorian rivers and streams due to
human activities
Direct disturbance of sediments
within the study area or in
waterbodies during construction
works. This may include runoff
from the construction of access
tracks.
Employ
recognised
and
approved
sediment retention measures to reduce the
input of land based sediments or the
transfer of sediments to downstream
aquatic habitats such Lake Connewarre.
Vehicles and plant equipment not to be
stationed too close to the banks to prevent
bank sloughing or collapsing of undercut
banks
17
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Threatening process
Development action
Avoidance and/or minimisation
Input of toxic substances into Victorian
rivers and streams
Spillage of toxic substances such
as diesel fuel, lubricants, oil,
petroleum and other toxic
substances into aquatic habitats.
Avoid and contain any spills of potentially
toxic substances using best practices.
Refuel machinery well away from the
stream
Implications
Despite being listed under the FFG Act, there are no implications relating to L. raniformis
which are associated with the proposed residential development. There are no requirements
for the proponent of the development to apply for a permit under the FFG Act, as the proposed
works is unlikely to require the handling of a FFG Act-listed fauna species.
As L. raniformis were not recorded during the present field assessment. Based upon the
results of targeted surveys, it is unlikely that this species resides within the study area on a
permanent basis. However, it may be prudent to notify DSE of the proposed works, in the
event that any L. raniformis are unearthed or discovered during the construction process.
4.4 Wildlife Act 1975 and Wildlife Regulations 2002
The Wildlife Act 1975 is the primary legislation in Victoria providing for protection and
management of wildlife.
The Act requires people engaged in wildlife research (e.g. fauna surveys, salvage and
translocation activities) to obtain a permit under the Act to ensure that these activities are
undertaken in a manner consistent with the appropriate controls.
The Wildlife Act 1975 has the following objectives:


To establish procedures for the promotion of protection and conservation of wildlife,
the prevention of species extinctions, and the sustainable use and access to wildlife;
and,
To prohibit and regulate the conduct of those involved in wildlife related activities.
Wildlife Regulations 2002
The objectives of the Wildlife Regulations are:

To make further provision in relation to the licensing system established by section 22
of the Wildlife Act 1975;

To prescribe fees, offences, royalties and various other matters for the purposes of the
Wildlife Act 1975; and,

To provide for exemptions from certain provisions of the Wildlife Act 1975.
18
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Implications for the proposed development
While a permit will be required for removal of fauna habitat within the study area, this could
be in the form of a permit to remove native vegetation under the Planning and Environment
Act 1987.
Consequently, a permit to remove fauna habitat as part of this project under either the Wildlife
Act 1975 is unlikely to be required if permission under the Planning and Environment Act
1987 is obtained.
If the future development requires the direct removal, salvage, temporary holding or
translocation of any terrestrial fauna species (including birds, mammals, frogs and reptiles),
then an additional ‘Management Authorisation’ permit may be required under the Wildlife Act
1975. This applies to all native species, not just those listed under Federal or State
legislation.
19
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
5 MITIGATION MEASURES
Where possible, measures that should be undertaken to minimise the impact on terrestrial and
aquatic values present within the study area associated with the proposed residential
development, include:

All hazardous material(s) should be stored off-site and be prevented from entering or
being stored near water sources;

Avoid disturbance or removal of waterbodies and associated aquatic vegetation (where
possible);

Avoid undertaking construction activity in late winter and spring to avoid potential
high rainfall events and sediment laden stormwater runoff;

Any construction stockpiles should be placed away from wetland lakes and ponds;

Keep soil disturbance to a minimum to reduce the potential for sedimentation input
into wetland lakes and ponds;

Any soil removed should be bunded or removed to a skip;

Where stormwater runoff has the potential to occur, no soil disturbance should be
undertaken, and potential pollutants should be stored elsewhere;

All vehicles to be refuelled away from the waterbodies;

Vehicles should be inspected routinely for leaks and repaired if they occur;

Install sediment pollution traps during construction; and,

Employ sediment and pollution retention precautions at all times.
20
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
6 FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
The implementation of suitable mitigation measures will play a critical role in the future
protection of potentially suitable fauna habitats, as they support a diverse range of amphibian
species and possible also waterbird and other significant fauna species. A site Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should be developed an include measures to ensure
that noxious weed control and drainage controls are implemented prior to the commencement
of any construction activities.
The following measures are also recommended to avoid or minimise the risk of potential
impacts to wetland-associated fauna species and their supporting habitat as a result of the
development:
6.1 During Construction
The following measures should be undertaken during construction:

Adopt best practice sediment control measures to protect in-stream habitat.
Management practices and construction techniques should be consistent with
Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991) and
Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA 1996);

Implement appropriate mitigation measures (where possible) to reduce the potential
spread of infectious pathogens (i.e. chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis),
in accordance with standards described by the New South Wales National Parks and
Wildlife Service (NPWS 2008);

Avoid having heavy vehicles/plant equipment set close to banks to prevent bank
slough; and,

Consider measures for avoiding other FFG-listed potential threatening processes
(Table 4).
6.2 Post Construction
The following measures should be undertaken post construction:

Undertake appropriate post construction clean-up of the site in accordance with
environmental best practices, including the stabilisation of exposed soils with local
native vegetation from the appropriate Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) and
rehabilitation/reintroduction of in-stream habitat features where required (e.g.
reintroduction of large woody debris, bed or bank stabilisation).
21
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
7 CONCLUSION
No L. raniformis were recorded within the study area during targeted surveys, despite hearing
the species calling and actively foraging at a known reference site approximately 25
kilometres north west of the study area within Cowies Creek. Given the occurrence of
previous records within Reedy Lake, an extant population may reside in proximity to the
study area. Accordingly, there is a moderate likelihood that L. raniformis may disperse / use
suitable habitat within the study area in the future during favourable environmental conditions
(i.e. extended rainfall).
However, based on the results of targeted surveys within the study area, an EPBC Act referral
to the Commonwealth Environment Minister for Growling Grass Frog is unlikely to be
required.
If the future development requires the direct removal, salvage, temporary holding or
translocation of any terrestrial fauna species (including birds, mammals, frogs and reptiles),
then an additional ‘Management Authorisation’ permit may be required under the Wildlife Act
1975 by the proponent.
Appropriate mitigation measures should also be implemented to minimise any potential
impacts to terrestrial and aquatic values present within the proposed residential development.
22
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
PLATES
23
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Plate 2: Wetland 1 – Monitoring Site, Leopold, Victoria (Source: Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd).
Plate 3: Wetland 2 – Monitoring Site, Leopold, Victoria (Source: Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd).
24
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Plate 4: Wetland 3 – Monitoring Site, Leopold, Victoria (Source: Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd).
Plate 5: Wetland 4 – Monitoring Site, Leopold, Victoria (Source: Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd).
25
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
FIGURES
26
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Figure 1. Location of Study Area,
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
27
Figure 2. Waterbody locations within the study area
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
28
Figure 3. Previous Growling Grass Frog records
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
29
APPENDICES
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
30
Appendix 1 – Significance Assessment
Criteria used by Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd to define conservation
significance, vegetation condition and habitat quality is provided below.
A1.1. Rare or Threatened Categories for listed Victorian taxa
Table A1.1. Rare or Threatened categories for listed Victorian taxa.
Rare or Threatened Categories
CONSERVATION STATUS IN AUSTRALIA
(Based on the EPBC Act 1999, Briggs and Leigh 1996*)
EX - Extinct: Extinct is when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual of the species has died.
CR - Critically Endangered: A species is critically endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction
in the wild in the immediate future.
EN - Endangered: A species is endangered when it is not critically endangered but is facing a very high risk of
extinction in the wild in the near future.
VU - Vulnerable: A species is vulnerable when it is not critically endangered or endangered but is facing a high risk
of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future.
R* - Rare: A species is rare but overall is not currently considered critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable.
K* - Poorly Known: A species is suspected, but not definitely known, to belong to any of the categories extinct,
critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or rare.
CONSERVATION STATUS IN VICTORIA
(Based on DSE 2009, DSE 2007, FIS 2011)
x - Presumed Extinct in Victoria: not recorded from Victoria during the past 50 years despite field searches
specifically for the plant, or, alternatively, intensive field searches (since 1950) at all previously known sites have
failed to record the plant.
e - Endangered in Victoria: at risk of disappearing from the wild state if present land use and other causal factors
continue to operate.
v - Vulnerable in Victoria: not presently endangered but likely to become so soon due to continued depletion;
occurring mainly on sites likely to experience changes in land-use which would threaten the survival of the plant in
the wild; or, taxa whose total population is so small that the likelihood of recovery from disturbance, including
localised natural events such as drought, fire or landslip, is doubtful.
r - Rare in Victoria: rare but not considered otherwise threatened - there are relatively few known populations or the
taxon is restricted to a relatively small area.
k - Poorly Known in Victoria: poorly known and suspected, but not definitely known, to belong to one of the above
categories (x, e, v or r) within Victoria. At present, accurate distribution information is inadequate.
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
31
A1.2. Defining Ecological Significance
Table A1.2. Defining Ecological Significance.
Criteria for defining Ecological Significance
NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Flora
National conservation status is based on the EPBC Act list of taxa considered threatened in Australia (i.e.
extinct, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable).
Flora listed as rare in Australia in Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (Briggs and Leigh 1996).
National conservation status is based on the EPBC Act list of taxa considered threatened in Australia (i.e.
extinct, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable).
Fauna
Fauna listed as extinct, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, Rare or Lower Risk (near threatened,
conservation dependent or least concern) under National Action Plans for terrestrial taxon prepared for the
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities: threatened marsupials and
monotremes (Maxwell et al. 1996), bats (Duncan et al. 1999), birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000), reptiles
(Cogger et al. 1993), and amphibians (Tyler 1997).
Species that have not been included on the EBPC Act but listed as significance according to the IUCN 2009
Communities
Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2009).
Vegetation communities considered critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act
and considering vegetation condition.
STATE SIGNIFICANCE
Threatened taxa listed under the provisions of the FFG Act.
Flora
Flora listed as extinct, endangered, vulnerable or rare in Victoria in the DSE Flora Information System (most
recent Version).
Flora listed in the State Government’s Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria, 2009 (DSE
2009).
Flora listed as poorly known in Australia in Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (Briggs and Leigh 1996).
Threatened taxon listed under Schedule 2 of the FFG Act.
Fauna
Fauna listed as extinct, critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable on the State Government’s
Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria - 2007 (DSE 2007).
Listed as Data Deficient, Insufficiently Known or Near-threatened under National Action Plans for terrestrial
species prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities:
threatened marsupials and monotremes (Maxwell et al. 1996), bats (Duncan et al. 1999), birds (Garnett and
Crowley 2000), reptiles (Cogger et. al. 1993), and amphibians (Tyler 1997).
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
32
Criteria for defining Ecological Significance
Communities
Ecological communities listed as threatened under the FFG Act.
Ecological vegetation class listed as threatened (i.e. endangered, vulnerable) or rare in a Native Vegetation
Plan for a particular bioregion (DSE Website) and considering vegetation condition.
REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
Flora
Flora considered rare in any regional native vegetation plan for a particular bioregion.
Flora considered rare by the author for a particular bioregion.
Fauna
Fauna with a disjunct distribution, or a small number of documented recorded or naturally rare in the Otway
Plain bioregion.
A particular taxon that is has an unusual ecological or biogeographical occurrence or listed as Lower Risk –
Near Threatened, Data Deficient or Insufficiently Known on the State Government’s Advisory List of
Communities
Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria - 2007 (DSE 2007).
Ecological Vegetation Class listed as depleted or least concern in a Native Vegetation Plan for a particular
bioregion (DSE Website) and considering vegetation condition.
Ecological Vegetation Class considered rare by the author for a particular bioregion.
LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE
Local significance is defined as flora, fauna and ecological communities indigenous to a particular area, which are
not considered rare or threatened on a national, state or regional level.
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
33
A1.3 Defining Site Significance
The following geographical areas apply to the overall level of significance with respect
to the current survey.
National:
Australia
State:
Victoria
Regional:
Otway Plain bioregion
Local:
Within 10 kilometres surrounding the study area
Table A1.3. Defining Site Significance.
Criteria for defining Site Significance
NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
A site is of National significance if:
- it regularly supports, or has a high probability of regularly supporting individuals of a taxon listed as ‘Critically
Endangered’ or ‘Endangered’ under the EPBC Act and/or under National Action Plans for terrestrial taxon
prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
- it regularly supports, or has a high probability of supporting, an ‘important population’ as defined under the EPBC
Act of one or more nationally ‘vulnerable’ flora and fauna taxon.
- it is known to support, or has a high probability of supporting taxon listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under National Action
Plans.
- it is known to regularly support a large proportion (i.e. greater than 1%) of a population of a taxon listed as
‘Conservation Dependent’ under the EPBC Act and/or listed as Rare or Lower Risk (near threatened,
conservation dependent or least concern) under National Action Plans.
- it contains an area, or part thereof designated as ‘critical habitat’ under the EPBC Act, or if the site is listed under
the Register of National Estate compiled by the Australian Heritage Commission.
- it is a site which forms part of, or is connected to a larger area(s) of remnant native vegetation or habitat of
national conservation significance such as most National Park, and/or a Ramsar Wetland(s).
STATE SIGNIFICANCE
A site is of State significance if:
- it occasionally (i.e. every 1 to 5 years) supports, or has suitable habitat to support taxon listed as ‘Critically
Endangered’ or ‘Endangered’ under the EPBC Act and/or under National Action Plans.
- it regularly supports, or has a high probability of regularly supporting (i.e. high habitat quality) taxon listed as
‘Vulnerable’, ‘Near threatened‘, ‘Data Deficient’ or ‘Insufficiently Known’ in Victoria (DSE 2009), or species listed
as ‘Data Deficient’ or ‘Insufficiently Known’ under National Action Plans.
- it contains an area, or part thereof designated as ‘critical habitat’ under the FFG Act.
- it supports, or likely to support a high proportion of any Victorian flora and fauna taxa.
- it contains high quality, intact vegetation/habitat supporting a high species richness and diversity in a particular
Bioregion.
- it is a site which forms part of, or connected to a larger area(s) of remnant native vegetation or habitat of state
conservation significance such as most State Parks and/or Flora and Fauna Reserves.
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
34
Criteria for defining Site Significance
REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
A site is of Regional significance if:
- it regularly supports, or has a high probability of regularly supporting regionally significant fauna as defined in
Table 1.2.
- is contains a large population (i.e. greater than 1%) of flora considered rare in any regional native vegetation plan
for a particular bioregion.
- it supports a fauna population with a disjunct distribution, or a particular taxon that has an unusual ecological or
biogeographical occurrence.
- it is a site which forms part of, or is connected to a larger area(s) of remnant native vegetation or habitat of
regional conservation significance such as most Regional Parks and/or Flora and Fauna Reserves.
LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE
Most sites are considered to be of at least local significant for conservation, and in general a site of local
significance can be defined as:
- an area which supports indigenous flora species and/or a remnant Ecological Vegetation Class, and habitats used
by locally significant fauna species.
- an area which currently acts, or has the potential to act as a wildlife corridor linking other areas of higher
conservation significance and facilitating fauna movement throughout the landscape.
A1.4. Defining Vegetation Condition
Table A1.4. Defining Vegetation Condition.
Criteria for defining Vegetation Condition
Good condition - Vegetation dominated by a diversity of indigenous species, with defined structures (where
appropriate), such as canopy layer, shrub layer, and ground cover, with little or few introduced species present.
Moderate condition - Vegetation dominated by a diversity of indigenous species, but is lacking some structures,
such as canopy layer, shrub layer or ground cover, and/or there is a greater level of introduced flora species present.
Poor condition - Vegetation dominated by introduced species, but supports low levels of indigenous species
present, in the canopy, shrub layer or ground cover.
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
35
A1.5. Defining Habitat Quality
Several factors are taken into account when determining the value of habitat. Habitat
quality varies on both spatial and temporal scales, with the habitat value varying
depending upon a particular fauna species.
Table A1.5. Defining Habitat Quality.
Criteria for defining Habitat Quality
HIGH QUALITY
High degree of intactness (i.e. floristically and structurally diverse), containing several important habitat features such as
ground debris (logs, rocks, vegetation), mature hollow-bearing trees, and a dense understorey component.
High species richness and diversity (i.e. represented by a large number of species from a range of fauna groups).
High level of foraging and breeding activity, with the site regularly used by native fauna for refuge and cover.
Habitat that has experienced, or is experiencing low levels of disturbance and/or threatening processes (i.e. weed
invasion, introduced animals, soil erosion, salinity).
High contribution to a wildlife corridor, and/or connected to a larger area(s) of high quality habitat.
Provides known, or likely habitat for one or more rare or threatened species listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Act, or
species considered rare or threatened according to DSE 2007.
MODERATE QUALITY
Moderate degree of intactness, containing one or more important habitat features such as ground debris (logs, rocks,
vegetation), mature hollow-bearing trees, and a dense understorey component.
Moderate species richness and diversity - represented by a moderate number of species from a range of fauna groups.
Moderate levels of foraging and breeding activity, with the site used by native fauna for refuge and cover.
Habitat that has experienced, or is experiencing moderate levels of disturbance and/or threatening processes.
Moderate contribution to a wildlife corridor, or is connected to area(s) of moderate quality habitat.
Provides potential habitat for a small number of threatened species listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Act, or species
considered rare or threatened according to DSE 2007.
LOW QUALITY
Low degree of intactness, containing few important habitat features such as ground debris (logs, rocks, vegetation),
mature hollow-bearing trees, and a dense understorey component.
Low species richness and diversity (i.e. represented by a small number of species from a range of fauna groups).
Low levels of foraging and breeding activity, with the site used by native fauna for refuge and cover.
Habitat that has experienced, or is experiencing high levels of disturbance and/or threatening processes.
Unlikely to form part of a wildlife corridor, and is not connected to another area(s) of habitat.
Unlikely to provide habitat for rare or threatened species listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Act, or considered rare or
threatened according to DSE 2007.
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
36
Appendix 2.1 – Previous amphibian records
Table A2.1. Amphibian species recorded during the present surveys and within 10 kilometres of the study area.
H
S
Heard
Seen
Common name
Scientific name
Common Froglet
Pobblebonk Frog
Spotted Marsh Frog
Brown Toadlet
Southern Brown Tree Frog
Growling Grass Frog
Crinia signifera
Limnodynastes dumerilii
Limnodynastes tasmaniensis
Pseudophryne bibronii
Litoria ewingii
Litoria raniformis
Last
documented
record (VBA
2011)
Total # of
documented
records
2011
1961
1998
2000
1998
1997
2
4
1
24
9
Approximate
abundances (i.e. heard
calling each survey)
70
55
60
20
-
Present
survey
H
S
S
S
-
Source used to determine number of records and year: Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DSE 2010)
37
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
REFERENCES
38
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
References
Ashworth, J.M. 1998. An appraisal of the Conservation of Litoria raniformis
(Kefferstein) in Tasmania. University of Tasmania March 1998. Unpublished
Masters thesis.
AVW 2011.
Atlas of Victorian Wildlife. Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Victoria.
Barker, J., Grigg, G.C. & Tyler, M.J. 1995. A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey
Beatty & Sons, New South Wales.
Briggs, J.D. & Leigh, J.H. 1996. Rare or Threatened Australian Plants. CSIRO
Australia & Australian Nature Conservation Agency.
Clemann, N. and Gillespie, G.R. 2010. National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bell
Frog Litoria raniformis. Draft for public comment January 2010. Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.
Cogger, H. 1996. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed Books, Sydney.
Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R.A. & Eggler, P. 1993. The Action Plan for
Australian Reptiles. Australia Nature Conservation Agency.
DEWHA 2009a. EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.14: Significant Impact Guidelines for
the vulnerable Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis. The Department of the
Environment,
Water,
Heritage
and
the
Arts,
Canberra,
ACT.
www.environment.gov.au/epbc.
DEWHA 2009b. Background paper to EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.14: Significant
Impact Guidelines for the vulnerable Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis. The
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.
www.environment.gov.au/epbc.
DPCD 2011. Planning Schemes and Maps Online. Department of Planning and
Community Development: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/index.html
DSE 2007. Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria. Department of
Sustainability & Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria.
DSE 2009. Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria - 2009. Department
of Sustainability & Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria.
DSE 2010. Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit. Department of Sustainability
and Environment Melbourne, May 2010. http://www.dse.vic.gov.au
DSE 2011. Biodiversity Interactive Maps.
Environment. www.dse.vic.gov.au.
Department of Sustainability and
Duncan, A., Baker, G.B. & Montgomery, N. 1999. The Action Plan for Australian Bats.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011. Flora and Fauna Assessment, and Net Gain Analysis
Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria. Unpublished Report prepared for St Quentin
Consulting.
EPA 1991. Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control. Publication 275.
Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Melbourne.
39
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
EPA 1996. Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites. Publication 480.
Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Melbourne.
FIS 2011. Flora Information System (Department of Sustainability and Environment),
Viridans Pty Ltd. Bentleigh East, Victoria.
Garnett, S. & Crowley, G. 2000. The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment
Australia, Canberra.
Hamer, A.J & Organ, A. 2008. Aspects of the ecology and conservation of the
Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis in an urban-fringe environment, southern
Victoria. Proceedings of the Biology and Conservation of Bell Frogs Conference,
Australian Zoologist 34: 414-425.
Heard, G, Scroggie, M. and Clemann, N. 2010. Guidelines for Managing the
Endangered Growling Grass Frog in Urbanising Landscapes. Arthur Rylah Institute.
For Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Heidelberg, Victoria.
Hero, J.M., Littlejohn, M. & Marantelli, G. 1991. Frogwatch Field Guide to Victorian
Frogs. Department of Conservation and Environment, East Melbourne.
IUCN, 2009. 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. International Union for the
Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources, Geneva.
Littlejohn, M.J. 1963. Frogs of the Melbourne area. Victorian Naturalist 79: 296-304.
Littlejohn, M.J. 1982. Amphibians of Victoria. Victorian Yearbook 85: 1-11.
Mahony, M.J. 1999. ‘Review of the declines and disappearances within the bell frog
species group (Litoria aurea species group) in Australia.’ In: Declines and
Disappearances of Australian Frogs. A. Campbell (editor). Environment Australia,
Canberra.
Maxwell, S., Burbidge, A. & Morris, K. 1996. Action Plan for Australian Marsupials
and Monotremes. IUCN Species Survival Commission.
NPWS (National Parks & Wildlife Service) 2008. Hygiene Protocol for the Control of
Disease in Frogs. Information Circular No. 6. N.S.W. National Parks & Wildlife
Service, Hurstville.
NRE 1997. Victoria’s Biodiversity – Directions in Management.
Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria.
Department of
Peter Berry and Associates Pty Ltd 2011. Stormwater Management Strategy, Ash Road
– Leopold. Unpublihsed report prepared for Wellam Developments Pty Ltd by Peter
Berry and Associates Pty Ltd.
Pyke G.H. 2002. A review of the biology of the Southern Bell Frog Litoria raniformis
(Anura: Hylidae). Australian Zoologist 32: 32-48.
Robertson, P., Heard, G. & Scroggie, M. 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 produced for the
Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Robertson, P. 2003. Draft Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement for the
Growling Grass Frog, Litoria raniformis. Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Victoria.
40
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria
Sands, D.P.A. and New, T.R. 2002. The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
SEWPaC. 2011. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html Protected Matters Search
Tool (PMST). Department of the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population
and Communities, Canberra.
Tyler, M.J. 1997. The Action Plan for Australian Frogs.
Canberra.
Environment Australia,
VBA 2010. Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. Sourced from: ‘VBA_FAUNA25’ and
‘VBA_FAUNA100’, August 2010. Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Victoria.
41
Targeted survey for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Ash Road, Leopold, Victoria