DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Code of Practice for Keeping Native Frogs Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Code of Practice for Keeping Native Frogs Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 Draft Code of Practice for Keeping Native Frogs Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 © 2018 State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage With the exception of photographs, the State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specific permission is required for the reproduction of photographs. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has compiled this report in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs. All content in this publication is owned by OEH and is protected by Crown Copyright, unless credited otherwise. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), subject to the exemptions contained in the licence. The legal code for the licence is available at Creative Commons. OEH asserts the right to be attributed as author of the original material in the following manner: © State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage 2018. Published by: Office of Environment and Heritage 59 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000 PO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232 Phone: +61 2 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks, general environmental enquiries, and publications requests) Fax: +61 2 9995 5999 TTY users: phone 133 677, then ask for 131 555 Speak and listen users: phone 1300 555 727, then ask for 131 555 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au Report pollution and environmental incidents Environment Line: 131 555 (NSW only) or [email protected] See also www.environment.nsw.gov.au ISBN 978-1-76039-900-9 OEH 2017/0456 May 2018 Find out more about your environment at: www.environment.nsw.gov.au Contents Preface 1 1. Introduction 2 2. Interpretations and definitions 2 2.1 Interpretations 2 2.2 Definitions 2 3. Enclosure construction 3 3.1 General requirements 3 3.2 Outdoor enclosures 4 3.3 Indoor enclosures 5 4. Enclosure sizes 5 4.1 General requirements 5 4.2 Tree frogs 6 4.3 Ground frogs 6 4.4 Burrowing frogs 7 4.5 Tadpoles 7 5. Enclosure environment 9 5.1 Temperature 9 5.2 Ventilation 10 5.3 Humidity 10 5.4 Lighting 11 5.5 UV light and metabolic requirements 11 6. Enclosure furnishing 12 6.1 Substrate 12 6.2 Furniture 13 7. Food, water and cleaning 14 7.1 Food 14 7.2 Water 15 7.3 Cleaning 15 8. Transport 16 8.1 Standards 16 8.2 Guidelines 17 9. Quarantine 17 9.1 Guidelines 17 10. Acquisition and disposal 18 iii 10.1 Standards 18 11. Record keeping 19 11.1 Standards 19 11.2 Guidelines 19 Schedule 21 iv Draft Code of Practice for Keeping Native Frogs Preface The Code of Practice for Keeping Native Frogs (the Code) is: • Approved as a code of practice under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 for the keeping of the species of native frogs listed in the Schedule to this Code. • Incorporated as a condition of a licence granted under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 for the keeping of species of native frogs for which a keeper licence is required. The species of frogs that may only be kept by a licensed keeper are listed in the NSW Native Animal Keepers’ Species List published on the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) website. The Code contains both mandatory standards and best practice guidelines for the care of native frogs as pets. An animal’s welfare can be thought of as the way an animal’s health, safety and wellbeing are affected by its physical and social environment. Health and behaviour indicators provide information about how an animal is responding to a situation, enabling keepers to make informed decisions relating to the animal’s welfare. Failure to comply with the Code means a person may not have a defence to offences under Part 2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and may result in a penalty notice being issued or the commencement of a prosecution. Compliance with this Code does not remove the need to comply with the requirements of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTA Act) and any other laws and regulations, such as the Local Government Act 1993. Keepers should be aware that: • They must follow the standards in the Code, unless advised by a veterinarian that a frog should be housed or managed in a different way to treat a particular problem. Keepers who follow a veterinarian’s advice will not be considered to be in breach of the Code. • Native frogs held under a licence for public exhibition, rehabilitation, education, conservation or scientific purposes are not subject to this Code. • All native frogs are protected under NSW law. It is an offence under Part 2 of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 to harm, injure, buy, sell, possess, import, export, remove from the wild or release into the wild a native frog unless authorised by a licence or a code of practice. • The importation of frogs from overseas for inclusion in private collections is prohibited under Commonwealth law. The possession of illegally imported frogs, or their offspring, is an offence under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This Code was prepared in consultation with various frog keepers affiliated with the Frog and Tadpole Study Group of New South Wales Inc (FATS). 1 Draft Code of Practice for Keeping Native Frogs 1. Introduction 1.1. This Code is an approved code of practice under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 for the keeping of the species of native frogs listed in the Schedule to this Code. 1.2. Compliance with this Code is also a condition of a licence granted under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 for the keeping of species of native frogs for which a keeper licence is required. 1.3. This Code comprises both enforceable standards provisions and advisory guidelines. Enforceable provisions are identified by the word ‘standards’ and they must be followed. 2. Interpretations and definitions 2.1 Interpretations Objectives The intended outcome(s) for each section of this Code. Standards Standards describe the mandatory specific actions needed to achieve acceptable animal welfare levels. These are the minimum standards that must be met. They are identified in the text by the heading ‘Standards’ and use the word ‘must’. Guidelines Guidelines describe the best practice agreed at a particular time following consideration of scientific information and accumulated experience. It also reflects society’s values and expectations regarding the care of animals. A guideline usually indicates a higher level of care than the minimum standard, except where the standard is best practice. Guidelines will be particularly appropriate where it is desirable to promote or encourage better care for animals than is provided by the minimum standards. Guidelines are also appropriate where it is difficult to determine an assessable standard. Guidelines are identified in the text by the heading ‘Guidelines’ and use the word ‘should’. Notes Where appropriate, notes describe practical procedures to achieve the minimum standards and guidelines. They may also refer to relevant legislation. 2.2 Definitions In this Code: • Frog means any native amphibian that may be legally kept in New South Wales under this Code or an animal keeper’s licence. • Keeper means the owner of the frog. 2 Draft Code of Practice for Keeping Native Frogs • Nocturnal means predominately active by night. • OEH means the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. • Physiological means the functioning of an organism. • Terrarium means the captive housing (enclosure) in which the frog spends the majority of its time. • Unauthorised person means someone who does not have the keeper’s permission to access their frog. 3. Enclosure construction 3.1 General requirements Objectives An enclosure constructed to a standard that maintains the security, safety and wellbeing of the frog or frogs being housed. 3.1.1 Standards 3.1.1.1 An enclosure must be escape-proof. 3.1.1.2 An enclosure must be made safe for frogs to occupy by excluding hazards that might harm it. 3.1.1.3 An enclosure must be designed and/or positioned to avoid overheating from direct sunlight and to prevent frogs from coming into physical contact with wild animals, pests, domestic pets, and unauthorised persons. 3.1.1.4 When different species of frogs are housed together, they must be compatible and known to be disease-free. 3.1.2 Guidelines 3.1.2.1 An enclosure should be designed so that the keeper can safely work in it and access the frogs. Notes Frog chytrid disease is a virulent fungal infection that is highly contagious and lethal to frogs. It can be spread by people to their pet frogs. The standards presented in this Code are designed to minimise the risk of accidental introduction and spread of disease to captive frogs. Substrates and other items contained in a terrarium must always be sterilised before being introduced into a terrarium. Any new frog acquired should be regarded as possibly chytrid infected despite not showing any symptoms and should be housed in isolation for a minimum of three months or until it is evident that the frog is uninfected.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Pinaroo Ramsar Site
    Ecological character description: Lake Pinaroo Ramsar site Ecological character description: Lake Pinaroo Ramsar site Disclaimer The Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (DECC) has compiled the Ecological character description: Lake Pinaroo Ramsar site in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. DECC does not accept responsibility for any inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by third parties. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. Readers should seek appropriate advice about the suitability of the information to their needs. © State of New South Wales and Department of Environment and Climate Change DECC is pleased to allow the reproduction of material from this publication on the condition that the source, publisher and authorship are appropriately acknowledged. Published by: Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW 59–61 Goulburn Street, Sydney PO Box A290, Sydney South 1232 Phone: 131555 (NSW only – publications and information requests) (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au DECC 2008/275 ISBN 978 1 74122 839 7 June 2008 Printed on environmentally sustainable paper Cover photos Inset upper: Lake Pinaroo in flood, 1976 (DECC) Aerial: Lake Pinaroo in flood, March 1976 (DECC) Inset lower left: Blue-billed duck (R. Kingsford) Inset lower middle: Red-necked avocet (C. Herbert) Inset lower right: Red-capped plover (C. Herbert) Summary An ecological character description has been defined as ‘the combination of the ecosystem components, processes, benefits and services that characterise a wetland at a given point in time’.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Abundance and Detection Trends During a Large Flood in a Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetland
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 11:408–425. Submitted: 26 January 2016; Accepted: 2 September 2016; Published: 16 December 2016. Amphibian Abundance and Detection Trends During a Large Flood in a Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetland Joanne F. Ocock1,4, Richard T. Kingsford1, Trent D. Penman2, and Jodi J.L. Rowley1,3 1Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 2Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, Institute of Conservation Biology and Environmental Management, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia 3Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, 6 College St, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia 4Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Amphibian abundance and occupancy are often reduced in regulated river systems near dams, but com- paratively little is known about how they are affected on floodplain wetlands downstream or the effects of actively managed flows. We assessed frog diversity in the Macquarie Marshes, a semi-arid floodplain wetland of conserva- tion significance, identifying environmental variables that might explain abundances and detection of species. We collected relative abundance data of 15 amphibian species at 30 sites over four months, coinciding with a large natural flood. We observed an average of 39.9 ± (SE) 4.3 (range, 0-246) individuals per site survey, over 47 survey nights. Three non-burrowing, ground-dwelling species were most abundant at temporarily flooded sites with low- growing aquatic vegetation (e.g., Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, Limnodynastes fletcheri, Crinia parinsignifera). Most arboreal species (e.g., Litoria caerulea) were more abundant in wooded habitat, regardless of water permanency.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.07 Frogs and Wetlands
    Chapter 2.7 — Frogs and wetlands • 161 2.7 Frogs and wetlands Dr Arthur White Biosphere Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd Australia Abstract Australian frogs are remarkably diverse in their life styles and their use of wetlands. Our understanding of the ecological needs of frogs is incomplete but we do know some of the major requirements for survival, such as the need for clean water, the need for safe foraging areas, the need for shelter from predators and adverse weather conditions, the need for minimal habitat stress (as this increases the susceptibility of frogs to disease). The design of wetlands must take into account these over-riding requirements, plus the specific requirements that are unique to each frog species. In this paper, I refer to the management of the Green and Golden Bell Frog during the establishment of the Sydney Olympic site as an example of sorts of considerations that are required in managing frogs and wetlands. Chapter 2.7 — Frogs and wetlands • 162 Australian Frogs 2. Air pollution: massive amounts of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide (and There are about 250 described frog species in other gases) have been released into the Australia (Anstis 2013). This is a surprisingly high atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. number of frog species for such an arid continent. These gases combine with moisture in the Australian frogs have had to adapt of the vagaries air and create toxic substances that kill frogs, of Australia’s climate and can survive in areas where other animals and plants. In the northern you would not expect them to be.
    [Show full text]
  • North Central Waterwatch Frogs Field Guide
    North Central Waterwatch Frogs Field Guide “This guide is an excellent publication. It strikes just the right balance, providing enough information in a format that is easy to use for identifying our locally occurring frogs, while still being attractive and interesting to read by people of all ages.” Rodney Orr, Bendigo Field Naturalists Club Inc. 1 The North Central CMA Region Swan Hill River Murray Kerang Cohuna Quambatook Loddon River Pyramid Hill Wycheproof Boort Loddon/Campaspe Echuca Watchem Irrigation Area Charlton Mitiamo Donald Rochester Avoca River Serpentine Avoca/Avon-Richardson Wedderburn Elmore Catchment Area Richardson River Bridgewater Campaspe River St Arnaud Marnoo Huntly Bendigo Avon River Bealiba Dunolly Loddon/Campaspe Dryland Area Heathcote Maryborough Castlemaine Avoca Loddon River Kyneton Lexton Clunes Daylesford Woodend Creswick Acknowledgement Of Country The North Central Catchment Management Authority (CMA) acknowledges Aboriginal Traditional Owners within the North Central CMA region, their rich culture and their spiritual connection to Country. We also recognise and acknowledge the contribution and interests of Aboriginal people and organisations in the management of land and natural resources. Acknowledgements North Central Waterwatch would like to acknowledge the contribution and support from the following organisations and individuals during the development of this publication: Britt Gregory from North Central CMA for her invaluable efforts in the production of this document, Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority for allowing use of their draft field guide, Lydia Fucsko, Adrian Martins, David Kleinert, Leigh Mitchell, Peter Robertson and Nick Layne for use of their wonderful photos and Mallee Catchment Management Authority for their design support and a special thanks to Ray Draper for his support and guidance in the development of the Frogs Field Guide 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Risk Assessment of Cane Toads in Kakadu National Park Scientist Report 164, Supervising Scientist, Darwin NT
    supervising scientist 164 report A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park RA van Dam, DJ Walden & GW Begg supervising scientist national centre for tropical wetland research This report has been prepared by staff of the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (eriss) as part of our commitment to the National Centre for Tropical Wetland Research Rick A van Dam Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Locked Bag 2, Jabiru NT 0886, Australia (Present address: Sinclair Knight Merz, 100 Christie St, St Leonards NSW 2065, Australia) David J Walden Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia George W Begg Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia This report should be cited as follows: van Dam RA, Walden DJ & Begg GW 2002 A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park Scientist Report 164, Supervising Scientist, Darwin NT The Supervising Scientist is part of Environment Australia, the environmental program of the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage © Commonwealth of Australia 2002 Supervising Scientist Environment Australia GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801 Australia ISSN 1325-1554 ISBN 0 642 24370 0 This work is copyright Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Supervising Scientist Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Protozoan Parasites Recorded in Australia Peter J. O
    1 CATALOGUE OF PROTOZOAN PARASITES RECORDED IN AUSTRALIA PETER J. O’DONOGHUE & ROBERT D. ADLARD O’Donoghue, P.J. & Adlard, R.D. 2000 02 29: Catalogue of protozoan parasites recorded in Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 45(1):1-164. Brisbane. ISSN 0079-8835. Published reports of protozoan species from Australian animals have been compiled into a host- parasite checklist, a parasite-host checklist and a cross-referenced bibliography. Protozoa listed include parasites, commensals and symbionts but free-living species have been excluded. Over 590 protozoan species are listed including amoebae, flagellates, ciliates and ‘sporozoa’ (the latter comprising apicomplexans, microsporans, myxozoans, haplosporidians and paramyxeans). Organisms are recorded in association with some 520 hosts including mammals, marsupials, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Information has been abstracted from over 1,270 scientific publications predating 1999 and all records include taxonomic authorities, synonyms, common names, sites of infection within hosts and geographic locations. Protozoa, parasite checklist, host checklist, bibliography, Australia. Peter J. O’Donoghue, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia; Robert D. Adlard, Protozoa Section, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Australia; 31 January 2000. CONTENTS the literature for reports relevant to contemporary studies. Such problems could be avoided if all previous HOST-PARASITE CHECKLIST 5 records were consolidated into a single database. Most Mammals 5 researchers currently avail themselves of various Reptiles 21 electronic database and abstracting services but none Amphibians 26 include literature published earlier than 1985 and not all Birds 34 journal titles are covered in their databases. Fish 44 Invertebrates 54 Several catalogues of parasites in Australian PARASITE-HOST CHECKLIST 63 hosts have previously been published.
    [Show full text]
  • No 158, December 2018
    FROGCALL No 158, December 2018 THE FROG AND TADPOLE STUDY GROUP NSW Inc. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FATSNSW/ Email: [email protected] Frogwatch Helpline 0419 249 728 Website: www.fats.org.au ABN: 34 282 154 794 MEETING FORMAT President’s Page Friday 7th December 2018 Arthur White 6.30 pm: Lost frogs: 2 Green Tree Frogs Litoria caerulea, seeking forever homes. Priority to new pet frog owners. Please bring your membership card and cash $50 donation. Sorry, we don’t have EFTPOS. Your current NSW NPWS amphibian licence must be sighted on the night. Rescued and adopted frogs can 2017 –2018 was another strong year for FATS. FATS is one of the few conservation groups that is man- never be released. aging to maintain its membership numbers and still be active in the community. Other societies have seen numbers fall mainly because the general public seems to prefer to look up information on the web 7.00 pm: Welcome and announcements. and not to attend meetings or seek information firsthand. It is getting harder for FATS to get people to 7.45 pm: The main speaker is John Cann, talking about turtles. be active in frog conservation but we will continue to do so for as long as we can. Last year we made the decision to start sending out four issues of FrogCall per year electronically. 8.30 pm: Frog-O-Graphic Competition Prizes Awarded. This saves FATS a lot of postage fees. Our members have informed us that when FrogCall arrives as an email attachment it is often not read, or simply ignored.
    [Show full text]
  • Predation by Introduced Cats Felis Catus on Australian Frogs: Compilation of Species Records and Estimation of Numbers Killed
    Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed J. C. Z. WoinarskiA,M, S. M. LeggeB,C, L. A. WoolleyA,L, R. PalmerD, C. R. DickmanE, J. AugusteynF, T. S. DohertyG, G. EdwardsH, H. GeyleA, H. McGregorI, J. RileyJ, J. TurpinK and B. P. MurphyA ANESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. BNESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia. CFenner School of the Environment and Society, Linnaeus Way, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2602, Australia. DWestern Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Bentley, WA 6983, Australia. ENESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. FQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Red Hill, Qld 4701, Australia. GCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood campus), Deakin University, Geelong, Vic. 3216, Australia. HNorthern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, Australia. INESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia. JSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom. KDepartment of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum, 49 Kew Street, Welshpool, WA 6106, Australia. LPresent address: WWF-Australia, 3 Broome Lotteries House, Cable Beach Road, Broome, WA 6276, Australia. MCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Table S1. Data sources used in compilation of cat predation on frogs.
    [Show full text]
  • ARAZPA YOTF Infopack.Pdf
    ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Information pack ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Printing: The ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign pack was generously supported by Madman Printing Phone: +61 3 9244 0100 Email: [email protected] Front cover design: Patrick Crawley, www.creepycrawleycartoons.com Mobile: 0401 316 827 Email: [email protected] Front cover photo: Pseudophryne pengilleyi, Northern Corroboree Frog. Photo courtesy of Lydia Fucsko. Printed on 100% recycled stock 2 ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Contents Foreword.........................................................................................................................................5 Foreword part II ………………………………………………………………………………………… ...6 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................9 Section 1: Why A Campaign?....................................................................................................11 The Connection Between Man and Nature........................................................................11 Man’s Effect on Nature ......................................................................................................11 Frogs Matter ......................................................................................................................11 The Problem ......................................................................................................................12 The Reason
    [Show full text]
  • (2008) Nocturnal Noise Levels and Edge Impacts on Amphibian
    Nocturnal noise levels and edge impacts on amphibian habitats adjacent to Kuranda Range Road Miriam Goosem, Conrad Hoskin and Gregory Dawe School of Earth and Environmental Sciences James Cook University, Cairns Supported by the Australian Government’s Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility Project 4.9.3: Impacts of urbanisation on North Queensland environments: management and remediation © James Cook University ISBN 9781921359194 This report should be cited as: Goosem, M., Hoskin, C. and Dawe, G. (2007) Nocturnal noise levels and edge impacts on amphibian habitats adjacent to Kuranda Range Road. Report to the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns (87pp.). Published by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre on behalf of the Australian Government’s Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. The Australian Government’s Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF) supports world-class, public good research. The MTSRF is a major initiative of the Australian Government, designed to ensure that Australia’s environmental challenges are addressed in an innovative, collaborative and sustainable way. The MTSRF investment is managed by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), and is supplemented by substantial cash and in-kind investments from research providers and interested third parties. The Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited (RRRC) is contracted by DEWHA to provide program management and communications services for the MTSRF. This publication is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, information or educational purposes subject to inclusion of a sufficient acknowledgement of the source. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Environmental Report
    Darwin 10 MTPA LNG Facility Public Environmental Report March 2002 Darwin 10 MTPA LNG Facility Public Environmental Report March 2002 Prepared for Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd Level 1, HPPL House 28-42 Ventnor Avenue West Perth WA 6005 Australia by URS Australia Pty Ltd Level 3, Hyatt Centre 20 Terrace Road East Perth WA 6004 Australia 12 March 2002 Reference: 00533-244-562 / R841 / PER Darwin LNG Plant Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd ABN 86 092 288 376 Public Environmental Report PUBLIC COMMENT INVITED Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Company, proposes the construction and operation of an expanded two-train Liquefied Natural Gas facility with a maximum design capacity of 10 million tonnes per annum (MTPA). The facility will be located at Wickham Point on the Middle Arm Peninsula adjacent to Darwin Harbour near Darwin, NT. The proposed project will include gas liquefication, storage and marine loading facilities and a dedicated fleet of ships to transport LNG product. A subsea pipeline supplying natural gas from the Bayu-Undan field to Wickham Point and a similar, but smaller 3 MTPA LNG plant were the subject of a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment process and received approval from Commonwealth and Northern Territory Environment Ministers during 1998. The environmental assessment of the expanded LNG facility is being conducted at the Public Environmental Report (PER) level of the Northern Territory Environmental Assessment Act and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The draft PER describes the expanded LNG facility with particular emphasis on its differences from the previously approved LNG facility and addresses the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Call Characteristics of Two Sympatric and Morphologically Similar Tree
    Asian Herpetological Research 2018, 9(4): 240–249 ORIGINAL ARTICLE DOI: 10.16373/j.cnki.ahr.180025 Call Characteristics of Two Sympatric and Morphologically Similar Tree Frogs Species, Polypedates megacephalus and Polypedates mutus (Anura: Rhacophoridae), from Hainan, China Qiucheng LIU, Tongliang WANG, Xiaofei ZHAI and Jichao WANG* Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Tropical Island Ecology, College of Life Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, China Abstract Anuran calls are usually species-specific and therefore valued as a tool for species identification. Call characteristics are a potential honest signal in sexual selection because they often reflect male body size. Polypedates megacephalus and P. mutus are two sympatric and morphologically similar tree frogs, but it remains unknown whether their calls are associated with body size. In this study, we compared call characteristics of these two species and investigated any potential relationships with body size. We found that P. megacephalus, males produced six call types which consisting of three distinct notes, while P. mutus males produced five types consisting of two types of notes. Dominant frequency, note duration, pulse duration, and call duration exhibited significant interspecific differences. In P. megacephalus, one note exhibited a dominant frequency that was negatively correlated with body mass, snout-vent length, head length, and head width. In P. mutus, the duration of one note type was positively correlated with body mass and head width. These differences in call characteristics may play an important role in interspecific recognition. Additionally, because interspecific acoustic variation reflects body size, calls may be relevant for sexual selection. Taken together, our results confirmed that calls are a valid tool for distinguishing between the two tree-frog species in the field.
    [Show full text]