DOCSLIB.ORG

STAGE 2 THREATENED SPECIES ACTION PLAN R3 Final July 2019 FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
STAGE 2 THREATENED SPECIES ACTION PLAN R3 Final July 2019 FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL Improving Ecosystems STAGE 2 THREATENED SPECIES ACTION PLAN R3 Final July 2019 FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL Executive summary Fraser Coast Regional Council engaged Ecosure to develop a list of locally significant species for the Fraser Coast region, review and prioritise threatening processes for species of local, state and national significance, and identify management actions for a Threatened Species Action Plan. Existing biodiversity assessment systems and related literature were reviewed to develop a set of objective and scientifically robust criteria for identifying and prioritising locally significant species, including: • threatened status – species listed as matters of state or national significance under state or federal legislation • local abundance – number of occurrence records in the Fraser Coast area • local decline – at risk of extinction in the southeast Queensland region • distribution limits – limit of geographic or altitudinal range in the region • restricted / low population – limited in geographic range or uncommon in the region • disjunct population – widely separated populations across its geographic range • cultural / iconic species – cultural values or iconic to local community • ecologically important species – important ecological role in local ecosystems • locally managed species – Council can provide some level of effective management. Criteria were used to assess 163 candidate species, which included 92 species of local significance and 71 species that are listed as matters of state or national significance. The prioritisation process included review of available ecological information, community and Council workshops and input from community members with local knowledge of species in the Fraser Coast region. The review identified 59 priority species, which included 25 species of local significance and 34 species that are listed as matters of state or national significance. Priority species inhabit a broad range of habitat types, occupying eight of the ten broad vegetation groups occurring within the Fraser Coast region. The two unoccupied broad vegetation groups are abundant and widespread habitats in western inland regions but are uncommon in the Fraser Coast and other coastal regions. While 22 priority species inhabit one discrete broad vegetation group, 37 species may utilise two or more broad vegetation groups at various stages of their life cycle. Threats to priority species were classified into 22 categories, although many categories are inter-related. Threats that impact the greatest number of priority species are: • habitat loss from numerous causes including urban development, cropping, grazing, forestry, mining, quarrying, linear infrastructure (57 species) • habitat fragmentation (43 species) PR4174 Stage 2 TSAP ecosure.com.au | i • changes in fire regimes including fire frequency, intensity and seasonality (29 species) • altered hydrology including surface and ground water (25 species) • weed invasion (23 species) • projected impacts from climate change (43 species). Management actions were developed to address threats to priority species. Actions primarily address threatening processes on land managed by FCRC and private land, although some actions recommend collaborative actions with neighbouring councils and state and federal agencies to achieve effective management outcomes. Actions to manage threats were provided within 11 broad categories (many of which overlap to varying degrees): 1. habitat loss 2. habitat fragmentation caused by habitat loss, as well as infrastructure such as roads and in-stream barriers 3. habitat degradation from a variety of sources including maintenance works (e.g. roadsides, firebreaks, access tracks, fence lines, other linear infrastructure), contaminants (e.g. pollution, pesticides, nutrients), changes in hydrology, vehicle tracks and removal of important habitat resources (e.g. hollow-bearing trees, fallen timber, dense understorey vegetation) 4. inappropriate fire regimes 5. competition from weeds 6. predation and competition from feral / domestic animals 7. habitat restoration 8. introduction and spread of diseases 9. uncontrolled harvesting 10. impacts of climate change 11. monitoring. Recommendations for further studies were provided to improve the knowledge and management of priority species, including: • modelling of potential habitat for priority species • ground truthing of potential habitat for priority species • refining of wildlife corridors within the region in collaboration with surrounding LGAs • targeted surveys for priority species, especially in areas vulnerable to clearing and degradation (e.g. emerging community areas, riparian habitats) and for species with very few records in the Fraser Coast region • research into the ecology of priority species, especially habitat requirements, population trends and threatening processes. PR4174 Stage 2 TSAP ecosure.com.au | ii Acknowledgements Fraser Coast Regional Council (FCRC) provided extensive support for this project, including provision of ecological data, liaison with local experts and promotion and coordination of workshops. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of community members who volunteered their time and expertise towards the project. The following people attended workshops and / or provided valuable local knowledge: • Alan Logan (local orchid expert) • Brad Crosbie (Wyld Projects) • Dominique Potvin (University of Southern Queensland) • Cr David Lewis (FCRC Councillor) • Dustyn Currie (Public member) • Eva Ford (Mary River Catchment Co-ordinating Committee) • Gerry van der Lee (FCRC Environmental Technical Officer) • Glenda Pitman (Greater Mary Association) • Jenny Robin (FCRC Community Nursery Team Leader) • John Williams (Mary River Catchment Co-ordination Committee) • Lauren Payler (FCRC Manager Strategic Land Use Planning) • Mike Moller (Wide Bay Burnett Environment Council) • Myles Broom (Butchulla Land and Sea Ranger) • Penny Flaherty (Department of Environment and Science) • Peter Duck (Wildlife Preservation Society Queensland) • Tina Ball (Department of Environment and Science) • Tina Raveneau (FCRC Community Environment Program Officer) • Tony van Kampen (Ecologist/Consultant). We especially thank Tony van Kampen, who contributed his extensive knowledge of local flora to the project and has developed the Fraser Coast Plants website, which provides a valuable local botanical resource. PR4174 Stage 2 TSAP ecosure.com.au | iii Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations ALA Atlas of Living Australia AquaBaMM Aquatic Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology BAMM Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology BCC Brisbane City Council BOT Back on Track BVG Broad vegetation group DES Department of Environment and Science DNRME Department of Natural Resources, Mining and Energy EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 FCRC Fraser Coast Regional Council GCCC Gold Coast City Council GRC Gympie Regional Council LGA Local government area MBRC Moreton Bay Regional Council MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance MSES Matters of State Environmental Significance NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1992 NSC Noosa Shire Council RE Regional ecosystem SCC Sunshine Coast Council SEQ South East Queensland SLATS Statewide Landcover and Trees Study PR4174 Stage 2 TSAP ecosure.com.au | iv Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... iii Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................iv List of tables ..........................................................................................................................vi 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Scope ..................................................................................................................... 8 2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Identification of MSES and MNES species .............................................................. 9 2.2 Identification of locally significant species ............................................................... 9 2.3 Prioritisation of locally significant, MSES and MNES species ................................ 10 2.4 Species habitat preferences .................................................................................. 10 2.5 Threatening processes ......................................................................................... 11 2.6 Management Actions ............................................................................................ 11 2.7 Limitations............................................................................................................. 12 3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Species prioritisation ............................................................................................. 13 3.1.1 Prioritisation criteria ....................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 Prioritisation criteria and scoring system .......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Field Survey Methods for Fauna. Amphibians
    Threatened species survey and assessment guidelines: field survey methods for fauna Amphibians Published by: Department of Environment and Climate Change 59–61 Goulburn Street, Sydney PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 Ph: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Ph: 131 555 (information & publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Web: www.environment.nsw.gov.au DECC 2009/213 ISBN 978 1 74232 191 2 April 2009 Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................1 2. Nocturnal searches...................................................................................................3 3. Call surveys, including call playback .........................................................................4 4. Tadpole surveys ........................................................................................................6 5. Other survey methods ...............................................................................................8 6. Information to be included in the final report .............................................................9 7. Survey effort ...........................................................................................................10 8. Recommended survey effort and method for each species ....................................11 9. References and further reading...............................................................................31 1. Introduction All investigators conducting
    [Show full text]
  • Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C
    Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C. R., Augusteyn J., Doherty T. S., Edwards G., Geyle H., McGregor H., Riley J., Turpin J., Murphy B.P. (2020) Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed. Wildlife Research, Vol. 47, Iss. 8, Pp 580-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19182 1 2 3 Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species’ 4 records and estimation of numbers killed. 5 6 7 J.C.Z. Woinarskia*, S.M. Leggeb, L.A. Woolleya,k, R. Palmerc, C.R. Dickmand, J. Augusteyne, T.S. Dohertyf, 8 G. Edwardsg, H. Geylea, H. McGregorh, J. Rileyi, J. Turpinj, and B.P. Murphya 9 10 a NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, 11 Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia 12 b NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research, 13 University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; AND Fenner School of the Environment and 14 Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2602, Australia 15 c Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Bentley, WA 6983, 16 Australia 17 d NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and 18 Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 19 e Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Red Hill, QLD 4701, Australia 20 f Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood campus), Deakin 21 University, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia 22 g Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, 23 Australia 24 h NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, 25 Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia i School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Ave, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • August 2006 Issue 84
    FATS MEETING 2 JUNE 2006 Pseudophryne is a genus of frogs that is susceptible to hybridisation for the following reasons: rthur White welcomed first timers and regular Aattendees. There’s nothing too peculiar about FATS 1 They are small frogs that do not move great distances people. We like frogs, have webbed toes and many of our 2 They have relatively undifferentiated mating calls members are absolute novices about amphibians. We meet 3 Some evidence suggests females may not hear well to answer and discuss frog related issues. If we don’t know (Pengilley) (although this is controversial) the answers as a collective, we will try to find out. 4 Numerous studies show hybrid zones for many Pseud Arthur spoke about Life as a Wallum Froglet. These little species where population ranges abut or overlap teeny tiny frogs, that no-one wants to talk about, measure (eg Woodruff 1978; Dennington 1990 etc). about 20mm, are cryptic, mud coloured frogs that like to hide Hybrids of P. australis and P. bibronii have been recorded in mud. You can hear them but don’t always see them. They in the past in other areas of the Greater Sydney region, but are listed as a threatened species in Queensland and NSW and the majority of these hybrid zones appear to have been lost. only occur within 2 k of the coast. These tiny frogs are easily The frogs found during this trip are currently at the museum confused with others because of their patterning variations having their DNA analysed to see if in fact they are hybrids and this has resulted in areas where Wallum Froglet occur or just very strange P.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM Ecological Assessment
    MEMORANDUM TO Evan Aldridge DATE 22 March 2017 CC Aaron Lenden FROM Mervyn Mason PROJECT No. 1656658-003-Rev3 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF AN ECOLOGICAL SURVEY AND PROTECTED PLANT SURVEY – YAROOMBA BEACH Ecological survey and reporting was completed for the Yaroomba Beach site to add to the existing body of ecological knowledge collected over the last few years. The surveys and reporting were also conducted to ensure that the current ecological knowledge meets the requirements of the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014, and updated and current Queensland legislation (in particular, the Nature Conservation Act 1992, Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006, and the associated Protected Plants Framework and the Flora Survey Guidelines). Both of these were updated since the previous ecological assessments were completed for the site. Ecological Assessment An ecological survey, in line with the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme’s (2014) requirements, was conducted on 15 September 2016, and from 14 to 18 November 2016. The survey was timed to coincide with an optimal time when most species targeted were expected to have identifiable characteristics, such as flowers and foliage, for plants, or exhibited active breeding, in the case of amphibians. Findings As previously reported, and confirmed by the recent surveys: . The site supports regulated vegetation in the form of least concern Regional Ecosystems (RE). Remnant vegetation on site has been impacted by previous clearing and potential changes to the natural hydrological regime. Habitat values range from low, in areas that were previously cleared for the historical golf course, to moderate, in areas of retained native vegetation. Very little old-growth vegetation, and no hollow-bearing trees were recorded on the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Statement
    APPENDIX 8 Ecological Assessment Williamtown Sand Syndicate Pty Ltd ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Proposed Sand Quarry, Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown FINAL November 2015 Williamtown Sand Syndicate Pty Ltd ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Proposed Sand Quarry, Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown FINAL Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Williamtown Sand Syndicate Pty Ltd Project Director: Peter Jamieson Project Manager: Peter Jamieson Technical Director: Allison Riley Report No. 3251/R05/FINAL Date: November 2015 Newcastle 75 York Street Teralba NSW 2284 Ph. 02 4950 5322 www.umwelt.com.au This report was prepared using Umwelt’s ISO 9001 certified Quality Management System. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.1.1 Background to the project 1 1.1.2 Location of the project 2 1.1.3 Overview of the project 5 1.2 Objectives of ecological assessment 5 1.3 Relevant legislation and guidelines 6 1.3.1 Relevant guidelines, frameworks and policies 7 2.0 Regional setting 8 2.1 Physiography, geology and soils 8 2.2 Vegetation types and plant species 8 2.3 Fauna habitats and species 8 2.4 Conservation area and connectivity 9 3.0 Methods 11 3.1 Literature review 11 3.1.1 Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report, 398 Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown (RPS 2011) 11 3.1.2 Vegetation of the Tomago and Tomaree Sandbeds, Port Stephens NSW (Driscoll and Bell 2006) 12 3.1.3 Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy Vegetation Mapping 12 3.1.4 Ecology Report for the Airport/Defence Related Employment Zone (Williamtown)
    [Show full text]
  • The Freshwater Wetland Within the Study Area May Not Qualify As
    The freshwater wetland within the study area may not qualify as the ‘Freshwater Wetland on Coastal Floodplains EEC’, as this EEC typically occurs on silts, muds or humic loams in depressions, flats, drainage lines, backswamps, lagoons and lakes associated with coastal floodplains. Shrubland: Around the edges of the bare sand area in the central eastern portion of the study area, a shrubland comprising opportunistic shrub species such as Acacia longifolia occurs. The structural complexity is simple, with only a shrub layer to approximately two metres in height occurring. Floristic diversity is also very low. 4.2.2 Threatened Flora The literature review and database searches undertaken in GHD (2007) indicate that a number of threatened flora species have been recorded, or have the potential to occur, within the locality lists those threatened flora that have been recorded in the locality (Table 4-2). Earp’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. decadens) was recorded in the study area during the current investigations (Figure 4-3). The records of the species provided in Figure 4-3 are indicative only of the species’ occurrence within the study area. A detailed survey to ascertain the extent of the distribution of this species across the study area was beyond the scope of the current investigations. 4.2.3 Endangered Ecological Communities Field surveys undertaken for the supplementary assessment confirmed the occurrence of the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions Endangered Ecological Community (Swamp Sclerophyll Forest EEC) within the study area. 22/12808/78770 Williamtown Employment Zone 15 Report for Supplementary Ecological Investigations Table 4-2 Assessment of Likelihood of Threatened Flora Species Occurring Within Study Area Common Name TSC EPBC Habitat Association Likelihood of Occurring Act Act in Study Area (Species Name) Heart-leaved V V Occurs on poor coastal country in shallow sandy soils overlying Unlikely.
    [Show full text]
  • President's Report
    Official Newsletter of the Queensland Frog Society Inc. Winter 2013 W: www.qldfrogs.asn.au | E : | Camps E: | In this edition... President’s Report President’s Report 1 Welcome to the first electronic edition of the Frogsheet! Providing Coordinators & Diary Dates 2 the Frogsheet electronically will free up funds to allow greater in- vestment in the future conservation of frogs in Queensland. It will From Jono 3 also save on printing resources, so thanks to all those who have Coordinator Reports 3 helped us move in this direction. Book Review 5 Winter is well and truly here in the southern parts of Queensland Local & International News 7 but this doesn’t mean all frogs have packed up for the winter. You’ll Frotography 10 still find some of our wallum frogs, like the wallum sedge frog (Litoria olongburensis), here in South East Queensland sitting out Executive Committee on sedges, with the vulnerable wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) even Patron - Dr Glen Ingram choosing to breed during the cooler months of autumn and winter! So if you’re a brave enough frogger you can still find the occasional President - Dan Furguson frog out and about! Mob: 0438 337 545 Email: One such frogger is Jono Hooper, our Frogsheet Editor, Website Manager and the recipient of the 2013 Ric Natrass Research Grant. Vice Presidents - Jono is undertaking his Honours project examining how habitat Jesse Rowland fragmentation through the urbanisation of our coastal areas is im- Email: [email protected] pacting upon our wallum frogs. Much of our coastal heath habitats Tyrone Lavery have been destroyed, creating large urban edges which may result Email: [email protected] in further declines of the vulnerable wallum frogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Crinia Tinnula) Our Ref: Management Program (WFMP)
    11 August 2016 Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula) Our Ref: Management Program (WFMP) 4901 943 David Low Way, Marcoola QLD 4564 Client: Turtle Sands Pty Ltd Future-Plus Environmental Sunshine Coast 4 / 40 Technology Drive, Warana 4575 Future-Plus Environmental Brisbane 1 / 92 Merthyr Road, New Farm 4005 p: 07 5357 9169 e: [email protected] PO Box 1250, Buddina Q 4575 f: 07 3102 9399 www.future-plus.com.au ABN 23 658 506 336 FPE Ref: 4901-160805-0.2 DOCUMENT CONTROL INFORMATION File Number: 4901-160805-0.2 Project Manager: Paul Wood Client: Turtle Sands Pty Ltd Project Title: Species Management Program – Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula) – 943 David Low Way, Marcoola Project Authors: Jono Hooper, Paul Wood and contribution from Ed Myers Document Review Reviewed and Document Version Document Status Author Approved By 4901-160805-0.1 Draft Jono Hooper Paul Wood 4901-160805-0.1 Draft Jono Hooper Paul Wood Issue Approval Destination Document Version Date Dispatched Client Copy - digital 4901-160805-0.1 10 August 2016 Client Copy - digital 4901-160805-0.2 11 August 2016 11 August 2016 Wallum Froglet Management Program i Crinia tinnula 943 David Low Way, Marcoola FPE Ref: 4901-160805-0.2 NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS REPORT Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be reproduced by any process without the written consent of Future-Plus Environmental (“FPE”). All enquiries should be directed to FPE.
    [Show full text]
  • Mahonys Toadlet
    NSW SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Preliminary Determination The Scientific Committee, established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (the Act), has made a Preliminary Determination to support a proposal to list the frog Mahony’s Toadlet Uperoleia mahonyi Clulow, Anstis, Keogh & Catullo 2016 as an ENDANGERED SPECIES in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act. Listing of Endangered species is provided for by Part 2 of the Act. This species is currently provisionally listed as an endangered species The Scientific Committee has found that: 1. Mahony’s Toadlet Uperoleia mahonyi Clulow, Anstis, Keogh & Catullo 2016 (family Myobatrachidae) is a small (males 30 mm, female 32 mm) but robustly built frog (Clulow et al. 2016). Like other members of the genus Uperoleia, this species has large parotoid glands covering the tympanum, unwebbed fingers, vomerine teeth vestigial or absent, inguinal colouration present and presence of inner and outer metatarsal tubercles (Clulow et al. 2016). This species is distinguished from all other Uperoleia species by a combination of ventral pigment (ventral surface completely covered with black and white marbling), presence of maxillary teeth, toes unwebbed, lack of colour patch below the knee and a “squelch” as a call (Clulow et al. 2016). The belly patterns of black and white patches appear marbled, more similar to the bellies of Pseudophryne spp., rather than simply stippled as commonly observed in Uperoleia spp. (Clulow et al. 2016). Inguinal (groin) and femoral (thigh) colour patches are orange with the femoral colour patch irregular in shape and large and always closer to knee than vent (Clulow et al. 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Species Management Plan Wallum Froglet - (Crinia Tinnula )
    Species Management Plan Wallum Froglet - (Crinia tinnula ) Lot 607 on SP272654 Springs Drive Meridan Plains Queensland Stringybark Consulting PO Box 6275 Mooloolah Valley QLD 4553 M | 0466 490 205 F| (07) 5492 9985 [email protected] www.stringybark.com.au ABN: 23837337164 Project File Number & PF1405-3 SMP CRINIA TINNULA MERIDAN SPRINGS 150416 Report Title Date Thursday, May 05, 2016 Report Revision REVISION A Report Principal Authors CM Report Reviewers CM MM File Location J: \X SBC SERVER \PROJECT FOLDERS \PF1405 MERIDAN SPRINGS \REPORTS & DESIGN DRAWINGS\REPORTING\PF1405-3 SPECIES MGMT PLAN 2016\REV A ISSUE\PF1405-3 SMP CRINIA TINNULA MERIDAN SPRINGS 150416.DOCX Report Distribution List Chris Drinnan – Drinnan United © Stringybark Consulting 2016 Information provided in this report is subject to copyright laws and is intended for the noted recipient only. This report remains the property of Stringybark Consulting and may not be copied, reproduced or submitted in whole or in part without the express permission of the author. Stringybark Consulting accepts no responsibility for any third party who may use or rely upon the content of this report, liabilities or costs incurred as a result of the information being inaccurate or incomplete in any way for any reason. Parts of this report may contain information originally prepared by other parties – in these cases these sources are cited. All advice is provided based upon information sources current at the time of report preparation. Contents CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Period (June- August)
    Official Newsletter of the Queensland Frog Society Inc. Autumn 2004 PRESIDENT REPORT by Ric Nattrass A huge thank you to all the area coordinators and special helpers who were able to attend the get together at Brisbane Forest Park on Satu rday 29 June! I think it was a very profitable day. We inaugurated the Collingwood Park Developers’ award for environmental insensitivity. Any interested members can contact me ([email protected] ) for detail s. Let’s hope this award is only rarely presented. Among the many topics covered last Saturday was the change to Queensland Frog regulations which we as a society had lobbied to tighten up. At the beginning of 2003 there were wild rumours of frogs becomi ng available from pet shops etc, a proposal which would have ensured that any attempts to reduce the damage and further extinctions of native frogs from chytrid fungus and the spread of it, would be hopeless. The practice of taking tadpoles from the wild to share with friends (and that means from your own backyard frogpond) are over – or should be! The Courier-Mail article last week on cancer in north Queensland frogs is a beat-up. While these cancers are very sad and regrettable for the individual frogs concerned, chytrid and habitat destruction remain the two great demons immediately threatening native species. Members are encouraged to watch for threats to frog habitats in their area and report them to the management committee who will investigate the issue and take appropriate action. We may not win but we will let governments know our position.
    [Show full text]