ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINE

Giant Burrowing australiacus (Shaw and Nodder, 1795) Other common name(s): Frog, Southern Owl Frog, Eastern Owl Frog, Spotted Owl Frog, Burrowing Frog

The following information is provided to Giant Burrowing have not been assist authors of Species Impact Statements, recorded breeding in waters that are even persons undertaking Development Activities mildly polluted and are adversely affected by that require fauna and flora studies, and small pH changes (Green, 1997). consent authorities and others who are Burrows are excavated into the earth around, required to prepare or review reports or or associated with rocks fissures or boulders, assessments of potential impacts on probably to take advantage of water run-off , pursuant to the provisions from outcroppings. It has also been reported of the Environmental Planning and that yabbie holes are utilised along the beds Assessment Act 1979. and banks of drying creeks. Opportunistic These guidelines should be read in use of the excavations of small mammals may conjunction with the NPWS Information also be made. Circular No. 2: Threatened Species Survey Techniques Assessment under the EP&A Act: The ‘8-Part Test’ of Significance (November 1996) and The is a large solidly- the relevant NPWS threatened species built species that can reach around 100 mm in information profile. length. A description of the species is provided in the NPWS threatened species Survey information profile and may also be found in Identification of Habitat a range of publications (eg Barker, Grigg and The NPWS threatened species information Tyler, 1995; Tyler, 1989, 1992, 1994; profile describes the habitat for this species. Robinson, 1993; Cogger, 2000). If suitable habitat is present the NPWS The Giant Burrowing Frog is notoriously requires a targeted survey to be conducted difficult to find within its habitat. Its activity and should give consideration to the period tends to be confined to the Summer following information. months and, within this period, usually on Within its broad distribution, this species will nights of thunderstorm activity or after occupy various habitat types ranging from substantial rainfall. heaths, woodlands, dry sclerophyll and even This provides limited opportunity to detect moist forest types but not rainforest. adults and so the species can be easily Descriptions of the various vegetation overlooked in an area of suitable habitat communities occupied in the northern portion unless a targeted search effort is undertaken of its range may be found in Benson (1986, over an extended period. 1992), Benson and Fallding (1981), Benson Targeted surveys should generally include a and Howell (1994), Benson and Keith (1990), combination of active search both during the Fisher, Ryan and Lembit (1995), Ryan, Fisher day and night, call-detection, pit-trapping and and Schaeper (1996) and Keith and Benson searching for tadpoles. (1988). Most recent records are opportunistic, based Giant Burrowing Frogs usually live along on tadpole searches or call detection. Whilst clear, small slowly flowing water courses most activity occurs following periods of which traverse plateaus and broad upland thunderstorm activity in Summer, specimens gullies. They also live adjacent to stream have been found active at temperatures head-waters where they prefer permanently ranging between 10° and 23°C and at all moist soaks and pondages. Many breeding hours of the night. Most activity on the sites have been found to be associated with surface takes place well-after sunset, with shallow temporary ponds receiving seepage high levels of activity between 2200-0100 hrs and the ponded sections of slow flowing having been observed. creeks that drain ridges and plateaus. All available water-bodies, including rainwater pools, ephemeral swamps, slow- May 01 flowing creeks, or even rock pools in non- of activities that cause increased mortality to perennial water courses should be examined adults but also factors which directly effect for larvae. The tadpoles are quite easy to recruitment such as detrimental changes to distinguish and unlikely to be confused with water quality, flow regimes and pond other species within its range and are often duration. present over extended periods due to their slow growth rate. They can attain a very Threatening Processes large size prior to metamorphosis (up to Key Threatening Processes that have been 75mm), are relatively short-tailed and very listed under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act and dark brown to blackish dorsally and bluish- with at least some relevance to this species grey ventrally. include: The call of the Giant Burrowing Frog cannot • High frequency fire resulting in the really be confused with any other species over disruption of life cycle processes in its range. It has been likened to the soft plants and and loss of calling of an owl - ‘oo-oo-oo’ - hence its vegetation structure and composition; other common name of Owl Frog. The call may carry for some distance also, and it is not • Predation by the European Red Fox unusual to hear them calling from positions Vulpes Vulpes (Linnaeus, 1758); hundreds of metres away. Calling is usually • Predation by the Feral Cat, Felis catus at night but may also occur during daylight on (Linnaeus, 1758); and rainy days, but this is exceptional. • Giant Burrowing Frogs will call in response Loss of Biodiversity as a result of loss to taped call play-backs, however unusual and/or degradation of habitat following noises and torch-light may result in call clearing and fragmentation of native suppression. Patient listening for periods of vegetation (currently a preliminary determination) 30 minutes or more is often required. Other threats include: Most sightings of adults have been the • habitat loss or degradadation through opportunistic result of slowly driving roads urban development of habitat sites and tracks through suitable habitat at night, (particularly northern populations); either during or following summer • thunderstorms. Clearing of land for agricultural purposes (particularly in southern populations); Pit-trapping as a technique has been • Erosion and sedimentation of headwater employed but has had limited success and creeklines, particularly where runoff usually only when conditions are ideal. rates and flows are exaggerated through Generally, the NPWS does not consider upper catchment development or activity; pitfall trapping a preferred method and the • Forestry activities where logging directly technique should only be employed after disturbs forest habitat or where roading other methods have failed to detect the and other activities impact indirectly on species in potentially suitable habitat. breeding sites, however in the south Life Cycle of the Species many records are from logged forest; • Road mortality may be significant where Known details on the ecology of the Giant roads traverse and dissect major areas of Burrowing Frog may be found in the habitat and particularly where threatened species information profile and the populations are small; references listed therein. • high nutrient flows, associated weed Although there have been few studies on the infestations and pH changes due to urban life-cycle of the species, enough is now runoff. (Recsei 1996; Green 1997); • known to identify a range of potential threats the frog disease Chytridiomycosis has to the species. been impliacted in the decline and disappearance of a number of frog Much of the species existence is apparently species and has the potential to impact on spent burrowed underground sometimes this species; and beneath deep leaf-litter or in earth-filled rock • Giant Burrowing Frogs are also crevices interspersed with brief periods of occasionally misidentified and killed as activity throughout the year during rainy Cane Toads. weather (F. Lemckert; C. Slade unpublished). It is slow-growing, and long-lived with Fire may significantly impact on this species’ relatively low fecundity producing small habitat. Although there have been no numbers of large eggs. It is therefore likely scientific studies on the impact of fire on this that recruitment to the population from each species, there is a growing body of anecdotal breeding season’s effort is low. Thus, it may evidence that suggests the intensity and be particularly vulnerable not only to a range frequency of bushfires plays a significant role May 01 in the modification of Giant Burrowing Frog small habitat niche that is described in the habitat. NPWS threatened species information profile. Among these are habitat loss and changes to Limit of Known Distribution water quality and flow rates. Such impacts may be the result of inappropriate urban There appear to be two main distribution developments along adjacent ridges and this patterns, which have been loosely termed the may directly threaten Giant Burrowing Frogs northern and southern populations. through habitat destruction or indirectly, via The northern population is known to occur pollution or siltation of watercourses and within an area bounded by Mt Coricudgy and alterations to the local hydrological regime. Kings Cross in Wollemi National Park to the Viable Local Population of the Species Jervis Bay district and west to Mt Victoria. This distribution falls within the Sydney All existing colonies of the Giant Burrowing Geological Basin and is very similar to the Frog that are successfully reproducing and distribution of the Red-crowned Toadlet. recruiting new members into the breeding The southern population occurs from population must be regarded as viable. The Narooma to north-eastern parts of Victoria, presence of calling individuals, gravid near Walhalla (where it now appears to be females, deposited eggs and larvae strongly locally extinct). Both populations could supports the notion that a site has resources potentially occur over wider areas than available to the species to support a viable current observation records suggest, as the local population. extent of habitat exists beyond the limit of The viability of any local population of this current specimen records in some areas. species is likely to be compromised by the Further survey of potential habitat may above threatening processes if they result in identify additional populations and range increased mortality of adults or decrease the extensions. quality of breeding and/or foraging habitat. Additionally, protection of habitat Adequacy of Representation in surrounding these viable local populations is Conservation Reserves or other also likely essential as connectivity between similar Protected Areas different colonies allows gene flow between them. Although the species is protected in a number of conservation reserves, it is not A Significant Area of Habitat known whether the genetic variation of the species is adequately reserved at present. It is Given that the Giant Burrowing Frog is known from preliminary genetic analysis, that known from a relatively small number of there is genetic variation between the locations within a fragmented distribution, northern and southern populations (M. any loss or alteration of habitat should be Mahony pers. comm.). Some field regarded as significant. Studies to determine herpetologists consider that the population in population sizes, densities and movement north-eastern Victoria and southern New patterns have commenced. South Wales may be taxonomically distinct Isolation/Fragmentation from the Sydney Basin population. Populations of the Giant Burrowing Frog are The Giant Burrowing Frog presently survives currently reserved in Ben Boyd, Biamanga, across its entire range as a number of Blue Mountains, Booderee (EA), Brisbane apparently isolated populations. Some of Water, Budderoo, Dharug, Royal, Heathcote, these isolates are becoming increasingly Garigal, Jervis Bay, Ku-ring-Gai Chase, fragmented due to various landuse changes Marramarra, Morton, Mount Imlay, Popran, such as roads, urban developments and other South East Forest, Wollemi and Yengo activities. The further fragmentation of National Parks. Barren Grounds, already naturally restricted areas of habitat Muogamarra, Nattai, Red Rocks and Nadgee may have unforeseen consequences for the Nature Reserves. Bargo, Dharawal and Parr survival of an entire population. SRAs. Additionally, although not set aside Regional Distribution of the Habitat primarily for conservation purposes, the species is also afforded some conservation The TSC Act defines region as an area benefit via occurrence in a number of State identified within the Interim Biogeographic Forests, Water Catchment areas and Regionalisation of Australia. The known Department of Defence lands (Holsworthy). distribution of the Giant Burrowing Frog is The northern population has better reserve confined to the Sydney Basin, South East representation than the southern population Corner and the margin of the South Eastern which is known from far fewer records. Highlands regions. Within these regions the However population sizes, densities as well Giant Burrowing Frog occupies a relatively as trends and fluctuations are largely May 01 unknown. Projects to address some of these and the Stuttering Frog (Mixophyes balbus). information gaps are currently in progress. Report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville and the Arthur Rylah Critical Habitat Institute, Victorian DNRE Critical habitat cannot be declared for the Green, M. 1997 The effect of suspended Giant Burowing Frog as it is not listed on sediment from forestry-induced erosion on schedule 1 of the TSC Act. Therefore, this tadpole growth, energy use and the gills of issue does not need to be considered. two species of stream-dwelling tadpoles, References Mixophyes balbus and Heleioporus australiacus. Bsc (Hons) Thesis, University of Anstis, M. 1974 An introduction to the study Sydney of Australian tadpoles. Herpetofauna, 7 (1): Harrison, L. 1922 On the breeding habits of 9-14 some Australian frogs. Australian Zoologist, Benson, D.H. 1986 The vegetation of the 3: 17-34 Gosford - Lake Macquarie 1: 100000 Keith, D.A. and Benson, D.H. 1988 The Vegetation Map Sheet. Cunninghamia, 1 (4): natural vegetation of the Katoomba 1: 100000 467-489 Vegetation Map Sheet. Cunninghamia, 2 (1): Benson, D.H. 1992 The natural vegetation of 107-144 the Penrith 1: 100000 Vegetation Map Sheet. Le Breton, M.J. 1994 Endangered Fauna Cunninghamia, 2 (4): 541-596 Survey of the Blackheath and Katoomba Benson, D.H. and Fallding, H. 1981 Water Board Catchment Areas, Blue Vegetation survey of Brisbane Water Mountains NSW. and Reptiles. National Park and environs. Cunninghamia, Report to the Water Board of New South 1: 79-113 Wales, Sydney Benson, D.H. and Howell, J. 1994 The Lemckert, F. 1998 Errata. Recent records of natural vegetation of the Sydney 1: 100000 the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus Sheet. Cunninghamia, 3: 679-788 australiacus) from the far south coast of Benson, D.H. and Keith, D.A.1990 The NSW. Herpetofauna, 28 (2): 46 natural vegetation of the Wallerawang 1: Lemckert, F., Brassil, T. and McCray, K. 100000 Map Sheet. Cunninghamia, 2 (2): 1998 Recent records of the Giant Burrowing 305-335 Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) from the far Branagan, D.F., Herbert, C. and Langford- south coast of NSW. Herpetofauna, 28 (1): Smith, T. (Editors) 1976 An Outline of the 32-39 Geology and Geomorphology of the Sydney Littlejohn, M.J. and Martin, A.A. 1967 The Basin. Science Press, Sydney rediscovery of Heleioporus australiacus Daly, G. 1994 Jervis Bay National Park. (Shaw) (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in eastern Reptile and Survey. Report to Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Victoria, 80 (1): 31-36 Canberra Lunney, D. and Barker, J. 1986 Survey of Daly, G. 1996 Observations on the Eastern reptiles and amphibians of the coastal forests Owl Frog Heleioporus australiacus (Anura: near Bega, NSW. Australian Zoologist, 22 ) in southern New South (3): 1-9 Wales. Herpetofauna, 26 (1): 33-42 Mahony, M.J. 1994 The status of frogs in the Fisher, M., Ryan, K. and Lembit, R. 1995 Wattagan Mountains area, the central coast of The natural vegetation of the Burragorang 1: New South Wales. In: Lunney, D. and Ayres, 100000 Vegetation Map Sheet. D. (Editors): Herpetology in Australia: A Cunninghamia, 4 (2): 143-215 diverse discipline. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney Fletcher, J.J. 1889 Observations on the oviposition and habits of certain Australian Martin, A.A. 1967 Australian Anuran life batrachians. Proceedings of the Linnean histories: Some evolutionary and ecological Society of New South Wales, (2) 4: 357-387 aspects. [Pp. 175-191]. In: Weatherley, A.H. (Editor): Australian Inland Waters and Their Gillespie, G.R. 1990 Distribution, habitat and Fauna: Eleven Studies. Australian National of the Giant Burrowing University Press, Canberra Frog, Heleioporus australiacus (Myobatrachidae), in Victoria. Victorian Mazzer, T. 1994 The Giant Burrowing Frog Naturalist, 107 (5-6): 144-153 (Heleioporus australiacus). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement No 61 [Victorian Gillespie, G.R. 1996 Survey design and Department of Conservation and Natural management prescriptions for the Giant Resources] Burrowing Frog, (Heleioporus australiacus) May 01 Recsei, J. 1997 Heleioporus australiacus Webb, G.A. 1987 A note on the distribution Eastern Owl Frog. [Pp. 55-64]. In: Ehmann, and diet of the Giant Burrowing Frog, H.F.W. (Editor): Threaten Frogs of New Heleioporus australiacus (Shaw and Nodder, South Wales: Habitats, Status and 1795) (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Conservation. Frog and Tadpole Study Herpetofauna, 17 (2): 20-21 Group, Sydney [Pp. i-ii, 1-237] Webb, G.A. 1991 A survey of the reptiles and Recsei, J. and Thumm, K. 1995 Holsworthy amphibians of Bondi State Forest and Training Area Amphibian Survey. Report to surrounding areas, near Bombala, NSW. Australian Museum Business Services, Australian Zoologist, 27: 14-19 Sydney Webb, G.A. 1993 Significance of the Giant Ryan, K., Fisher, M. and Schaeper, L. (1996). Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) in The natural vegetation of the St Albans 1: Bombaderry Creek Reserve. Report to the 100 000 map sheet. Cunninghamia, 4 (3): New South Wales National Parks and 433-482 Wildlife Service, Hurstville Smith, P. and Smith, J. (1988). Fauna of the Wellington, R.C. and Wells, R.W. 1994 A Blue Mountains. Three Sisters Publications, report on reptiles and amphibians observed in Winmalee. the Narooma Forestry District. Wandella- Steel, T. 1912 A remarkable burrowing frog. Dampier State Forests. Unpublished report to Australian Naturalist, 2: 135 State Forests of NSW. Stewart, D. 1995 Frog Calls of the Greater Wellington, R.C. and Wells, R.W. 1995 Sydney Basin. Author, Mullumbimby [Tape Morisset Forestry District Environmental and Information] Impact Statement, Supporting Document No. 7 Fauna Survey of the Morisset Forestry Tyler, M.J. 1989 Australian Frogs. Viking District - Central Coast, NSW - Reptiles and O'Neil, Ringwood (Vic) [Pp. i-xii, 1-220] Amphibians. State Forests of NSW. Watson, G.F. and Martin, A.A. 1973 Life Wells, R.W. and Wellington, R.C. 1988 The history, larval morphology and relationships amphibians and reptiles of the Blue of Australian Leptodactylid frogs. Mountains region, Sydney Basin, New South Transactions of the Royal Society of South Wales, Australia. Australian Herpetologist, Australia, 97: 33-45 No 504: 1-12 Webb, G.A. 1981 Geographical distribution York, A., Binns, D. and Shields, J. 1991 of reptiles and amphibians in the Southern Flora and Fauna Assessment in NSW State Eden Forestry Region. Forestry Commission Forests. Survey Guidelines. Procedures for of New South Wales, Report No 783: 1-115 Sampling Flora and Fauna for Environmental Webb, G.A. 1983 Diet in a herpetofaunal Impact Statements. Forest Research Division. community on the Hawkesbury Sandstone Forestry Commission of NSW [Version 1.1 Formation in the Sydney Area. Herpetofauna, September 1991; Pp. 1-57] 14 (2): 87-91

For Further Information contact Threatened Species Unit Central Directorate NSW NPWS PO Box 1967, Hurstville NSW 2220 Phone 02 9585 6678 www.npws.nsw.gov.au

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and the editor expressly disclaim all liability and responsibility to any person, whether a purchaser or reader of this document or not, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any person in reliance upon the contents of this document although every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented in this document is accurate and up to date.

May 01