DOCSLIB.ORG

Expert Witness Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Expert Witness Report Expert Witness Report Report prepared on instructions of: Bleyer Lawyers, Level 1, 550 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 Australia Prepared by: Graeme Gillespie B.Sc. Ph.D. 55 Union Street, Northcote, Vic 3070, Australia Curriculum Vitae Attached (Appendix I) I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and agree to be bound by it. Graeme Gillespie 23 February 2010 Qualifications and Experience Please see my curriculum vitae (Appendix I) for my general qualifications and experience. My Ph.D. in zoology focussed specifically on the conservation biology and ecology of frog species in south-eastern Australia. I have 23 years of field and scientific experience studying amphibians and their conservation and management in south- eastern Australia. I have published 24 refereed scientific papers and 38 technical reports on amphibian ecology, conservation and management. I am recognised throughout Australia as an authority on the frog fauna of Victoria, specifically with respect to conservation issues, and I am regularly asked to provide advice on such matters to individuals, government conservation and land management agencies, and non-government organisations. With regard to the Giant Burrowing Frog, I encountered this species on several occasions between 1986 and 1992 while undertaking and supervising pre-logging biodiversity surveys in East Gippsland, Victoria. These records are documented in the Victorian Wildlife Atlas. During this period, I gained knowledge of the species’ habitat associations, breeding biology, some aspects of its behaviour and an appreciation of its conservation status in Victoria (see Opie et al. 1990; Westaway et al.1990; Lobert et al. 1991). Because of my research into amphibian conservation and management, I am highly familiar with the existing literature on the impact of various forest management activities on amphibians and the implications of these activities for amphibian conservation. I am familiar specifically with the scientific literature on the Giant Burrowing Frog. Between 1986 and 1992 I conducted amphibian surveys in East Gippsland and observed the Giant Burrowing Frog on five occasions (see Victorian Wildlife Atlas records; Gillespie 1990; Opie et al. 1990; Westaway et al.1990; Lobert et al. 1991). In order to gain insight into the distribution and habitat requirements of the Giant Burrowing Frog, I have also visited other localities at which the species has been recorded previously within Victoria. Publications that I have authored or co-authored which are directly relevant to the Giant Burrowing Frog: 1. Gillespie, G. R. (1990). The distribution, habitat and conservation status of the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) (Myobatrachidae) (Shaw) in Victoria. Victorian Naturalist 107: 144-153. 2. Gillespie, G. R. and Hines, H. B. (1999). The current status of temperate riverine frog species in south-eastern Australia. In: A. Campbell (Ed.), Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra. pp. 109- 130. 3. Lobert, B. O., Gillespie, G. R., Lunt, I. D., Peacock, R. J. and Robinson, P. D. (1991). Flora and Fauna of the Goolengook Forest Block, East Gippsland, Victoria. Dept. Conservation & Environment Ecol. Survey Report No. 35. 4. Opie, A. M., Gillespie, G. R., Henry, S. R., Hurley, V. A., Lobert, B. O. and Westaway, J. (1990). Flora and Fauna Survey of the Coast Range Forest Block, Part II, East Gippsland, Victoria. Dept. Conserv., For. & Lands, Ecol. Survey Report No. 24. 5. Westaway, J., Henry, S. R., Gillespie, G. R., Mueck, S. G. & Scotts, D. J. and (1990). Flora and Fauna of the West Errinundra and Delegate Forest Blocks, East Gippsland, Victoria. Dept. Conserv., For. & Lands, Ecol Survey Report No. 31. See CV (Appendix I) for other publications relevant to my field of expertise. Description of the Species The following description of the Giant Burrowing Frog, Heleioporus australiacus, is derived from Lee (1967) and Barker et al. (1995). The species is a relatively large and rotund or stocky species with a maximum body length of 100mm (Appendix II). Dorsal body colour is chocolate or dark grey and white ventrally, with scattered yellow or cream spots, usually capping warts, on the flanks. The dorsum and flanks are covered with small warts each with a small black spine. The ventral surface is mostly smooth and white, apart from the throat, which may be brown and may also have spines. The tympanum (ear) is distinct and the pupil is vertical. Mature males have sturdy forelimbs usually exceeding the girth of the hind limbs. Males have a series of conspicuous conical spines on the first and usually the second fingers. The Giant Burrowing Frog is confined to eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range and coastal regions from the southern end of the Olney State Forest north of Sydney, NSW (Gillespie and Hines 1999), to Walhalla, in the Central Highlands of eastern Victoria (Littlejohn and Martin 1967; Victorian Wildlife Atlas unpublished data). The species has been found near sea level on the coast, and almost 100 km inland, along the escarpment of the Great Dividing Range, up to 1000 m asl. (Gillespie and Hines 1999). Most records are concentrated at the northern end of the range, in the Sydney region on the Hawkesbury sandstone formation. Most other records are from the southern part of the range, in eastern Victoria and the south-east corner of NSW (Gillespie 1990). However, these constitute much fewer, sparsely-distributed documented records (Gillespie and Hines 1999). Subspecies A distinct disjunction of 100km occurs in the distribution of the Giant Burrowing Frog records between Jervis Bay and Narooma (Lemckert et al. 1998; Gillespie and Hines 1999). There is genetic, morphological and bioclimatic evidence that populations to the north and south of this gap are distinct and separate evolutionary lineages (Penman et al. 2005a; Mahony et al. unpublished data). It is my opinion that these data are strong evidence of two distinct sub-species, although they have not yet been formally described as such. It has also been argued that they represent separate species (Penman et al. 2004, 2005a). Based upon the available evidence, these populations are different evolutionary and ecological management units and therefore should be treated as distinct taxa from a conservation perspective; here-in referred to as northern and southern forms of the Giant Burrowing Frog. Type and range of habitats The Giant Burrowing Frog has been found in a range of forest communities, including lowland, dry, damp and wet forest and montane woodland. Northern populations in the Sydney and region are associated with heathland habitats (Mahony 1993). There are no records from rainforest or Ash-dominated montane forest. The species has never been recorded in cleared farmland and would seem to be dependent upon forested habitat (Gillespie 1990; Penman et al. 2004). The Giant Burrowing Frog breeds mostly in small low-order streams. The species has been observed at fire dams and there is one record of egg-laying in a dam (Gillespie 1990), but the vast majority of breeding records have been from 1st to 3rd order streams, indicating that this is its preferred breeding habitat (Penman et al. 2004, 2008b). When not breeding, frogs disperse into the forest, occupying non-riparian habitats up to 250 m away from breeding habitats (Penman et al. 2008a), where they spend over 95% of their time (Lemckert and Brassil 2003; Penman 2008a,b). Reproductive Biology Age to sexual maturity or longevity for either form of the Giant Burrowing Frog is unknown. Calling by males has been heard throughout the year (Gillespie 1997). Peak breeding periods appear to be in Summer and Autumn (Gillespie 1997). Penman et al. (2006, 2008b) report individuals moving to breeding sites during this time after heavy rain. Eggs appear to be deposited in burrows or crevices (Gillespie 1990) and tadpoles may take up to 12 months to develop into frogs. Little is known about fertility and fecundity. Female clutch sizes have been report as 698-807 eggs (Penman et al.2004). Number of clutches laid is unknown but is likely to be once annually, typical of temperate anurans (Wells 2007). Data is inadequate to determine differences, if any, in breeding biology between the northern and southern forms of the species. Distribution Records of the Giant Burrowing Frog in Victoria are all on southern side of the Great Dividing Range, extending from Walhalla in Central Gippsland east to the New South Wales Border in Coast Range area. Only 21 separate sites are confirmed for the Giant Burrowing Frog in Victoria (Appendix III). There are no records east of the Cann River or south of the Princes Hwy. In Victoria, the species has only been found in eucalyptus dominated forest habitats, not heathland. Because of the paucity of records of the species from Victoria, it is not clear whether or not the species shows any preference for particular forest types or ecological communities over others, but there are no records from cleared land or regenerating clear-felled habitats (Gillespie 1990; Victorian Wildlife Atlas unpublished data 2010). Most records from Victoria are from mid-slope and ridge habitats. Surveys have been carried out for the Giant Burrowing Frog in Victoria historically, but these have been relatively patchy and not comprehensive. General biodiversity surveys carried out during the 1980s and early 1990s as part of the prelogging flora and fauna survey program included many forest blocks within the species’ general range. These surveys yielded several records of the species (Gillespie 1990). A targeted amphibian survey was undertaken in the mid-1990’s in far East Gippsland for the Giant Burrowing Frog and other rare amphibian species, which only yielded one additional record of the species (Holloway and Osborne 1997). No systematic and rigorous survey has been undertaken for the Giant Burrowing Frog throughout its range in Victoria. The species is extremely cryptic so in the absence of targeted thorough surveys using the most optimal techniques, it is likely that historical surveys have not been very effective.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agonimia Opuntiella
    Pertusaria scutellifera is a New Zealand endemic corticolous on several species of Dracophyllum and Nothofagus. Its asci are one-spored, and its spores can reach more than 180 µm in length. The photomicrograph on the cover looks like a differential interference image, but in fact was produced simply by sliding a piece of opaque paper partway across the condenser lens of the microscope to generate shadows. The technique has been whimsically called “ha’penny optics”. CONTENTS ADDITIONAL LICHEN RECORDS FROM AUSTRALIA Aptroot, A (73). Agonimia opuntiella................................................................................. 3 ARTICLES Ludwig, L—Marginal soralia and conidiomata in Icmadophila splachnirima (Icmado- philaceae) from southern New Zealand ......................................................................4 Øvstedal, DO; Fryday, AM—A new species of Protopannaria (Pannariaceae, Ascomy- cota) from the southern New Zealand shelf islands, and additional records of Pro- topannaria from South America .................................................................................. 12 Elix, JA—Three new species of Heterodermia (Physciaceae, Ascomycota) from Aus- tralia ............................................................................................................................... 16 Elix, JA—Lichen phytochemistry III: further additions and amendments ............ 22 Elix, JA; Archer, AW—Pertusaria cryptostoma Müll.Arg., the earliest name for Pertus- aria limbata Vain. ..........................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Threat Abatement Plan
    gus resulting in ch fun ytridio trid myc chy osis ith w s n ia ib h p m a f o n o i t THREAT ABATEMENTc PLAN e f n I THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN INFECTION OF AMPHIBIANS WITH CHYTRID FUNGUS RESULTING IN CHYTRIDIOMYCOSIS Department of the Environment and Heritage © Commonwealth of Australia 2006 ISBN 0 642 55029 8 Published 2006 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 Commonwealth, available from the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Assistant Secretary Natural Resource Management Policy Branch Department of the Environment and Heritage PO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 This publication is available on the Internet at: www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid/ For additional hard copies, please contact the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Community Information Unit on 1800 803 772. Front cover photo: Litoria genimaculata (Green-eyed tree frog) Sequential page photo: Taudactylus eungellensis (Eungella day frog) Banner photo on chapter pages: Close up of the skin of Litoria genimaculata (Green-eyed tree frog) ii Foreword ‘Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting Under the EPBC Act the Australian Government in chytridiomycosis’ was listed in July 2002 as a key implements the plan in Commonwealth areas and seeks threatening process under the Environment Protection the cooperation of the states and territories where the and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). disease impacts within their jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania Regional Focus
    November 2011 Vol. 99 www.amphibians.orgFrogLogNews from the herpetological community Regional Focus Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania INSIDE News from the ASG Regional Updates Global Focus Recent Publications General Announcements And More..... Spotted Treefrog Nyctixalus pictus. Photo: Leong Tzi Ming New The 2012 Sabin Members’ Award for Amphibian Conservation is now Bulletin open for nomination Board FrogLog Vol. 99 | November 2011 | 1 Follow the ASG on facebook www.facebook.com/amphibiansdotor2 | FrogLog Vol. 99| November 2011 g $PSKLELDQ$UN FDOHQGDUVDUHQRZDYDLODEOH 7KHWZHOYHVSHFWDFXODUZLQQLQJSKRWRVIURP $PSKLELDQ$UN¶VLQWHUQDWLRQDODPSKLELDQ SKRWRJUDSK\FRPSHWLWLRQKDYHEHHQLQFOXGHGLQ $PSKLELDQ$UN¶VEHDXWLIXOZDOOFDOHQGDU7KH FDOHQGDUVDUHQRZDYDLODEOHIRUVDOHDQGSURFHHGV DPSKLELDQDUN IURPVDOHVZLOOJRWRZDUGVVDYLQJWKUHDWHQHG :DOOFDOHQGDU DPSKLELDQVSHFLHV 3ULFLQJIRUFDOHQGDUVYDULHVGHSHQGLQJRQ WKHQXPEHURIFDOHQGDUVRUGHUHG±WKHPRUH \RXRUGHUWKHPRUH\RXVDYH2UGHUVRI FDOHQGDUVDUHSULFHGDW86HDFKRUGHUV RIEHWZHHQFDOHQGDUVGURSWKHSULFHWR 86HDFKDQGRUGHUVRIDUHSULFHGDW MXVW86HDFK 7KHVHSULFHVGRQRWLQFOXGH VKLSSLQJ $VZHOODVRUGHULQJFDOHQGDUVIRU\RXUVHOIIULHQGV DQGIDPLO\ZK\QRWSXUFKDVHVRPHFDOHQGDUV IRUUHVDOHWKURXJK\RXU UHWDLORXWOHWVRUIRUJLIWV IRUVWDIIVSRQVRUVRUIRU IXQGUDLVLQJHYHQWV" 2UGHU\RXUFDOHQGDUVIURPRXUZHEVLWH ZZZDPSKLELDQDUNRUJFDOHQGDURUGHUIRUP 5HPHPEHU±DVZHOODVKDYLQJDVSHFWDFXODUFDOHQGDU WRNHHSWUDFNRIDOO\RXULPSRUWDQWGDWHV\RX¶OODOVREH GLUHFWO\KHOSLQJWRVDYHDPSKLELDQVDVDOOSUR¿WVZLOOEH XVHGWRVXSSRUWDPSKLELDQFRQVHUYDWLRQSURMHFWV ZZZDPSKLELDQDUNRUJ FrogLog Vol. 99 | November
    [Show full text]
  • Frogs of the Perth Region – Darling Range
    FROGS OF THE PERTH REGION Darling Range Eight species of frogs are found commonly along streams and in the many small swamps in the Darling Range east of Perth. All of these species breed during the wetter months between late autumn and early spring. B. Maryan D. Robinson Whooping Frog Crawling Toadlet Heleioporus inornatus Pseudophryne guentheri BUILD: stout round body and short limbs, BUILD: flattened body, small head and short males have black nuptial spine on first finger limbs LENGTH: maximum length 7cm LENGTH: maximum length 3.5cm LOOK FOR: uniformly copper brown back, LOOK FOR: ‘warty’ back mottled with browns flanks may be mottled with white, grey or and grey, belly blotchy with black on white yellow background, crawls BREEDING SEASON: late autumn BREEDING SEASON: winter MALE CALL: ‘whoop whoop whoop’ MALE CALL: short, sharp grating sound B. Maryan D. Robinson Sand Frog Western Spotted Frog Heleioporus psammophilus Heleioporus albopunctatus BUILD: robust body with short limbs, males BUILD: large with a robust build may have black nuptial spine on first finger LENGTH: maximum length 8.5cm LENGTH: maximum length 6cm LOOK FOR: white or yellow spots on LOOK FOR: back brown to dark grey. Pale chocolate brown body coloured bumps on lower flanks BREEDING SEASON: late autumn BREEDING SEASON: late autumn MALE CALL: short, high pitched ‘coo’ MALE CALL: high pitched trilling ‘purr’ D. Robinson D. Robinson Humming Frog Hooting Frog Neobatrachus pelobatoides Heleioporus barycragus BUILD: medium size, flat broad head, robust BUILD: males have massive front arms and with short legs black nuptial spine on first finger LENGTH: maximum length 4.5cm LENGTH: maximum length 9cm LOOK FOR: back patterns with base colour LOOK FOR: greyish to chocolate brown body of green or grey with darker green or brown with scattering of yellow spots on its flanks irregular patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Ecology of the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus Australiacus): Implications for Conservation Prescriptions
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health January 2008 Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions Trent D. Penman University of Wollongong, [email protected] F Lemckert M J Mahony Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers Part of the Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Penman, Trent D.; Lemckert, F; and Mahony, M J: Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions 2008, 179-186. https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/724 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions Abstract Management of threatened anurans requires an understanding of a species’ behaviour and habitat requirements in both the breeding and non-breeding environments. The giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) is a threatened species in south-eastern Australia. Little is known about its habitat requirements, creating difficulties in vde eloping management strategies for the species.Weradio-tracked 33 individual H. australiacus in order to determine their habitat use and behaviour. Data from 33 frogs followed for between 5 and 599 days show that individuals spend little time near (<15 >m) their breeding sites (mean 4.7 days for males and 6.3 days for females annually). Most time is spent in distinct non- breeding activity areas 20–250m from the breeding sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoned Australia’S Forest Wildlife in Crisis
    Abandoned Australia’s forest wildlife in crisis Photo: Endangered Spotted-tailed Quoll by award-winning nature photographer David Gallan. Used with permission. ​ ​ ​ March 2019 (Updated July 2019) Contents Part 1: A sample of threatened forest-dwelling fauna species at risk from logging 3 ​ Comparison between ‘RFA forests’ and habitat for critically endangered species 5 Regent Honeyeater (NSW) 6 Western Ringtail Possum (WA) 7 Swift Parrot (NSW/Tas/Vic) 8 Leadbeater’s Possum (Vic) 9 Barred Galaxias (Vic) 10 ​ ​ Giant Freshwater Crayfish (Tas) 11 ​ ​ Koala (NSW/Vic) 12 ​ ​ Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo (WA) 13 ​ ​ Giant Barred Frog (NSW) 14 ​ ​ Numbat (WA) 15 ​ ​ Spotted-tailed Quoll (NSW/Vic) 16 Greater Glider (NSW/Vic) 17 ​ ​ Large Forest Owls: Masked Owl, Sooty Owl, Powerful Owl (NSW/Tas/Vic) 18 Further threatened forest-dwelling, logging-impacted species 20 ​ Part 2: Summary of new laws and proposals for new protected areas 25 ​ Part 3: Case studies: Threatened species under new RFAs and accredited logging plans 29 ​ 3.1 NSW ‘Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals’ (IFOAs) 30 ​ 3.2 Victoria: State of the Forests Report documents species decline 31 3.3 Tasmania 31 Part 4: Relevant court cases and rulings and their implications 32 ​ 4.1 Enforcement of EPBC Act in relation to threatened species 33 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Appendix 1: The total number of EPBC-listed, forest-dwelling species in Australia 34 ​ ​ ​ Appendix 2: Key threatening processes 35 ​ ​ Appendix 3: FSC HCV categories 37 ​ Acknowledgements and selected references 38 The Wilderness Society acknowledges the First Nations peoples of the lands and seas on which we work across Australia, and recognises their continuing connection to land, water and community.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Balance of Field-Excavated Aestivating Australian Desert Frogs
    3309 The Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3309-3321 Published by The Company of Biologists 2006 doi:10.1242/jeb.02393 Water balance of field-excavated aestivating Australian desert frogs, the cocoon- forming Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning Notaden nichollsi (Amphibia: Myobatrachidae) Victoria A. Cartledge1,*, Philip C. Withers1, Kellie A. McMaster1, Graham G. Thompson2 and S. Don Bradshaw1 1Zoology, School of Animal Biology, MO92, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia and 2Centre for Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]) Accepted 19 June 2006 Summary Burrowed aestivating frogs of the cocoon-forming approaching that of the plasma. By contrast, non-cocooned species Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning N. aquilonius from the dune swale were fully hydrated, species Notaden nichollsi were excavated in the Gibson although soil moisture levels were not as high as calculated Desert of central Australia. Their hydration state (osmotic to be necessary to maintain water balance. Both pressure of the plasma and urine) was compared to the species had similar plasma arginine vasotocin (AVT) moisture content and water potential of the surrounding concentrations ranging from 9.4 to 164·pg·ml–1, except for soil. The non-cocooning N. nichollsi was consistently found one cocooned N. aquilonius with a higher concentration of in sand dunes. While this sand had favourable water 394·pg·ml–1. For both species, AVT showed no relationship potential properties for buried frogs, the considerable with plasma osmolality over the lower range of plasma spatial and temporal variation in sand moisture meant osmolalities but was appreciably increased at the highest that frogs were not always in positive water balance with osmolality recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • National Recovery Plan for the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes Balbus
    National Recovery Plan for the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus David Hunter and Graeme Gillespie Prepared by David Hunter and Graeme Gillespie (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria). Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Melbourne, October 2011. © State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne. ISBN 978-1-74242-369-2 (online) This is a Recovery Plan prepared under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with the assistance of funding provided by the Australian Government. This Recovery Plan has been developed with the involvement and cooperation of a range of stakeholders, but individual stakeholders have not necessarily committed to undertaking specific actions. The attainment of objectives and the provision of funds may be subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved. Proposed actions may be subject to modification over the life of the plan due to changes in knowledge. Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. An electronic version of this document is available on the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts website www.environment.gov.au For more information contact the DSE Customer Service Centre 136 186 Citation: Hunter, D.
    [Show full text]
  • 2219573-REP-Marine Assessment Report AR
    Appendix L – Marine Assessment GHD | Report for Hunter Water Corporation - Belmont Drought Response Desalination Plant, 2219573 Hunter Water Corporation Belmont Drought Response Desalination Plant Marine Environment Assessment Amendment Report July 2020 Table of contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and structure of this report .................................................................................... 2 2. Project changes ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Key features of the amended Project .................................................................................. 4 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Review of relevant legislation .............................................................................................. 7 3.2 Review of databases and searches ..................................................................................... 7 3.3 Review of previous marine ecology reports ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Two Hundred and Ten Years Looking for the Giant Burrowing Frog
    Two hundred and ten years looking for the Giant Burrowing Frog 1 2 Trent Penman , Francis Lemckert and Michael Mahony' 'School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, N.S.W 2308,Australia 2Biodiversity Systems, Research and Development Division, Forests NSW P.O Box I 00 Beecroft, N.S.W 2119 Australia. Email for corresponding author: [email protected] The giant burrowing frog Heleioporusaustraliacus (Shaw) is a large, morphologically distinctive, but Downloaded fromhttp://meridian.allenpress.com/australian-zoologist/article-pdf/32/4/597/1471522/az_2004_005.pdf by gueston26September2021 cryptic frog found in south eastern Australia. This paper reviews the literature pertaining to the Giant Burrowing Frog. It is a forest dependent species found on the coast and adjacent ranges of south-eastern Australia, with five congeners in south-west Western Australia. The species is listed as vulnerable in NSW and Victoria and under Commonwealth legislation, although there is no obvious cause for a decline nor is it clear how much decline has occurred. Proposed threats to the species survival include forestry operations, habitat destruction, introduced species, pollutants, increased UV and disease.A large gap exists in the species distributional records and H. australiacusmay represent two distinct species, although the evidence for this remains inconclusive. Standard detection methods for frogs do not apply well to the Giant Burrowing Frog and alternative methods are required to provide a more detailed understanding of its ecology and distribution. Key words: review, conservation, Heleioporus, management, amphibian Introduction Despite being one of the first frogs described from The review brings together all known records from various Australia, there has been very little research into museum specimens, the published literature and previous the ecology of the Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus collations of habitat requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan
    Appendix 1 to Murray, K., Skerratt, L., Marantelli, G., Berger, L., Hunter, D., Mahony, M. and Hines, H. 2011. Guidelines for minimising disease risks associated with captive breeding, raising and restocking programs for Australian frogs. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan Compiled by: Graeme Gillespie, Director Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria; Russel Traher, Amphibian TAG Convenor, Curator Healesville Sanctuary Chris Banks, Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria. February 2007 1 1. Background Amphibian species across the world have declined at an alarming rate in recent decades. According to the IUCN at least 122 species have gone extinct since 1980 and nearly one third of the world’s near 6,000 amphibian species are classified as threatened with extinction, placing the entire class at the core of the current biodiversity crisis (IUCN, 2006). Australasia too has experienced significant declines; several Australian species are considered extinct and nearly 25% of the remainder are threatened with extinction, while all four species native to New Zealand are threatened. Conventional causes of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction and invasive species, are playing a major role in these declines. However, emergent disease and climate change are strongly implicated in many declines and extinctions. These factors are now acting globally, rapidly and, most disturbingly, in protected and near pristine areas. Whilst habitat conservation and mitigation of threats in situ are essential, for many taxa the requirement for some sort of ex situ intervention is mounting. In response to this crisis there have been a series of meetings organised by the IUCN (World Conservation Union), WAZA (World Association of Zoos & Aquariums) and CBSG (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, of the IUCN Species Survival Commission) around the world to discuss how the zoo community can and should respond.
    [Show full text]