DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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) (GHD 2007) 12 3.1.5 Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (2002) 13 3.2 Database searches 15 3.3 Flora survey methods 15 3.3.1 Digital Aerial Photograph Interpretation (DAPI) 15 3.3.2 Field survey site selection and stratification 16 3.3.3 Flora field survey 16 3.3.4 Targeted threatened flora surveys 20 3.3.5 Field survey timing 22 3.3.6 Threatened ecological community assessment techniques 23 3.3.7 Summary and adequacy of flora field survey effort 24 3.4 Terrestrial fauna survey 26 3.4.1 RPS fauna surveys 2011 26 3.4.2 Umwelt fauna surveys 2013, 2014 and 2015 27 3.4.3 Habitat and condition assessments 31 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 3.4.4 Terrestrial fauna survey timing and effort 32 4.0 Survey results 39 4.1 Flora survey results 39 4.1.1 Flora species 39 4.1.2 Vegetation communities in the proposed disturbance area 39 4.1.3 Threatened flora species, endangered flora populations and threatened ecological communities 52 4.2 Fauna survey results 61 4.2.1 Fauna habitat 61 4.2.2 Fauna species recorded 62 4.2.3 Threatened fauna species and endangered fauna populations 66 4.2.4 Migratory species listed under international conventions 73 4.3 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 74 5.0 Impact assessment 75 5.1 Project changes to avoid and minimise impacts 75 5.2 Impact of the project on ecological values 76 5.2.1 Summary of ecological values 76 5.3 Impact of the project on flora species 76 5.4 Impact of the project on vegetation communities 77 5.4.1 Impact on forest and woodland communities 78 5.4.2 Impact on heath communities 78 5.5 Impact of the project on fauna habitat and fauna species 78 5.5.1 Woodland and Forest Habitat 78 5.5.2 Wet heath habitat 79 5.6 Impact of the project on threatened species, populations and ecological communities 79 5.6.1 Threatened species assessed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 83 5.6.2 Threatened Species Assessed Under the Fisheries Management (FM) Act 1994 83 5.6.3 Threatened Species Assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 83 5.6.4 Migratory species assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 85 5.6.5 Assessment of impacts on koala habitat against the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) 2002 85 5.7 Impact on groundwater dependent ecosystems 86 5.8 Impacts of the Project on adjacent conservation areas 86 5.9 Impacts on corridors and connectivity 87 6.0 Impact mitigation strategy 88 6.1 General impact mitigation measures 88 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 6.1.1 Weed control 88 6.1.2 Sediment and erosion control 88 6.2 Protection and management or arboreal species and habitat 88 6.2.1 Nest box establishment 89 6.3 Specific mitigation measures for koala 90 6.4 Conservation area protection measures 90 6.5 Rehabilitation 91 7.0 Biodiversity Offset Strategy 92 7.1 The relevance of biodiversity offsetting 92 7.2 Relevant biodiversity offsetting policies 92 7.2.1 Background 92 7.2.2 NSW offsetting principles and policies 93 7.2.3 Commonwealth environmental offsets policy 93 7.3 Biodiversity offset objectives 95 7.4 Biodiversity offsetting pathways to be considered 95 8.0 References 97 Figures Figure 1.1 Locality Plan 3 Figure 1.2 Proposed Quarry Operations 4 Figure 2.1 Regional Setting 10 Figure 3.1 Koala Habitat within the Project Area (Port Stephens CKPoM) 14 Figure 3.2 Flora Survey Effort 17 Figure 3.3 Fauna Survey Effort 30 Figure 4.1 Vegetation Communities 41 Figure 4.2 Threatened Flora Species within the Project Area 53 Figure 4.3 Areas disturbed during Heavy Mineral Sand Mining 56 Figure 4.4 Threatened Fauna Species within the Project Area 65 Figure 4.5 Koala Habitat within the Project Area (Mapped by Umwelt) 70 Figure 5.1 Application of the Precautionary Principle to the Impact Assessment and Development of Mitigation and Offset Strategies 80 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx Appendices Appendix A Constraints and Opportunities Report RPS (2011) Appendix B Threatened Species Assessment Appendix C Flora Species List Appendix D Fauna Species List Appendix E TSC Act Assessment of Significance Appendix F EPBC Act Assessment of Significance Appendix G Assessment of Impact on Koala Habitat under the Port Stephens Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management Appendix H Site-specific Koala Plan of Management ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 1.0 Introduction Williamtown Sand Syndicate Pty Ltd proposes to develop a sand quarry at Cabbage Tree Road, Williamtown, approximately three kilometres south-west of Newcastle Airport (refer to Figure 1.1). The land is owned by Port Stephens Council (PSC) and the extraction of sand on site will be undertaken under a lease agreement with PSC. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for the Project to accompany a Project Application following Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) issuing Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) for the Project in October 2013. The following Ecological Assessment was prepared to meet the Director-General’s Environmental Impact Statement requirements in relation to ecological issues for the Project. 1.1 Overview Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) has been engaged by Williamtown Sand Syndicate to prepare an EIS as part of the development application for the proposed Cabbage Tree Road Quarry (the Project). Williamtown Sand Syndicate is seeking development consent to extract a total of up to approximately 3.32 million tonnes (Mt) of sand from the site at an extraction rate of up to 600,000 tonnes per annum (tpa). The proposed quarry operations would include extraction from Lot 1 in DP 224587, Lot 121 in DP 556403, Lot 11 in DP 629503, and Lot 1012 in DP 814078; referred to collectively as the ‘Project Area’. PSC has estimated there is approximately 4.6 Mt of dune sand (including the organic layer) accessible within the Project Area. Under the agreement, sand extraction is only available above the 4 metres Australian Height Datum (m AHD) contour and outside of the area reserved for a wildlife corridor. PSC identified three areas within the Project Area containing the sand resource as shown in Figure 1.2. The Project would involve the extraction of up to 600,000 tpa of sand and therefore meets the criteria listed in Schedule 1 clause 7(1)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 for assessment as ‘state significant development’ under Section 89C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). The Minister for Planning and Environment will be the determining authority for this development application. 1.1.1 Background to the project In March 2002 PSC purchased the four allotments comprising the Project Area from Rutile and Zircon Mines. Several approaches were made to PSC by interested parties in relation to undertaking sand extraction from the site. Under a ‘Permit to Enter’ PSC provided site access for some of the interested parties to take core samples to enable analysis of the sand resource. Laboratory testing identified that the sand is of high grade silica sand (white sand) that is particularly suitable for glass manufacturing. PSC engaged a consultant to undertake site investigations to identify constraints and opportunities with regard to ecology and heritage. Based on the constraints identified, PSC determined that extraction could occur within three main areas (refer Figure 1.2) above 4 m AHD. Extraction would not be permitted within an area set aside for a wildlife corridor between the two extraction areas. PSC’s Facilities and Services section provided an estimate of the amount of sand that may be contained within the identified areas on site. The extraction volumes were estimated utilising a ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Introduction 3251_R05_Ecological Assessment _FINAL.docx 1 computer software package based on contour levels throughout the site.
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

    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.
  • Field Survey Methods for Fauna. Amphibians

    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
  • 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

    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.
  • August 2006 Issue 84

    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.
  • MEMORANDUM Ecological Assessment

    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.
  • 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 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.
  • President's Report

    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.
  • Crinia Tinnula) Our Ref: Management Program (WFMP)

    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.
  • Mahonys Toadlet

    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).
  • Species Management Plan Wallum Froglet - (Crinia Tinnula )

    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 .......................................................................................................................................................

  • 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.
  • National Recovery Plan for the Wallum Sedgefrog and Other Wallum-Dependent Frog Species

    National Recovery Plan for the Wallum Sedgefrog and Other Wallum-Dependent Frog Species

    National recovery plan for the wallum sedgefrog and other wallum-dependent frog species National recovery plan for the wallum sedgefrog and other wallum-dependent frog species Prepared by: Ed Meyer1, Jean-Marc Hero1, Luke Shoo1 and Ben Lewis2 1 School of Environmental and Applied Sciences, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD 9726 2 Lewis Ecological Surveys, Wingham, NSW 2459 Title page clockwise from top left: wallum sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis), Cooloola sedgefrog (Litoria cooloolensis), wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula) and wallum rocketfrog (Litoria freycineti). Photos by Ed Meyer. © The State of Queensland, Environmental Protection Agency 2006 Copyright protects this publication. Except for the purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without prior written knowledge of the Environmental Protection Agency. Inquiries should be addressed to PO Box 15155, CITY EAST, QLD 4002. Copies may be obtained from the: Executive Director Conservation Services Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service PO Box 15155 City East Qld 4002 Disclaimer: The Australian Government, in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency/Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, facilitates the publication of recovery plans to detail the actions needed for the conservation of threatened native wildlife. The attainment of objectives and the provision of funds may be subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, and may also be constrained by the need to address other conservation priorities. Approved recovery actions may be subject to modification due to changes in knowledge and changes in conservation status. This recovery plan includes four species of frog, however adoption as a national recovery plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 refers only to the wallum sedgefrog Litoria olongburensis.