FINAL REPORT: Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis...

+

HEAD OFFICE: 420 Victoria Street, Brunswick VIC 3056 MELBOURNE: PO Box 298, Brunswick VIC 3056 GEELONG: PO Box 8048, Newtown VIC 3220

FINAL REPORT:

Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Conservation Management Plan for the Westwood Drive Extension, Burnside Heights, Victoria ON BEHALF OF:

Melton Shire Council December 2011

Ecology And Heritage Partners Pty Ltd

mstockdale

TextBox

ANNEXURE 1

Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan for the Westwood Drive Extension, Burnside Heights, Victoria i

Table of Contents Summary................................................................................................................................. iv

1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of Assessment ................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Study Area .................................................................................................................... 2

2 Background................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis ................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Conservation status................................................................................................. 4

2.1.2 Habitat requirements ............................................................................................... 4

2.1.3 Habitat within the study area.................................................................................. 5

2.1.4 Occurrence of the species within the study area................................................ 7

2.1.5 Distribution in surrounding area ............................................................................ 7

2.1.6 Threatening processes ........................................................................................... 8

2.2 Potential Impacts ......................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Habitat loss ............................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Habitat fragmentation and bridge construction ................................................... 8

2.2.3 Hydrology and water quality................................................................................... 9

2.2.4 Roads and Vehicular Traffic................................................................................... 9

2.2.5 Human Access ....................................................................................................... 10

2.2.6 Weeds...................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.7 Dog and cat ownership ......................................................................................... 10

2.2.8 Exotic Predators..................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Likely Improvements ................................................................................................. 11

3 Conservation Management Plan ......................................................................... 12

3.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Management Plan Implementation, Timeframe and Review.............................. 12

3.3 Pre-Construction phase ............................................................................................ 12

3.3.1 Mitigation measures .............................................................................................. 12

3.3.2 Fence Design Requirements and Considerations............................................ 14

3.3.3 Frog Salvage and Translocation ......................................................................... 15

3.3.4 Required approvals ............................................................................................... 16

3.3.4.1 National legislation ................................................................................................ 16

3.3.4.2 State legislation...................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Construction phase.................................................................................................... 17

3.4.1 Frog movement and dispersal ............................................................................. 18

Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan for the Westwood Drive Extension, Burnside Heights, Victoria ii

3.4.2 Vegetation netting.................................................................................................. 18

3.5 Post-Construction Phase: Ongoing Management and Monitoring .................... 18

3.5.1 Population and habitat monitoring ...................................................................... 18

3.5.2 Habitat management and maintenance ............................................................. 19

3.5.3 Pollution and stormwater management.............................................................. 20

3.5.4 Management policy ............................................................................................... 20

3.5.5 Water quality monitoring and management....................................................... 21

3.5.6 Litter and hard rubbish management.................................................................. 22

3.6 Responsibilities for Management ............................................................................ 22

3.6.1 Key responsibilities................................................................................................ 22

4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 23

Figures.................................................................................................................................... 24

References ............................................................................................................................ 28

Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 33

Tables

Table A1.1. Rare or threatened categories for listed Victorian taxa. .......................................34

Table A1.2. Defining Ecological Signif icance. ..........................................................................35

Table A1.3. Defining Site Signif icance.....................................................................................37

Table A1.4. Defining Vegetation Condit ion...............................................................................38

Table A1.5. Defining Habitat Quality.........................................................................................39

Table A2.1. Implementation schedule. .....................................................................................40

Table A3.1. Plant species recommended for w etland vegetation. ..........................................41

Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan for the Westwood Drive Extension, Burnside Heights, Victoria iii

Acknowledgements We thank the following people for their contribution in the project:

� Matthew Hutchinson (Melton Shire Council) for project and site information / photos.

� Anthony Mann [Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC)] for ongoing comments and assistance with Conservation Management Plan.

� Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) for access to data on the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas.

Cover Photo: Aerial photograph of Kororoit Creek and proposed bridge crossing located within the Westwood Drive development (Matthew Hutchinson, Melton Shire Council) and Growling

Grass Frog Litoria raniformis (upper right) (Andrew Taylor, Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd).

The following Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd employees either undertook the field assessments and/or contributed to the preparation of this report: Andrew Taylor, Jo Day, Aaron

Organ and Amanda Feetham.

Project # 3235

Copyright © Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd

This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. The use or copying of this document in whole or part without the permission of Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd is an infringement of copyright.

Disclaimer

Although Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd have taken all the necessary steps to ensure that an accurate document has been prepared, the company accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report and its content.

Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan for the Westwood Drive Extension, Burnside Heights, Victoria iv

SUMMARY

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd was commissioned by Melton Shire Council to prepare a detailed Conservation Management Plan for the nationally threatened Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis as part of the proposed road extension and bridge crossing at Westwood Drive, Burnside Heights, Victoria. This document provides a detailed plan for the protection, future management and monitoring of L. raniformis as part of the proposed development. It outlines detailed recommendations for the projection of the species pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction.

Study Area

The study area is located in Burnside Heights, approximately 25 kilometres west of the Melbourne Central Business District. According to Department of Sustainability and Environment’s (DSE’s) Biodiversity Interactive Map, the study area is within the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion which covers a large part of south western Victoria and extends from the western suburbs of Melbourne to Hamilton. The DSE modelled pre-1750 EVC mapping for the region shows that the study area would have predominantly contained Plains Grassland, with Creekline Grassy Woodland along Kororoit Creek.

Issue

Based on the habitat requirements of L. raniformis within the study area, a section of Kororoit Creek known to support the species is expected to be impacted by the proposed development. The proposed development may have an impact directly, through the removal and/or enhancement of in-stream habitat and possibly mortality during construction, or indirectly, through the alteration to the creek, fragmentation of suitable habitats, increased pollutants, noise or predation. Despite this, the proposed development is unlikely to result in an overall reduction in the quality of frog habitat within Kororoit Creek.

Objective

The primary objective of the Conservation Management Plan is to provide guidelines to minimise the effects of the proposed development on current L. raniformis habitat and enhance habitat attributes within the study area. It outlines actions such as salvage and translocation measures, and ongoing management and maintenance objectives that are required to ensure that the species is not adversely affected as a result of the proposed development.

The most important element for the effective implementation of the Conservation Management Plan is the ongoing commitment and coordination from the Development Manager, Melton Shire Council and the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE).

Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan for the Westwood Drive Extension, Burnside Heights, Victoria v

Similarly, there needs to be continual communication between the proponent, referral authorities and specialist consultants experienced in undertaking monitoring and management of L. raniformis and its habitats.

The plan will be carried out over a three year period. Provided that construction and ongoing management and monitoring of the study area is in accordance with recommendations provided in this plan, there is unlikely to be any significant impacts to resident L. raniformis populations along the creek.

Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan for the Westwood Drive Extension, Burnside Heights, Victoria 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd was commissioned by Melton Shire Council (MSC) to prepare a detailed Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the nationally threatened Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis (herein referred to as L. raniformis) as part of the proposed road extension and bridge crossing at Westwood Drive, Burnside Heights, Victoria (Figure 1). This document provides a detailed plan for the management of L. raniformis for the development during pre-construction, construction, and post-construction stages.

An initial site assessment was undertaken during December 2009 to investigate and document any potential ecological constraints within the study area (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2009a; Figure 1). On 8 April 2011 an EPBC referral was submitted by Ecology Partners Pty Ltd, on behalf of Melton Shire Council, to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC). The referral related to Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) associated with the proposed road extension and bridge crossing at Westwood Drive, Burnside Heights, Victoria (EPBC 2011/5909). On 19 April 2011, Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd received communication from SEWPaC requesting additional information (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011).

This CMP has been developed in light of the requirements outlined in the referral to SEWPaC and additional information regarding L. raniformis species distribution within the study area. It fulfils the objectives of the Action Statement for the species prepared in accordance with the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) administered by Victoria’s Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE).

Melton Shire Council proposes to carry out a road extension and bridge crossing to connect the existing Westwood Drive to the south of the study area (from Fydler Avenue) to Calder Park Drive to the north of the study area, Burnside Heights (Figure 1). Given that the majority of the proposed road alignment is highly modified, this CMP specifically refers to the road extension and bridge crossing across Kororoit Creek (Plate 1). Additional mitigation measures are also provided for an existing wetland located north of Kororoit Creek, immediately west of the proposed road extension (Plate 2).

Previous assessments conducted throughout Kororoit Creek by Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd have identified the presence of over 100 L. raniformis in proximity to the study area (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2007, 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2011b), and the species presence has been well documented throughout Kororoit Creek (Rhodes 1999; Organ 2004a; Organ 2004b; Organ 2005a) (Figure 2).

The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) (DSE 2010) also lists 151 records of L. raniformis within a 10 kilometre radius of the study area, including at least 20 records, less than one kilometre from the study area, within Kororoit Creek (Figure 1). Given that L. raniformis have been recorded in proximity to the study area, targeted survey for this species were not warranted.


As L. raniformis is assumed present, potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures have been identified and applied for local L. raniformis populations along Kororoit Creek and immediate surrounds. Therefore, the information provided forms the basis of this CMP in addition to the requirements under both Commonwealth and State legislation.

1.2 Scope of Assessment

The objectives of L. raniformis CMP were to:

� Review relevant data on the VBA, and available literature in relation to the occurrence of L. raniformis and available habitats immediately surrounding the study area;

� Determine what management actions are required to complete the proposed infrastructure in the vicinity of the study area without negatively impacting resident L. raniformis populations;

� Provide a map showing the extent of current L. raniformis population(s) within the local area;

� Include an outline of the overall objectives, discuss the relevant timeframes, and provide a list of the organisations responsible for implementation of the plan;

� Provide detailed management and habitat design measures including: o Pre-construction: habitat enhancement requirements, including development

design considerations; details of design, construction and location of compensatory and additional habitat; road crossing and underpass design recommendations, including culverts and drift fencing.

o During construction: management requirements, including salvage and translocation requirements and protocols; details of qualifications required for personnel undertaking salvage and translocation; requirements for protecting existing habitat from sedimentation and pollution and direct disturbance that may result from construction activities; providing advice and recommendations on other habitat protection requirements, such as establishment of ‘no-go’ zones and clearly marked fencing.

o Post-construction: management requirements, including vegetation, water quality, protection of habitat from current and potential future threats (such as foxes, feral cats and Plague Minnow Gambusia holbrooki).

� Legislative requirements for reporting on the species and habitat monitoring and management activities; and,

� Liaise with key stakeholders (e.g. SEWPaC, DSE and Council), where necessary.

1.3 Study Area

The study area is located in Burnside Heights, approximately 25 kilometres west of the Melbourne CBD (Melways Map 356 J12) (Figure 1). The majority of the study area is flat while the topography becomes steeper along the banks of Kororoit Creek (Figure 1).


According to DSE’s Biodiversity Interactive the study area is within the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion which covers a large part of south western Victoria and extends from the western suburbs of Melbourne to Hamilton (DSE 2011a). The DSE modelled pre-1750 EVC mapping for the region shows that the study area would have predominantly contained Plains Grassland (EVC 132), with Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) aligning Kororoit Creek (DSE 2011a).

The study area north of Kororoit Creek is currently zoned Residential 1 Zone (R1Z), whilst having a Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule 1 (CDZ1) to the west of study area (DSE 2011b). Kororoit Creek is currently zoned Urban Floodway Zone (UFZ) whilst also having a Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (DPO1); Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 2 (ESO2) and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay – Schedule 2 (LSIO2) (DSE 2011b). The study area falls within the jurisdiction of the Melton Shire Council and the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority (PPWPCMA) (DSE 2011b).


2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis

2.1.1 Conservation status

Growling Grass Frog L. raniformis is commonly known by several other names; Warty Bell Frog, Southern Bell Frog, Warty Swamp Frog and Green and Golden Frog. The species is listed as vulnerable nationally (Tyler 1997) and endangered in Victoria (DSE 2007). The species is listed as a threatened taxon under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the FFG Act. A draft Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement (Robertson 2003) and a draft National Recovery Plan (Clemann and Gillespie 2010) have been development for the species. Overall, the species is of national conservation significance.

Although formally widely distributed across south eastern Australia, including Tasmania (Littlejohn 1963, 1982; Hero et al. 1991), the species has declined markedly across most of its former range. The decline has been most evident over the past two decades and in many areas, particularly in south and central Victoria, populations have experienced apparent declines and local extinctions (Mahoney 1999, VBA 2010; A, Organ. pers. obs.).

2.1.2 Habitat requirements

This species is largely associated with permanent or semi-permanent still or slow flowing water bodies (i.e. streams, lagoons, farm dams and old quarry sites) (Hero et al. 1991; Barker et al. 1995; Cogger 1996; Ashworth 1998). Frogs can also utilise temporarily inundated water bodies for breeding purposes provided they contain water over the breeding season (Organ 2003).

Based on previous investigations there is a strong correlation between the presence of the species and key habitat attributes at a given water body. For example, the species is typically associated with water bodies supporting extensive cover of emergent, submerged and floating vegetation (Robertson et al. 2002, Organ 2004c, 2005b). Emergent vegetation provides basking sites for frogs and protection from predators. Whilst floating vegetation provides suitable calling stages for adult males, and breeding and oviposition (egg deposition) sites. Terrestrial vegetation (grasses, sedges), rocks and other ground debris around wetland perimeters also provide foraging, dispersal and over-wintering sites for frogs.

Water bodies supporting the above mentioned habitat characteristics and those that are located within at least 500 metres of each other, are more likely to support a population of L. raniformis, compared to isolated sites lacking important habitat features. Indeed, recent studies have revealed that the spatial orientation of water bodies across the landscape is one of the most important habitat determinants influencing the presence of the species at a given site (Robertson et al. 2002; Heard et al. 2004a, 2004b).


For example, studies have shown there is a positive correlation between the presence of the species and the distance of freestanding water bodies to another occupied site. This is comparable to the spatial dynamics of many amphibian populations, including the closely related Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea (Hamer et al. 2002).

2.1.3 Habitat within the study area

Kororoit Creek provides suitable breeding, basking, sheltering and/or dispersal habitat for L. raniformis. For example, Kororoit Creek supports narrow reaches of slow flowing water heavily vegetated with emergent and fringing species (e.g. Typha spp., Common Reed Phragmites australis, Marsh Clubrush Bolboschoenus caldwellii and Spiny Rush Juncus acutus); deep open pools that support floating and submerged vegetation (e.g. Triglochin sp. and Potamogeton sp.) and rocks of varying shapes and sizes (Plate 1).

Areas surrounding the creek are dominated by predominantly introduced vegetation including species such as African Box-thorn Lycium ferocissimum, Brassica Brassica spp., Toowoomba Canary Grass Phalaris aquatica, Radish Raphanus spp., Artichoke Thistle Cynara cardunculus, Galenia Galenia pubescens and Serrated Tussock Nassella trichotoma. A large thicket of Blackberry Rubus fruticosusis sp. agg. currently occupies the majority of the northern side of the proposed bridge crossing (Plate 1) (Appendix 4). The overall habitat throughout Kororoit Creek is considered uniform and contiguous.

Plate 1. Current habitat located at the proposed road extension and bridge crossing over Kororoit

Creek, Burnside Heights, Victoria (Photo provided by Matthew Hutchinson, Melton Shire Council).


An existing wetland is located north of Kororoit Creek, immediately west of the proposed road extension (Plate 2). The wetland currently supports low levels of submerged and emergent vegetation, while all vegetation surrounding the wetland has been cleared. While no L. raniformis have been recorded in this wetland, it may provide suitable refuge when conditions within Kororoit Creek are unfavourable (i.e. during high flooding events).

The wetland will be retained and was constructed in 2009 to collect stormwater runoff for bio retention and water filtration from a housing development to the east prior to discharge into Kororoit Creek (Plate 2). This wetland during favourable conditions may act as suitable breeding or refuge habitat for L. raniformis.

Plate 2. Location of existing wetland north of Kororoit Creek, immediately west of the proposed road

extension, Burnside Heights , Victoria (Photo provided by Matthew Hutchinson, Melton Shire Council).

Water quality throughout Kororoit Creek is considered to be relatively healthy. Based on the current habitat conditions within Kororoit Creek and existing wetland, both provide moderate quality breeding habitat for L. raniformis (Plates 1 and 2).


2.1.4 Occurrence of the species within the study area

While targeted surveys were not undertaken and the species has not been detected within the proposed road alignment, L. raniformis have been well documented throughout Kororoit Creek, in the vicinity of the study area (VBA 2010; Figure 2).

2.1.5 Distribution in surrounding area

The VBA (DSE 2010) lists 151 records of L. raniformis within a 10 kilometre radius of the study area, including at least 20 records, less than one kilometre from the study area, within Kororoit Creek (Figure 1). Given that L. raniformis have been recorded in proximity to the study area, targeted survey for this species were not warranted.

Previous assessments conducted throughout Kororoit Creek by Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd have identified the presence of over 100 L. raniformis in proximity to the study area (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2007, 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2011b), and the species presence has been well documented throughout Kororoit Creek (Rhodes 1999; Organ 2004a, 2004b, 2005a; Parsons Brinckerhoff 2004) (Figure 2). Previous records of the species upstream have also comprised a variety of developmental stages including: adults, sub-adults, metamorphs and tadpoles (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011b) (Figure 3).

Ongoing monitoring of L. raniformis populations and habitat within the northern suburb of Caroline Springs, has also been conducted over the past five breeding periods (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2007, 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2011b) in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the ‘Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan, Northern Neighbourhood, Caroline Springs, Victoria’ (Organ 2005b).

During the 2010/11 monitoring period, a total of 33 L. raniformis were recorded within the Caroline Springs study area with the highest number of L. raniformis recorded within Lake Caroline (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011b) (Figure 3). Juvenile and sub-adult Growling Grass Frogs were also observed in Lake Caroline, and within Kororoit Creek and constructed wetlands located east of Caroline Springs Boulevard (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011b) (Figure 3). This indicates that successful breeding and recruitment has occurred over the last breeding season at these locations and in proximity to the proposed road extension and bridge crossing at Westwood Drive (Figure 3).

During the 2010/11 monitoring period, no L. raniformis were recorded along Stony Hill Creek or Kororoit Creek west of Caroline Springs Boulevard. Prior to this, L. raniformis were recorded in Stony Hill Creek during the 2008/09 monitoring period and in Kororoit Creek west of Caroline Springs Boulevard in 2006/07 (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2007, 2009b) (Figure 3).


2.1.6 Threatening processes

Causes of the decline of L. raniformis are not fully understood. However, factors that are likely to have contributed to the decline include habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat (such as land clearing for agriculture and urban development), altered flooding regimes of natural water bodies, predation on eggs and tadpoles by introduced fish, salinisation, chemical pollution of water bodies by fertilisers and pesticides, and infection by the amphibian chytrid fungus (White and Pyke 1996). Some of these factors are presently acting on the metapopulation of the Pakenham area, with habitat loss and modification representing the greatest threat to the extant metapopulation.

2.2 Potential Impacts

On the basis of the habitat requirements of L. raniformis within the study area, it is unlikely that Kororoit Creek will be adversely affected by the proposed development. A summary of potential impacts associated with the proposed road development are outlined below.

2.2.1 Habitat loss

The proposed road extension and bridge crossing will be restricted to areas outlined in the ‘EPBC footprint of road and bridge’ plan (Appendix 4), and is likely to impact on the current in-stream habitat on the southern side of Kororoit Creek where proposed pad footings will be located. As small amounts of in-stream habitat are likely to be removed or altered, Melton Shire Council may be required to compensate for the loss of L. raniformis habitat, through re-vegetation along Kororoit Creek to improve current in-stream habitat for L. raniformis within any disturbed areas.

2.2.2 Habitat fragmentation and bridge construction

Current bridge designs will include three sets of footings within the 100 year flood level (Appendix 4). On the southern side there will be three pad footings location approximately 1.5 metres from the edge of Kororoit Creek with rock beaching proposed to the edge of the creek. A second set of three pylons (1.2 metres in diameter) will be located 18 metres south of the pad footings allowing open areas to promote dispersal opportunities under the bridge.

The northern side of Kororoit Creek will have one set of three pylons (1.2 metres in diameter) located approximately 15 metres from the creek. Based on the current design, footings and pylons on either side of Kororoit Creek will be the only restriction to dispersal for L. raniformis between the two abutments which are 57 metres apart. While the dispersal habitat of L. raniformis is restricted to Kororoit Creek, the proposed footings and pylons adjacent to the creek are unlikely to prevent dispersal opportunities for L. raniformis and other native fauna species post-construction.


It is understood that Melton Shire Council will place a high importance on contractor’s environmental management systems and past record in the tender process, to ensure a suitable contractor is appointed (M, Hutchinson. pers. comm., Melton Shire Council; Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011a). The proposed road extension and bridge crossing will maintain dispersal habitat for L. raniformis within Kororoit Creek during all construction phases.

2.2.3 Hydrology and water quality

Construction activities associated with the development have the potential to result in sedimentation of nearby waterways and produce sediment-laden runoff into Kororoit Creek. Sediment-laden water also has the potential to be transported offsite, downstream to areas containing potential habitat for L. raniformis throughout the local area. There is also the potential for accidental spillage of chemicals from the construction area into an existing wetland and Kororoit Creek.

Increase in sediment input and input of toxic substances into Victorian rivers and streams due to human activities are both threatening processes under Schedule 3 of the FFG Act. Stormwater runoff from the road will be collected by traditional kerb and channel and discharged into the creek via pipes and end walls (M, Hutchinson. pers. comm., Melton Shire Council; Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011a).

There will be two discharge points (one existing and one created point) and will be constructed as per Melbourne Water Standards (M, Hutchinson. pers. comm., Melton Shire Council; Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011a). All additional runoff (i.e. from batters) will be normal sheet flow that will make its way into the creek. The drainage design and impact of the piers within the 100 year flood zone has been approved by Melbourne Water (M, Hutchinson. pers. comm., Melton Shire Council; Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011a).

2.2.4 Roads and Vehicular Traffic

There is growing evidence from international research that roads and road traffic contribute significantly to amphibian mortality (Fahrig et al. 1995; Daly 1996; Vos and Chardon 1998; DeMaynadier and Hunter 2000). This research suggests that many individual frogs may be killed by passing traffic while crossing roads between areas of habitat.

It is not known if or how traffic noise affects amphibian behaviour. However, traffic noise may interfere with the vocalisations by male L. raniformis in waterbodies adjacent to roads. Other aspects of the social behaviour of individuals may be affected such as changes in the spacing of calling males, which can potentially affect reproductive success (Robertson et al. 2002). Despite these potential consequences, L. raniformis is known to breed within waterbodies in close proximity to roads that carry heavy traffic, such as the Pakenham Bypass (Heard et al. 2004a).


Road construction can lead to the sedimentation of waterbodies inhabited by frogs, reducing their suitability as habitat for L. raniformis. During the operational phase of a road, pollutants from vehicles, particularly accidental spillages from trucks, may wash into nearby waterbodies, usually via stormwater runoff. This may render such waterbodies unsuitable as breeding sites for several years.

If no mitigation measures are installed to allow safe frog passage (i.e. installation of frog exclusion fencing), dispersing individuals may ultimately find their way onto paved surfaces, where they are susceptible to traffic strike. Suitable fencing along Kororoit Creek is recommended as part of the proposed development to minimise further fragmentation of frog habitat and maintain connectivity throughout Kororoit Creek.

2.2.5 Human Access

Human occupancy within the study area has the potential to result in disturbance by persons entering the study area. This may lead to the degradation of habitat due to rubbish dumping, mechanical disturbance of vegetation from trampling, and weed invasion.

2.2.6 Weeds

Increased weed encroachment into areas of terrestrial and aquatic indigenous vegetation may occur due to runoff from the proposed development. Weeds can be transported via construction equipment and machinery, and people/animals entering the site. Invasion of native vegetation by ‘environmental weeds’ is a threatening process under Schedule 3 of the FFG Act. Excessive weed growth can smother frog habitat, rendering it unsuitable as a breeding and/or foraging site.

2.2.7 Dog and cat ownership

Unrestrained dogs and cats have the potential to roam throughout the study area. Cats in particular are known to predate upon dispersing or sheltering frogs. Predation of native wildlife by the Cat is a threatening process under Schedule 3 of the FFG Act.

2.2.8 Exotic Predators

Plague Minnow

The introduced Plague Minnow Gambusia holbrooki has been identified as a possible factor in the decline of the species (Mahony 1993; White and Pyke 1996; Hamer et al. 2002) because it eats the eggs and tadpoles of these species (Morgan and Buttermer 1996). Predation by Plague Minnow on tadpoles of L. raniformis has been identified as a significant threat to the species (NSW DEC 2005).


This species may reduce the potential of a site to support breeding populations, although the extent of predation depends on aquatic vegetation and habitat complexity, and water permanency (Hamer et al. 2002).

Plague Minnow have been observed within Kororoit Creek, Lake Caroline and the constructed wetland to the east of Caroline Springs Boulevard, so they are likely to persist within the study area (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011b).

Red Fox

The Red Fox Vulpes vulpes has been recorded throughout the local area (A, Taylor. pers. obs.) The Red Fox is known to eat adult members of the bell frog species complex (NSW DEC 2005), although it has not been identified as a threat to L. raniformis in the Draft Recovery Plan (NSW DEC 2005). Additionally, in the NSW Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the Red Fox (NPWS 2001), L. raniformis is considered to be a species with a low sensitivity rating, which indicates that population impacts are unlikely to result from predation by the Red Fox. Nonetheless, there is likely to be some predation on frogs in the local area by the Red Fox.

2.3 Likely Improvements

Once the road extension and bridge crossing are constructed, L. raniformis is likely to continue use Kororoit Creek for breeding, foraging, dispersal and overwintering in the future. In addition, if areas surrounding the creek that are dominated by introduced vegetation including species such as Toowoomba Canary Grass, Artichoke Thistle, Galenia, and the large patch of Blackberry are proposed to be removed then this would most likely improve the habitat conditions along the creek. Revegetation of native grasses and the provision of additional habitat (i.e. rocks and logs) within and immediately adjacent to the study area would also provide additional habitat for L. raniformis.


3 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

3.3 Objectives

The primary objectives of this CMP are to outline specific measures to ensure:

1) that the proposed road extension and bridge crossing have a negligible impact on L. raniformis population(s) within the local area;

2) that any L. raniformis habitat (known or potential) affected by the works is restored and maintained; and,

3) the ongoing survival of L. raniformis within the study area and the local area into the future.

The plan provides comprehensive management guidelines which facilitate the ongoing protection and maintenance of L. raniformis populations and their associated habitats into the future, and features three main stages:

1) Provision of detailed habitat retention and improvement guidelines and detailed management requirements for the development construction phase, including a frog salvage and translocation plan;

2) Monitoring and maintenance recommendations subsequent to the completion of construction works;

3) The implementation of the plan will require the collaboration of all relevant stakeholders and coordination from DSE, Melton Shire Council and SEWPaC.

3.2 Management Plan Implementation, Timeframe and Review

The CMP will be implemented by Melton Shire Council over at least three years during and post construction, throughout the study area. The plan, along with the habitat protection and enhancement recommendations it details, will be reviewed each year after management and monitoring actions have been undertaken, and changes incorporated where these actions are considered inappropriate for the long-term persistence of L. raniformis populations within the study area. Any changes to the plan will ensure that the objectives referred to above will be met by the continued implementation and completion of this plan.

3.3 Pre-Construction phase

3.3.1 Mitigation measures

There are several measures that will be incorporated into the proposed development design to reduce the potential adverse impacts that may result from the development within the study area. Other mitigation measures will be aimed at minimising the potential impacts of specific construction activities.


Measures that will be adopted at the design planning, construction and post-construction phases of the development include:

� Road works and bridge construction will be undertaken outside of the L. raniformis core active season (November to March);

� A qualified Zoologist must conduct pre-clearance surveys for the species prior to any construction works within 30 metres of Kororoit Creek;

� A qualified Zoologist must be present on site for the first phase of construction (i.e. vegetation removal and the removal of any topsoil) that takes place within 30 metres of Kororoit Creek to salvage and relocate any tadpoles, metamorphs or adults deemed at risk;

� A stop works declared if a L. raniformis is detected within the construction zone until a qualified Zoologist is on site to identify, salvage and relocate the individual unless coordinated in conjunction with a suitably trained environmental officer;

� A staff induction of all people working on site outlining L. raniformis identification and the stop work protocol (above);

� Water and drainage will be treated appropriately on-site to minimise impacts to suitable habitat and dispersal corridors within Kororoit Creek. Adoption of sediment and pollutant control measures consistent with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991) and Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA 1996);

� Installation of sediment and frog exclusion fencing along both sides of Kororoit Creek for 150 metres either side of the bridge crossing approximately 20 - 30 metres (as required) from Kororoit Creek (see Plate 3), for the duration of the action.

� A second frog exclusion fence will be positioned below the bridge footings on the southern bank so habitat is continuous, for the duration of the action. This will also be aimed at minimising the number of L. raniformis individuals entering the construction zone whilst also reducing sediment and pollution input into Kororoit Creek;

� The sediment and frog exclusion fence will be buried approximately 200 millimetres underground and extend 800 millimetres above ground to reduce the likelihood of L. raniformis entering the construction zone (Plate 3);

� Installation of permanent frog exclusion fencing will also be installed, and located either side of the proposed road works which approaches the bridge and around the existing wetland is located north of Kororoit Creek, immediately west of the proposed road extension to minimise the likelihood of frog mortality through road kill;

� Construction stockpiles will be contained within bunded areas outside of the 30 metre buffer of Kororoit Creek;

� Each time a new vehicle enters the construction zone for the first time, all vehicles, machinery and footwear must be washed and disinfected to reduce the spread of weeds and pathogens (chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). This may be in the form of a designated wash bay, which can easily be installed to disinfect vehicles prior to entering the site;

� All plant working within the 30 metre buffer zone of Kororoit Creek, will be confined to an area designated for plant working within the 30 metre buffer zone, all plant will need to be washed down and disinfected once per week;


� Appropriate signage will be implemented along the perimeter of the work site to prevent accidental entry by construction personnel, machinery and after construction is completed, the general public;

� Appropriate signage (i.e. ‘No-Go’ Zones) is recommended as part of the proposed development to deter human access during all development phases; and,

� Implementation of a Weed Management Plan.

3.3.2 Fence Design Requirements and Considerations

Temporary protective fencing needs to be erected in the vicinity of suitable habitat along Kororoit Creek for L. raniformis, and can be in the form of standard Silt FenceTM, or other materials which are easy to supply, install, maintain and uninstall.

Protective fencing may need to be erected and maintained at a distance of 20 - 30 metres (as required) from the edge of Kororoit Creek. The protective fencing should remain until construction activities have been completed in the vicinity of Kororoit Creek.

Similarly, protective fencing should be installed to the above specifications to exclude construction machinery or unauthorised access so that inadvertent damage does not occur.

Plate 3. Example of frog fencing installed along the Craigieburn Bypass, north of Melbourne, Victoria.

Sediment type material can be either be attached to permanent fence as below or installed with the

aid of star-pickets provided it meets the required height (Source: Aaron Organ, Ecology and Heritage

Partners Pty Ltd).


3.3.3 Frog Salvage and Translocation

As per the recommendations in Heard et al. 2004a and Organ 2005c, L. raniformis salvage and translocation measures will be implemented both immediately prior, and during any disturbance to Kororoit Creek. The existing wetland north of Kororoit Creek will also be monitored for L. raniformis in which the salvage and translocation methodology outlined below will apply at all times.

Salvage requirements

Any frogs encountered during salvage operations will be removed from the site and released into a predetermined relocation site within Kororoit Creek, approximately 250 metres from the construction zone.

The salvage and translocation measure outlined below will be undertaken if L. raniformis are detected within the designated construction zone and within habitat adjacent to Kororoit Creek (i.e. an existing wetland and along the sediment and frog exclusion fence). A suitably qualified Zoologist will train a designated staff member from the Melton Shire Council (i.e. an environmental officer) to salvage and translocate (i.e. frog handling and relocation) L. raniformis in the absence of a Zoologist onsite.

This would allow the temporary collection of L. raniformis individual(s) within a suitably sized container to be translocated back into preferred habitat as per the salvage and translocation plan. Morning inspections of temporary fencing will also be undertaken at regular intervals (i.e. Monday, Wednesday and Friday mornings) by a designated staff member from the Melton Shire Council to check for L. raniformis within the construction zone.

Salvage measures will be undertaken by a qualified Zoologist experienced with these operations:

� Salvage will take place prior to site disturbance but as close as possible to proposed construction periods as a longer intervening period may mean frogs have moved back into the construction zone;

� Two suitably qualified Zoologists will spend two nights spotlighting along key areas within Kororoit Creek approximately 200 metres either side of the proposed bridge crossing prior to the commencement of construction works;

� If any L. raniformis individuals are detected or captured during pre-construction surveys and/or if it is considered the species could be using habitats immediately adjacent to the construction zones; salvage and translocation of L. raniformis will be undertaken prior to construction as per the recommendations outlined below;

� Any individuals not captured during targeted surveys will require active searching as soon as possible following pre-construction surveys. This will involve a Zoologist(s) actively searching soil, vegetation and other ground debris for frogs immediately prior to, and during any excavation of suitable habitat within 30 metres of Kororoit Creek;


� Footwear will be washed in disinfectant at the beginning and end of each survey or salvage period to prevent the introduction and/or spread of any diseases;

� Contractors will be made fully aware of the appearance of L. raniformis. Should any frogs be located during construction and in the absence of a suitably qualified Zoologist, contractors will immediately contact a nominated person (i.e. an environmental officer), who will ensure that any L. raniformis individuals are stored in an appropriate container and kept in a cool place out of direct sunlight until translocated into suitable habitat within Kororoit Creek as per the salvage and translocation plan; and,

� Salvage procedures will be conducted in accordance with the hygiene protocol for the control of disease in frogs (NPWS 2008). This will include checking any salvaged L. raniformis for signs of chytrid fungus as per the guidelines outlines within the NPWS hygiene protocol (2008).

Translocation protocol

In order to translocate frogs to another site in the local area, a number of national and Victorian legis lation and conditions would need to be met. Any translocations will be restricted to sites within the vicinity of the study area. The precise location of these sites will be determined by a suitably qualified person.

The following requirements would need to be considered prior to frog translocation and will be undertaken by a qualified Zoologist(s) experienced with these operations:

� Frogs will be released into favourable micro-habitats such as areas containing rocks or dense vegetation around the perimeter of a water body where there is sufficient cover;

� Frogs will be translocated within one hour of being captured;

� Translocation will consider the potential spread of diseases (chytrid fungus), and impacts upon L. raniformis and other frog populations at translocation sites;

� Any visibly sick or dying specimens will not be translocated and will be kept for further analysis to determine if infected with chytrid fungus; and,

� The success or failure of frog translocation will be documented/reviewed and submitted to DSE and SEWPaC for review.

3.3.4 Required approvals

3.3.4.1 National legislation

The EPBC Act requires approval from SEWPaC for any proposal to undertake actions that could have a significant impact on matters of NES. Matters of NES include listed threatened species and ecological communities. As L. raniformis is listed for protection under the EPBC Act and have been identified within the study area or have suitable habitat identified within the study area, an EPBC Act associated with the proposed development is currently being assessed by SEWPaC (EPBC Act Referral 2011/5909).


3.3.4.2 State legislation

Management authorisation to ‘live capture’, collect and relocate L. raniformis under the Wildlife Act 1975 for the proposed development will be required. The collection of animals would need to be in accordance with the Department of Primary Industries animal ethics approval.

The Wildlife Act 1975 aims to promote the protection and conservation of Victoria’s wildlife with the purposes of:

� Establishing procedures in order to promote the protection and conservation of wildlife;

� Prevention of taxa of wildlife from becoming extinct;

� Sustainable use of and access to wildlife; and

� Prohibit and regulate the conduct of persons engaged in activities concerning or related to wildlife.

The Wildlife Regulations 2002 of the Act prescribe penalties for the purposes of the Wildlife Act 1975. These include penalties for persons who wilfully damage, disturb or destroy any wildlife habitat without appropriate authorisation (Section 9 of the Wildlife Regulations 2002). Authorisation and/or permits will be required under the Act for impacts on wildlife referred to in this CMP. A Management Authorisation permit for the salvage and translocation of L. raniformis will be obtained from DSE to their satisfaction for the salvage and translocation of any L. raniformis individuals associated with the proposed development.

3.4 Construction phase

A suitably qualified and experienced Zoologist will be present during:

� All initial earthworks which are in the vicinity of known L. raniformis habitat; and,

� The alteration and/or removal of habitat within 30 metres of Kororoit Creek.

Any vegetation that is to be removed as part of the works will be replaced with vegetation comprising species identified in the list provided below (Appendix 3). The following will be used as a guide for any revegetation works proposed after construction works have been completed:

� A diversity of emergent (excluding Typha spp.), submerged and floating (particularly Potamogeton spp.) vegetation will be planted along the banks of Kororoit Creek, while dense areas of low growing shrubs, sedges and grasses will be planted along the perimeter of the creek. Vegetation structure and composition will be consistent with the known habitat requirements of L. raniformis.

� Terrestrial shelter in the form of rock piles, rock mattresses and logs will be used, and should cover approximately 30-40% of the total area around the banks of Kororoit Creek.


The spaces between refugia and their orientation will vary to optimise habitat variability, and where possible, larger concave shaped rocks (300 – 1500 millimetres in size) should be used;

� Trees and/or large shrubs will not be planted densely within 20 metres of Kororoit Creek as this may shade out habitat, thus potentially rendering areas less favourable as L. raniformis foraging and refuge habitat;

� Kororoit Creek will be surrounded by a 30 metre terrestrial buffer in which there is no additional development works, mowing, slashing or use of herbicides and pesticides;

� No access tracks, roads, houses and other infrastructure will be located near Kororoit Creek, and there should be no apparent barriers to dispersal;

� If additional exclusion fencing is necessary as a safety requirement, standard farm or garden fencing such as Stocklock® will be utilised.

3.4.1 Frog movement and dispersal

As populations of this species are reliant upon a diversity of habitat features interconnected to each other, revegetation works will be designed and constructed in a way not only to provide potential breeding habitat for the L. raniformis, but also to allow for ongoing and uninterrupted frog movement throughout Kororoit Creek.

3.4.2 Vegetation netting

Any revegetated areas along Kororoit Creek will be particularly vulnerable to damage caused by various species of waterfowl, which use the vegetation for foraging, roosting and nesting sites, and subsequently cause extensive damage to newly planted areas through trampling.

As such, vegetation netting will be established around any newly planted vegetation is protected by appropriate vegetation netting, to allow the vegetation to become established, and provide suitable habitat for the L. raniformis.

3.5 Post-Construction Phase: Ongoing Management and Monitoring

3.5.1 Population and habitat monitoring

Local frog populations are known to vary on spatial and temporal scales depending upon habitat conditions at a particular site. It is therefore important that monitoring is undertaken for at least three years post construction. Monitoring is required to determine if L. raniformis has naturally colonised habitat within the construction zone and to ensure that management actions and habitats are suitable for L. raniformis. Specific survey procedures will follow the Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit (DSE 2010).


Monitoring for at least three years after construction will be used to guide decisions upon the success of the proposed road extension and bridge crossing and revegetation works within the site. Two nocturnal surveys over the breeding period (October-November) and one diurnal habitat assessment will be conducted annually to collect data on habitat variables, and to ensure that habitat within the construction footprint is suitable for the species.

Measures to reduce the possible spread of infectious pathogens will be implemented in accordance with the appropriate hygiene standards (NPWS 2008).

3.5.2 Habitat management and maintenance

The maintenance of L. raniformis habitat within the project area will be ongoing for a minimum of three years following construction, in particular the maintenance of aquatic vegetation diversity and structure and terrestrial habitats this will be essential to ensure these habitat types become, and remain suitable for the L. raniformis.

The selection of vegetation species for Kororoit Creek is directed towards providing distinct habitat zones based on L. raniformis requirements for particular water depths (Appendix 3). The species list is primarily focused on wetland establishment but can be incorporated into revegetation works along Kororoit Creek. Management guidelines will be discussed with a specialist revegetation or land management practitioner(s) experienced with the maintenance requirements of terrestrial habitats.

The following will need to be considered as part of habitat maintenance:

� Routine maintenance of the stormwater systems will occur at least every four months, while after storms it will be important to check for any erosion, scouring and removal of plants;

� The control of pest animals such as foxes and cats will be undertaken in accordance with local government laws and relevant legislation;

� Regular (bi-annual) site inspections will be conducted to detect the presence of any weed species, so that they can be managed appropriately before they become a significant problem. Where possible, weeds will be controlled by hand or with the use of implements. Alternatively, a frog sensitive herbicide (non-residual herbicide) will be used. The use of other herbicides or pesticides within, or in proximity to Kororoit Creek, shelter sites and likely dispersal areas will be prohibited;

� Building material and other unwanted materials (e.g. plastic and polystyrene) will be removed from the construction zone. The removal of rubbish is particularly important over the first few years during the development of lots and vegetation establishment; and,

� Recreational use of the area may result in vegetation trampling, rock disturbance or rubbish ingress, therefore public access outside designated areas should be discouraged (e.g. installation of signs).


3.5.3 Pollution and stormwater management

Noise pollution

Information regarding the potential impact of artificial noise upon populations of L. raniformis is currently unavailable. The species has been found to occur and reproduce within wetlands close to roads with heavy traffic flows and/or within areas with high industrial noise (e.g. Hume Highway, Pakenham Bypass and Botanica Park, Bundoora) (see also Heard et. al. 2004a). Consequently, there appears to be low potential for adverse impacts upon L. raniformis with respect to the proposed road extension and bridge crossing at Westwood Drive.

Stormwater management

All stormwater runoff from the proposed road extension will be collected by traditional kerb gutters and discharged into the creek via pipes and end walls (M. Hutchinson, pers. comm., Melton Shire Council; Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011a). There will be two discharge points; one existing, and one newly constructed discharge point as per Melbourne Water Standards (M. Hutchinson, pers. comm., Melton Shire Council; Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011a). It is understood that the drainage design and proposed impact of the footings and pylons within the 100 year flood zone has been approved by Melbourne Water (M. Hutchinson, pers. comm., Melton Shire Council; Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011a). If water quality is deemed poor, stormwater treatment measures will follow the Melbourne Water Water Sensitive Urban Design guidelines (Melbourne Water 2002).

Additional mitigation measures to prevent stormwater/pollution management adjacent to Kororoit Creek may also include:

� Prior to the commencement of construction, temporary sediment and erosion control structures will be installed, to prevent sediment or eroded material entering Kororoit Creek;

� Refuelling of construction vehicles and machinery will be restricted to designated construction refuelling areas that contain sufficient contamination control measures to prevent spills from entering Kororoit Creek. All personnel responsible for refuellin g machinery on the site will be trained in re-fuelling protocols and spill response procedures; and,

� Soil and equipment hygiene protocols to prevent the spread of pathogens and new weed infestations will be implemented in construction areas and immediate surrounds.

3.5.4 Management policy

The Development Manager currently proposes to control stormwater water-quality by implementing the following management policy:


� No pesticides, herbicides, fungicides or fertilisers on the premises are to be used such that in the event of heavy rain they may contaminate drainage and creek systems;

� The depositing of oil (intentionally or unintentionally) on driveways, roads or foot paths, and failure to undertake appropriate clean up measures is strictly prohibited; and,

� Public access should be minimised, and prohibit activities such as removing or introducing animals (including fish) and the disposal of rubbish or pollutants into the creek system.

3.5.5 Water quality monitoring and management

Based on known information of water quality tolerances and preferences by L. raniformis it appears that the species requires water that contains low levels of nitrates, nitrides and phosphates (Ashworth 1998; Organ 2002, 2003). Water quality is particularly important for larval development and recruitment. For example, creek systems which contain low levels of pollutants and turbidity are more likely to lead to higher survivorship of tadpoles and a greater recruitment of metamorphs (juveniles) (Organ 2003).

Water samples will be taken from an upstream location and at a downstream location every four months for a period of at least three years. Water quality and sediment collection will adhere to the EPA’s reference document: A guide to the sampling and analysis of waters, wastewaters, soils and wastes (EPA 2000), which can be found on the web at www.epa.vic.gov.au. Water quality results are compared to the State of the Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) EPA (2001) Schedule F8 (Waters of Western Port and Catchment).

A monitoring program will be been designed in order to determine any potential risks to water quality as soon as conditions deteriorate from the background (pre-construction) water quality concentrations and from upstream sites (during construction) of the development site.

Management actions will be implemented if chemical spills are detected or if there is a noticeable deterioration in water quality, particularly any dramatic increases in phosphate, ammonia, nitrates and nitrites concentrations. Several ‘Spill Response Kits’ will be provided on site if an oil or fuel spill occurs, appropriate training will be provided on how to use the kits if a spillage occurs on site.

Where no prior water quality testing has been undertaken along the creeks as part of the project, or in the case that a site may be dry in the lead up to construction, the following trigger values should be used (SEPP Schedule F8) (EPA 2001):

� Turbidity >20%;

� Electrical Conductivity ±20%;

� Dissolved Oxygen Concentration ±20%;

� pH ±0.5pH unit; and,

� Nutrients and Heavy Metals have not substantially exceeded.


If water chemistry measurements do not fall within these ranges, then appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented. This will involve weekly water quality monitoring both upstream and downstream of the construction site. If water quality results upstream are outside the EPA (2001) standards, then water quality is likely to be affected by the catchment outside the construction zone. If water quality results are outside the EPA standards downstream from the construction zone, works will be ceased until the cause of the problem is isolated and determined. Weekly monitoring will be undertaken until the water quality parameters are back within the EPA (2001) standards.

The frequency of the water quality monitoring will be reviewed after the initial two-year period and a decision will be made on whether ongoing water chemistry monitoring is required.

3.5.6 Litter and hard rubbish management

The following management actions should be adopted within the construction footprint:

� Erect fences around areas of ecological values (i.e. remnant vegetation proposed for retention) prior to any disturbance;

� Regularly monitor areas within Kororoit Creek for litter and hard rubbish and remove as soon as possible;

� Fences should be constructed with minimal impact to remnant native vegetation within the study area (i.e. no soil/material stock piling);

� Litter levels should be kept low within the study area; and,

� There should be no hard rubbish dumped throughout the study area.

3.6 Responsibilities for Management

3.6.1 Key responsibilities

Melton Shire Council and its contractors will be responsible for the following actions:

� Ensuring appropriate salvage and translocation measures are undertaken should the species be identified on the site during the construction phase;

� Informing the Minister of any significant change to the approved plans;

� Revising the L. raniformis CMP if or when additional information becomes available. This can include information from site inspections, maintenance or monitoring activities. A revision to the management plan does not necessarily require preparation of a comprehensive new plan but will more likely involve the development of a supplementary plan or addendum.


4 CONCLUSION

Provided that the construction and long-term management of the sites are in accordance with this plan, it is unlikely that there will be adverse impacts upon habitat quality for L. raniformis.

The primary objective of this plan is to ensure the ongoing conservation of L. raniformis and maintenance of its habitat within the local area, through prescribing management actions to minimise the impact on this species prior to, during, and post-construction. Whilst a number of actions have been identified in this plan, any additional information that becomes available during the monitoring phase that suggests that modification of these actions would provide beneficial outcomes for the species, then actions may be modified only if these are beneficial – and not detrimental – to the species.

An important element of the effective implementation of the management plan is the ongoing commitment from Melton Shire Council, its contractors, and DSE. Similarly, there needs to be continual communication between the proponent, referral authorities and specialist consultants experienced in undertaking monitoring and management of L. raniformis and its habitats.

Finally, the proponent needs to be aware of the regulatory obligations it has in terms of meeting DSE requirements with respect to the long-term management of the study area for the nationally threatened L. raniformis.


FIGURES

Burn

side

King

s Pa

rk

Alba

rnva

le

Burn

side

Hei

ghts

Car

olin

e S

prin

gs

Koro

roit

Cree

k (U

pper)

Kororoit Creek (Middle)

Stony Hill Creek

Bil lin

gham

Rd

Dra

in

Laverton M

d

Billin

gh

am R

d D

rain

Tayl

ors

Rd

Caroline Springs Bvd

Westwood Dr

Nea

le R

d

Tamar

Dr

Oakwood Rd

Gill

espi

e R

d

Wes

tern

Fw

y

Billi

ngha

m R

d

Station Rd

Wes

tern

Hwy

Kurung Dr

Coppe

rfield Dr

Watervale BvdCalder Park Dr

Mai

n R

d W

est

Gourlay Rd

Westwood Dr

[_

Mel

bour

ne

Bur

nsid

e H

eigh

ts

1839

_Fig

1_Lo

catio

n_M

ap.m

xd 1

0/8/

2011

RLG

Figu

re 1

Loca

tion

of S

tudy

Are

aW

estw

ood

Driv

e ex

tens

ion,

Bur

nsid

e H

eigh

ts

00.

750.

375

Kilo

met

res¹

Stud

y A

rea

GF

GFGFGFGF GFGFGF GFGF

GF GF

GF

GFGFGF

GFGFGF

GF

GFGF

GFGFGF

GFGF GFGF GFGF

GFGF GFGF GFGFGF GF GF GF GFGF GFGFGF GFGF GFGFGFGF GF

GF GFGF GF GFGFGF GFGFGF GF GFGFGF GFGFGFGFGF

GFGFGF GFGF GFGF

GF

GFGF GFGFGF

GFGF GFGF GF GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGF

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#*

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

")")

")

")")

")

") ")") ")

")

")

[ _ [ _[ _[ _ [ _[ _

[ _[ _[ _[ _[ _[ _ [ _

[ _ [ _ [ _ [ _ [ _ [ _ [ _ [ _ [ _

[ _[ _

[ _

[ _

2000

2000

2000

2004

1998 20

06

2007

2007

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2007

2006

2006

2006

2007 20

07

2006

2004

2006

2007

2007

2006

2006 20

0720

0420

0620

072007

2005

2007

2006

2007

2007

2006

200620

07

2004

2007

2004

2007

2007

200720

0720

07 2007

2006

2007

2004

2004

2007

2004

2004

2006

2006

2006

200620

06

2006

2006 20

06

2006

2004

2004 19

98

2006

2004

Bur

nsid

e

Kin

gs P

ark

Alb

arnv

ale

Bur

nsid

e H

eigh

ts

Car

olin

e Sp

rings

Kororoit Cre

ek (U

pper

)

Stony Hill Creek

Kororoit Creek (Middle)

Billin

gham

Rd

Dra

in

Tayl

ors

Rd

Caroline Springs B

vd

Westwood D

r

Nea

le R

d

Oakwood Rd

Wes

tern

Fwy

Copperfield Dr

Gill

espi

e R

d

Tamar Dr

Watervale Bvd

Kurung Dr

Calder Park Dr

Gourlay Rd

Gol

dsm

ith A

v

Wes

tern

In -

Wes

tern

Ram

p

Liapis Cct

Broadway

Connor Dr

Westwood Dr

Leichhardt Av

Tent

erfie

l d D

r

Lake St

Red

cli ff

e Tc

e

West Highland Dr

Mcl

aren

Ch

Rut

her g

len

Way

Beau

fort

Pde

Katrina Dr

3235

_Fig

2_S

ig_f

auna

_10A

ug11

.mxd

10/

08/2

011

RLG

Figu

re 2

Prev

ious

Gro

wlin

g G

rass

Fro

gre

cord

s w

ithin

the

loca

l are

aW

estw

ood

Driv

e E

xtem

sion

,Bu

rnsi

de H

eigh

ts

¹01

0.5

Kilo

met

res

Lege

nd

[ _20

10/1

1 (E

colo

gy P

artn

ers P

ty L

td)

")

2009

/10

(Eco

logy

Pa

rtner

s Pty

Ltd

)

! (20

08/0

9 (E

colo

gy P

artn

ers P

ty L

td)

#*20

07/0

8 (E

colo

gy P

artn

ers P

ty L

td)

GFG

row

ling

Gra

ss F

rog

(h

istor

ical

reco

rds)

Stud

y A

rea

") ") ") ")

")")")")")")

")")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")")

#*#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*#* #*

#*

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

[_[_[_[_[_[_

[_[_

[_

[_

[_[_[_

[_[_[_[_[_[_[_[_[_

[_

[_

[_

[_

J

J

AMAF

AUAM

AUAU

AFAF

AF

AU

AFAM

AFAU

AF

AM

3SA

2AU

3AM

Kororoit Creek (Upper)S

tony Hil l C

reek

Billin

gham

Rd

Dra

in

Taylors Rd

Car

olin

e S p

r ings

Bvd

Ca l

der P

ark

Dr

Gou

rlay

Rd

We s

two o

d D

r

Gou

rlay

Rd

3235_Fig03_SurveyLocations_10Aug11.mxd 10/08/2011 RLG

¹ 0 400200

Metres

Figure 3Growling Grass Frog Records2010/2011 Monitoring PeriodCaroline Springs

[_ 2010/11 (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd)

") 2009/10 (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd)

!( 2008/09 (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd)

#* 2007/08 (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd)

") 2006/07 (Previous study)

Study Area

Code Code DescriptionAM Adult MaleAF Adult FemaleAU Adult (Sex Unknown)MM MetamorphingSA Sub AdultJ JuvenileU Unknown


REFERENCES


References Ashworth, J.M. 1998. An appraisal of the Conservation of Litoria raniformis (Kefferstein) in

Tasmania. University of Tasmania March 1998. Unpublished Masters thesis.

Barker, J., Grigg, G.C. & Tyler, M.J. 1995. A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty & Sons. New South Wales.

Briggs, J.D. & Leigh, J.H. 1996. Rare or Threatened Australian Plants. CSIRO Australia & Australian Nature Conservation Agency.

Clemann, N. and Gillespie, G.R. 2010. National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bell Frog Litoria raniformis. Draft for public comment January 2010. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R.A. & Eggler, P. 1993. The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles. Australia Nature Conservation Age.

Cogger, H. 1996. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed Books, Sydney.

Daly, G. 1996. Some problems in the management of the Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea (Anura: Hylidae) at Coomonderry Swamp on the South Coast of New South Wales. Australian Zoologist. 30: 199-207.

DeMaynadier, P.G. & Hunter, M.L. 2000. Road effects on amphibian movements in a forested landscape. Natural Areas Journal. 20: 56-65.

DSE 2005. Advisory List of the Threatened Flora in Victoria – 2005. Department of Sustainability and .Environment, Melbourne.

DSE 2007. Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria - 2003. Department of Sustainability & Environment, Victoria.

DSE 2010. Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit – May 2010. State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). Available from: www.dse.vic.gov.au/biodiversitykit

DSE 2011a. Biodiversity Interactive Maps [online]. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE 2011b. Planning Schemes [online]. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

Duncan, A., Baker, G.B. and Montgomery, N. (Eds) 1999. The Action Plan for Australian Bats. Environment Australia. Canberra, ACT.

Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2007. Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis monitoring 2006/2007 at Caroline Springs, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared by Ecology Partners Pty Ltd for Delfin Lend Lease.



Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2009a. Flora and Fauna Assessment of the Westwood Drive Extension, Burnside Heights, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared by Ecology Partners Pty Ltd for Melton Shire Council.

Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2009b. Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis monitoring 2008/2009 at Caroline Springs, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared by Ecology Partners Pty Ltd for Delfin Lend Lease.


Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011a. EPBC Act Preliminary Documentation – additional information: Road extension and bridge works at Westwood Drive, Burnside Heights, Victoria (EPBC 2011/5909). Unpublished addendum prepared for The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC).

Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011b. Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis monitoring 2010/2011 at Caroline Springs, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared for Delfin Lend Lease.

EPA 1991. Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control. Environment Protection Authority, Victoria.

EPA 1996. Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites. Environment Protection

Authority, Victoria.

EPA 2000. Sampling and Analysis of Waters, Wastewaters, Soils and Wastes. Environment Protection Authority, Victoria. This can be found on the web at www.epa.vic.gov.au: http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/publications.nsf/2f1c2625731746aa4a256ce90001cbb5/d90f1ae51cb8f7a2ca2575df002086bd/$FILE/IWRG701.pdf

EPA 2001. Protecting the Waters of Western Port and Catchment. Policy Impact Assessment: State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) – Schedule F8 Western Port and Catchment. Environment Protection Authority, Victoria. http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/publications.nsf/d85500a0d7f5f07b4a2565d1002268f3/531b09d740d19553ca256b0c0008f543/$FILE/797.pdf

Fahrig, L., Pedlar, J.H. Shealagh, E.P., Taylor, P.D. & Wegener, J.F. 1995. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73, 177-182.

FIS 2011. Flora Information System. Viridians Biological Databases Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G. M. 2000. The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. Environment Australia.

Hamer, A.J., Lane, S.J. & Mahony, M. 2002. Management of freshwater wetlands for the endangered Green and Golden bell frog Litoria aurea: roles of habitat determinants and space. Biological Conservation 106: 413-424.


Heard, G.W., Robertson, P. & Moysey E.D. 2004a. Management Plan for the Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis within the ‘Fairway Waters’ development, Pakenham, Victoria. Unpublished report to Westmont Holdings Pty Ltd & Simons Builders Pty Ltd. Wildlife Profiles Pty Ltd, Ecology Australia Pty Ltd.

Heard, G.W., Robertson, P. & Scroggie, M. 2004b. The ecology and conservation status of the Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis within the Merri Creek corridor. Wildlife Profiles Pty Ltd and Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research.

Hero, J.M., Littlejohn, M. & Marantelli, G. 1991. Frogwatch Field Guide to Victorian Frogs. Department of Conservation and Environment, East Melbourne.

IUCN 2009. 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. International Union for the Conservation of Nature & Natural Resources, Geneva.

Lee, A. K. 1995. Action Plan for Australian Rodents. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Littlejohn, M.J. 1963. Frogs of the Melbourne area. Victorian Naturalist. 79: 296-304.

Littlejohn, M.J. 1982. Amphibians of Victoria. Victorian Yearbook. 85:1-11.

Mahoney, M. 1999. Review of the declines and disappearances within the bell frog species group (Litoria aurea species group) in Australia. In: Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW.

Maxwell, S., Burbidge, A A., & Morris, K (Eds) 1996. The 1996 Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and Monotremes. Wildlife Australia for Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme Specialist Group and the IUCN Species Survival commission, Switzerland.

Melbourne Water Corporation 2002. Water Sensitive Urban Design: Sustainable Drainage Systems for Urban Areas,

Morgan, L.A., & Buttermer, W.A. 1996. Predation by the non-native fish Gambusia holbrooki on small Litoria aurea and L. dentata tadpoles. Australian Journal of Zoology. 30: 143-149.

NPWS (National Parks & Wildlife Service) 2001. Predation by Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) – NSW Threat Abatement Plan. N.S.W. National Parks & Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

NPWS (National Parks & Wildlife Service) 2008, Hygiene Protocol for the Control of Disease in Frogs. Information Circular No. 6. N.S.W. National Parks & Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC) (2005). Southern Bell Frog (Litoria raniformis) Draft Recovery Plan. [Online]. Sydney, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). Available from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/recoveryplanDraftSouthernBellFrog.pdf.

Organ, A. 2002. Survey for the Warty Bell Frog Litoria raniformis, at the Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria. Biosis Research Pty Ltd unpublished report for Melbourne Water Corporation.


Organ, A. 2003. Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis monitoring over the 2002/03 breeding period, Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared by Biosis Research Pty Ltd Report for Melbourne Water Corporation.

Organ, A. 2004a. Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis survey and management recommendations, Northern Neighbourhood, Caroline Springs, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared by Biosis Research Pty Ltd Report for Delfin Lend Lease.

Organ, A. 2004b. Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis survey and impact minimisation recommendations for a proposed gas main, Kororoit Creek, Caroline Springs, Victoria. Biosis Research Pty Ltd report for T-squared.

Organ, A. 2004c. Pakenham Bypass: Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis 2003/04 survey, Pakenham and surrounds Victoria. Unpublished report prepared by Biosis Research Pty Ltd Report for VicRoads.

Organ, A. 2005a. Kororoit Creek amphibian habitat assessment – Altona to Rockbank, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared by Biosis Research Pty Ltd for Melbourne Water Corporation.

Organ, A. 2005b. Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan, Northern Neighbourhood, Caroline Springs, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared by Biosis Research Pty Ltd Report for Delfin Lend Lease.

Organ, A. 2005c. Targeted Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis survey and management recommendations for the proposed Fairway Waters, Pakenham, Victoria. Unpublished report for Thinc Projects Pty Ltd.

Parsons Brinckerhoff 2004. Growling Grass Frog targeted survey – Caroline Springs. Parsons Brinckerhoff Unpublished report for Delfin Lend Lease.

Rhodes, D., Hill, A. J., & Smith, J. S. 1999. Archaeological/Heritage and Environmental Assessment of the Middle Neighbourhood at Caroline Springs. Unpublished report by Biosis Research Pty Ltd for the Delfin Property Group.

Robertson, P. 2003. Draft Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement for the Growling Grass Frog, Litoria raniformis. (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria).

Robertson, P., Heard, G. & Scroggie, M. 2002. The Ecology and Conservation Status of the Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) within the Merri Creek Corridor. Interim Report: Distribution, Abundance and Habitat Requirements. Report produced for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Tyler, M.J. 1997. The Action Plan for Australian Frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra.

VBA 2010. Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.

Vos, C.C. & Chardon, J.P. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the distribution pattern of the Moor Frog Rana arvalis. Journal of Applied Ecology 35, 44-56.

White A. W. & Pyke G.H. 1996. Distribution and conservation status of the green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea in New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 30: 177-89.


APPENDICES


Appendix 1 – Significance Assessment Criteria used by Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd to define conservation significance, vegetation condition and habitat quality is provided below.

A1.1. Rare or Threatened Categories for listed Victorian taxa Table A1.1. Rare or threatened categories for listed Victorian taxa.

Rare or Threatened Categories

CONSERVATION STATUS IN AUSTR ALIA

(Based on the EPBC Act 1999, Briggs and Leigh 1996*)

EX – Extinct: Extinct is when there is no reasonable doubt that the last indiv idual of the species has died.

CR – Critically Endangered: A species is critically endangered when it is f acing an extremely high risk of extinction

in the wild in the immediate f uture.

EN – Endangered: A species is endangered when it is not critically endangered but is f acing a v ery high risk of

extinction in the wild in the near f uture.

VU – Vulnerable: A species is v ulnerable when it is not critically endangered or endangered but is facing a high risk

of extinction in the wild in the medium-term f uture.

R* - Rare: A species is rare but overall is not currently considered critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable.

K* - Poorly Known: A species is suspected, but not definitely known, to belong to any of the categories extinct,

critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or rare.

CONSERVATION STATUS IN VICTORIA (Based on DSE 2005, DSE 2007, FIS 2011)

x – Presumed Extinct in Victoria: not recorded f rom Victoria during the past 50 y ears despite f ield searches

specif ically for the plant, or, alternativ ely, intensiv e field searches (since 1950) at all prev iously known sites have

f ailed to record the plant.

E – Endangered in Victoria: at risk of disappearing f rom the wild state if present land use and other causal f actors

continue to operate.

V – Vulnerable in Victoria: not presently endangered but likely to become so soon due to continued depletion;

occurring mainly on sites likely to experience changes in land-use which would threaten the surv ival of the plant in

the wild; or, taxa whose total population is so small that the likelihood of recovery f rom disturbance, including

localised natural events such as drought, fire or landslip, is doubtf ul.

R – Rare in Victoria: rare but not considered otherwise threatened – there are relatively few known populations or

the taxon is restricted to a relativ ely small area.

K – Poorly Known in Victoria: poorly known and suspected, but not definitely known, to belong to one of the above

categories (x, e, v or r) within Victoria. At present, accurate distribution information is inadequate.


A1.2. Defining Ecological Significance Table A1.2. Defining Ecological Significance.

Criteria for defining Ecological Significance

NATION AL SIGNIFICANCE

Flor

a

National conservation status is based on the EPBC Act list of taxa considered threatened in Australia (i.e.

extinct, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable).

Flora listed as rare in Australia in Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (Briggs and Leigh 1996).

Faun

a

National conserv ation status is based on the EPBC Act list of taxa considered threatened in Australia (i.e.

extinct, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable).

Fauna listed as extinct, critically endangered, endangered, v ulnerable, Rare or Lower Risk (near threatened,

conserv ation dependent or least concern) under National Action Plans f or terrestrial taxon prepared f or the

DSEWPC: threatened marsupials and monotremes (Maxwell et al. 1996), bats (Duncan et al. 1999), rodents

(Lee 1995), birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000), reptiles (Cogger et. Al. 1993), and amphibians (Ty ler 1997).

Species that have not been included on the EBPC Act but listed as signif icance according to the IUCN 2009

Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2009).

Com

m

uniti

es

Vegetation communities considered critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act

and considering v egetation condition.

STATE SIGNIFICANCE

Flor

a

Threatened taxa listed under the prov isions of the FFG Act.

Flora listed as extinct, endangered, v ulnerable or rare in Victoria in the DSE Flora Inf ormation System (most

recent Version).

Flora listed in the State Government’s Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria, 2005 (DSE

2005).

Flora listed as poorly known in Australia in Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (Briggs and Leigh 1996).

Faun

a

Threatened taxon listed under Schedule 2 of the FFG Act.

Fauna listed as extinct, critically endangered, endangered and v ulnerable on the State Government’s

Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2007 (DSE 2007).

Listed as Data Def icient, Lower risk – Near threatened, or Insufficiently Known under National Action Plans

f or terrestrial species prepared for DSEWPC: threatened marsupials and monotremes (Maxwell et al. 1996),

bats (Duncan et al. 1999), rodents (Lee 1995), birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000), reptiles (Cogger et al.

1993), and amphibians (Ty ler 1997).

Com

mu

nitie

s Ecological communities listed as threatened under the FFG Act.


Criteria for defining Ecological Significance

Ecological Vegetation Class listed as threatened (i.e. endangered, vulnerable) or rare in a Nativ e Vegetation

Plan f or a particular bioregion (DSE Website) and considering v egetation condition.

REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Flor

a

Flora considered rare in any regional native vegetation plan f or a particular bioregion.

Flora considered rare by the author f or a particular bioregion.

Faun

a

Fauna with a disjunct distribution, or a small number of documented recorded or naturally rare in the Otway Plain bioregion.

A particular taxon that is has an unusual ecological or biogeographical occurrence or listed as Lower Risk –

Near Threatened, Data Deficient or Insufficiently Known on the State Gov ernment’s Adv isory List of

Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2007 (DSE 2007).

Com

mun

ities

Ecological Vegetation Class listed as depleted or least concern in a Nativ e Vegetation Plan f or a particular

bioregion (DSE Website) and considering vegetation condition.

Ecological Vegetation Class considered rare by the author f or a particular bioregion.

LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE

Local signif icance is def ined as f lora, f auna and ecological communities indigenous to a particular area, which are

not considered rare or threatened on a national, state or regional level.


A1.3 Defining Site Significance The following geographical areas apply to the overall level of significance with respect to the current survey.

National: Australia

State: Victoria

Regional: Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion

Local: Within 10 kilometres surrounding the study area

Table A1.3. Defining Site Significance.

Criteria for defining Site Significance

NATION AL SIGNIFICANCE

A site is of National significance if:

- It regularly supports, or has a high probability of regularly supporting individuals of a taxon listed as ‘Critically Endangered’ or ‘Endangered’ under the EPBC Act and/or under National Action Plans f or terrestrial taxon prepared f or the DSEWPC.

- It regularly supports, or has a high probability of supporting, an ‘important population’ as defined under the EPBC Act of one or more nationally ‘v ulnerable’ f lora and fauna taxon.

- It is known to support, or has a high probability of supporting taxon listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under National Action Plans.

- It is known to regularly support a large proportion (i.e. greater than 1%) of a population of a taxon listed as ‘Conserv ation Dependent’ under the EPBC Act and/or listed as Rare or Lower Risk (near threatened, conserv ation dependent or least concern) under National Action Plans.

- It contains an area, or part thereof designated as ‘critical habitat’ under the EPBC Act, or if the site is listed under the Register of National Estate compiled by the Australian Heritage Commission.

- It is a site which f orms part of, or is connected to a larger area(s) of remnant nativ e vegetation or habitat of national conserv ation signif icance such as most National Park, and/or a Ramsar Wetland(s).

STATE SIGNIFICANCE

A site is of State significance if:

- It occasionally (i.e. every 1 to 5 y ears) supports, or has suitable habitat to support taxon listed as ‘Critically Endangered’ or ‘Endangered’ under the EPBC Act and/or under National Action Plans.

- It regularly supports, or has a high probability of regularly supporting (i.e. high habitat quality) taxon listed as ‘Vulnerable’, ‘Near threatened‘, ‘Data Def icient’ or ‘Insufficiently Known’ in Victoria (DSE 2005, 2007b), or species listed as ‘Data Deficient’ or ‘Insufficiently Known’ under National Action Plans.

- It contains an area, or part thereof designated as ‘critical habitat’ under the FFG Act.

- It supports, or likely to support a high proportion of any Victorian flora and f auna taxa.

- It contains high quality, intact v egetation/habitat supporting a high species richness and div ersity in a particular Bioregion.

- It is a site which f orms part of , or connected to a larger area(s) of remnant native v egetation or habitat of state conserv ation signif icance such as most State Parks and/or Flora and Fauna Reserv es.


Criteria for defining Site Significance

REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

A site is of Regional significance if:

- It regularly supports, or has a high probability of regularly supporting regionally signif icant fauna as def ined in Table 1.2.

- Is contains a large population (i.e. greater than 1% or 5%) of f lora considered rare in any regional nativ e v egetation plan for a particular bioregion.

- It supports a f auna population with a disjunct distribution, or a particular taxon that has an unusual ecological or biogeographical occurrence.

- It is a site which f orms part of, or is connected to a larger area(s) of remnant nativ e vegetation or habitat of regional conservation significance such as most Regional Parks and/or Flora and Fauna Reserv es.

LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE

Most sites are considered to be of at least local significant for conservation, and in general a site of local

significance can be defined as:

- An area which supports indigenous f lora species and/or a remnant Ecological Vegetation Class, and habitats used by locally signif icant f auna species.

- An area which currently acts, or has the potential to act as a wildlif e corridor linking other areas of higher conserv ation signif icance and facilitating f auna movement throughout the landscape.

A1.4. Defining Vegetation Condition Table A1.4. Defining Vegetation Condition.

Criteria for defining Vegetation Condition

Good condition – Vegetation dominated by a diversity of indigenous species, with def ined structures (where appropriate), such as canopy layer, shrub lay er, and ground cov er, with little or f ew introduced species present.

Moderate condition – Vegetation dominated by a diversity of indigenous species, but is lacking some structures, such as canopy lay er, shrub layer or ground cov er, and/or there is a greater lev el of introduced flora species present.

Poor condition – Vegetation dominated by introduced species, but supports low lev els of indigenous species present, in the canopy, shrub layer or ground cov er.


A1.5. Defining Habitat Quality Several factors are taken into account when determining the value of habitat. Habitat quality varies on both spatial and temporal scales, with the habitat value varying depending upon a particular fauna species.

Table A1.5. Defining Habitat Quality.

Criteria for defining Habitat Quality

HIGH QUALITY

High degree of intactness (i.e. floristically and structurally diverse), containing several important habitat f eatures such as ground debris (logs, rocks, vegetation), mature hollow-bearing trees, and a dense understorey component.

High species richness and diversity (i.e. represented by a large number of species f rom a range of fauna groups).

High lev el of f oraging and breeding activ ity, with the site regularly used by nativ e f auna f or ref uge and cov er.

Habitat that has experienced, or is experiencing low lev els of disturbance and/or threatening processes (i.e. weed inv asion, introduced animals, soil erosion, salinity ).

High contribution to a wildlif e corridor, and/or connected to a larger area(s) of high quality habitat.

Prov ides known, or likely habitat for one or more rare or threatened species listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Act, or species considered rare or threatened according to DSE 2005.

MODERATE QU ALITY

Moderate degree of intactness, containing one or more important habitat f eatures such as ground debris (logs, rocks, v egetation), mature hollow-bearing trees, and a dense understorey component.

Moderate species richness and div ersity - represented by a moderate number of species from a range of f auna groups.

Moderate lev els of f oraging and breeding activ ity, with the site used by nativ e f auna f or ref uge and cov er.

Habitat that has experienced, or is experiencing moderate lev els of disturbance and/or threatening processes.

Moderate contribution to a wildlif e corridor, or is connected to area(s) of moderate quality habitat.

Prov ides potential habitat f or a small number of threatened species listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Act, or species considered rare or threatened according to DSE 2005.

LOW QUALITY

Low degree of intactness, containing f ew important habitat features such as ground debris (logs, rocks, v egetation), mature hollow-bearing trees, and a dense understorey component.

Low species richness and diversity (i.e. represented by a small number of species f rom a range of fauna groups).

Low lev els of foraging and breeding activity, with the site used by native fauna for refuge and cover.

Habitat that has experienced, or is experiencing high lev els of disturbance and/or threatening processes.

Unlikely to f orm part of a wildlif e corridor, and is not connected to another area(s) of habitat.

Unlikely to provide habitat f or rare or threatened species listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Act, or considered rare or threatened according to DSE 2005.


Appendix 2 – Implementation Schedule Table A2.1. Implementation schedule.

Key Tasks

Pre-construction Phase

� Install frog exclusion / sediment f encing along both sides of Kororoit Creek f or 150 metres either side of the bridge crossing approximately 20 -30 metres (as required) from the creek as per Section 3.3.1

� Install permanent frog exclusion fencing along either side of the proposed road works which approaches the bridge and around the existing wetland located north of Kororoit Creek

� Install a designated wash bay which can easily be installed to disinf ect v ehicles prior to entering the site

� Install appropriate signage along the perimeter of the work site to prev ent accidental entry by construction personnel, machinery and after construction is completed, the general public

� Undertake pre-clearance surv eys f or the species prior to any construction works within 30 metres of Kororoit Creek

� Undertake f rog salv age and translocation along the Kororoit Creek prior to construction as per Section 3.3.2 and/or train a designated staff member from the Melton Shire Council (i.e. an environmental officer) to salvage and translocate (i.e. frog handling and relocation) L. raniformis in the absence of a Zoologist onsite.

Construction Phase

� Undertake ongoing pre-clearance surv eys f or the species prior to any construction works within 30 metres of Kororoit Creek whilst maintaining ongoing salv age and translocation of Litoria raniformis within the construction zone

� Undertake rev egetation works as required following the recommendations outlines in Section 3.4 Provision of rocks, logs and other habitat features (where possible)

� Ensure the prov ision of mov ement corridors and modification to any L. raniformis habitat is replaced/revegetated accordingly

Post-construction Phase

� Ongoing monitoring and maintenance of L. raniformis population(s) and habitats within Kororoit Creek as per Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit (DSE 2010)

� Prov ision of additional plants and refugia as required

� Ongoing Rubbish and weed control

� Ongoing monitoring of v egetation extent, cov er and suitability

� Ongoing monitoring of water chemistry, lev els and permanency (if required)


Appendix 3 – Wetland Vegetation List Table A3.1. Plant species recommended for wetland vegetation.

Species Name Common Name

Melaleuca ericifolia Swamp Paperbark

Poa labillardierei v ar. labillardierei Common Tussock-grass

Lachnagrostis filiformis Common Blown-grass

Calystegia sepium Large Bindweed

Carex appressa Tall Sedge

Carex fasicularis Tassel Sedge

Epilobium billardierianum Smooth Willow-herb

Juncus amabilis Hollow-rush

Juncus gregiflorus Green Rush

Juncus procerus Tall Rush

Juncus sarophorus Broom Rush

Crassula helmsii Swamp Crassula

Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides Shining Penny wort

Carex gaudichaudiana Fen Sedge

Eleocharis acuta Common Spike-sedge

Persicaria praetermissa Spotted Knotweed

Persicaria subsessilis Hairy Knotweed

Ranunculus inundatus Riv er Buttercup

Alisma plantago-aquatica Water Plantain

Amphibromus fluitans Riv er Swamp Wallaby-grass

Baumea articulate Jointed Twig-sedge

Cladium procerum Leafy Twig-sedge

Eleocharis sphacelata Tall Spike-sedge

Glyceria australis Australian Sweet-grass

Lycopus australis Australian Gypsy wort

Lythrum salicana Small Loosestrife

Myriophyllum crispatum Upright Water-milf oil

Myriophyllum simulans Amphibious Water-milf oil

Neopaxia australasica White Purslane

Ottelia ovalifolia Swamp Lily

Persicaria decipiens Slender Knotweed

Phragmites australis Common Reed

Triglochin procerum s.l. Water Ribbons

Ranunculus amphitricus Running Marsh Flower

Rumex bidens Mud Dock

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Riv er Clud-sedge

Myriophyllum caput-medusae Coarse Water-milf oil

Potamogeton ochreatus Blunt Pondweed

Vallisneria americana Ribbon-weed


Appendix 4 – ‘EPBC footprint of road and bridge’, Burnside Heights, Victoria

FINAL REPORT: Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL REPORT: Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis...