Review of the Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection · PDF fileaccess to the Victorian...

© Biosis 2012 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting 1

Review of the Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area: PSP 54 (Clyde Creek)

Prepared for the Growth Areas Authority

12 July 2013

© Biosis 2013 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting www.biosis.com.au i

© Biosis Pty Ltd

This document is and shall remain the property of Biosis Pty Ltd. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of the Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Biosis offices

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Canberra

Floor 1, Unit 3, 38 Essington Street Mitchell, ACT 2911

Phone: (02) 6241 2333 Fax: (03) 9646 9499 Email: [email protected]

NEW SOUTH WALES

Sydney

Unit 14, 17-27 Power Avenue Alexandria NSW 2015


Wollongong

8 Tate Street Wollongong NSW 2500


QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

Suite 4 First Floor, 72 Wickham Street Fortitude Valley QLD 4006


VICTORIA

Ballarat

506 Macarthur Street Ballarat VIC 3350


Melbourne (Head Office)

38 Bertie Street Port Melbourne VIC 3207


Wangaratta

16 Templeton Street Wangaratta VIC 3677


Document information

Report to: Growth Areas Authority

Prepared by: Dan Gilmore

Biosis project no.: 16071

File name: 16071.Clyde.GGF.DRA02.12072013.docx

Citation: Biosis 2013. Review of the Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area: PSP 54 (Clyde Creek). Report for the Growth Areas Authority. Author: Gilmore, D., Biosis Pty Ltd

Document control

Version Internal reviewer Date issued

Draft version 01 Mark Venosta 03/06/2013

Draft version 02 Matt Dell 12/07/2013

Acknowledgements

Biosis acknowledges the contribution of the following people and organisations in undertaking this study:

• GAA: Gwenda Cullen

• Department of Environment and Primary Industry for access to the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas

The following Biosis staff were involved in this project:

• Katie Stevenson for assistance

• James Shepherd for mapping

© Biosis 2013 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting ii

Contents 1� Introduction and methods ............................................................................................................................ 3�

1.1�Background....................................................................................................................................................................... 3�

1.2�Objectives of the review ................................................................................................................................................. 3�

1.3�Methods – habitat assessment .................................................................................................................................... 3�

2� Results ............................................................................................................................................................... 6�

2.1�Habitat quality .................................................................................................................................................................. 6�

2.2�Habitat improvement ..................................................................................................................................................... 6�

3� Revision of Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area .................................................................. 9�

3.1�Potential benefits ............................................................................................................................................................ 9�

3.2�Trade offs .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9�

4� Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 10�

5� References ...................................................................................................................................................... 13�

6� Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................... 14�

Appendix 1: Waterbody and instream pool habitat attributes ................................................................... 15�

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Location of the study area, PSP 54, Clyde Creek ............................................................................... 5

Figure 2 Waterbodies and pools assessed. ........................................................................................................ 8

Figure 3 Revised Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area. ............................................................ 11

Figure 4 Proposed Category 1 habitat, wetlands and interface with surrounding environment ......... 11

Figure 5 Proposed Category 1 habitat and wetlands ( eastern detail) ....................................................... 12

Figure 6 Proposed Category 1 habitat and wetlands (western detail) ....................................................... 12


1 Introduction and methods

1.1 Background

Biosis Pty Ltd was commissioned by the Growth Areas Authority to undertake a review of the Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area in PSP 54 (Clyde Creek) (Figure 1). A linear Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area is identified within the PSP that encompasses several large farm dams associated with Muddy Gates Drain where there are previous records of Growling Grass Frog (DEPI 2013).

1.2 Objectives of the review

The Growth Areas Authority has developed a revised Category 1 protection area for the PSP using advice from Neil Craigie. The configuration differs from the existing Category 1 protection area shown in the Sub-regional Species Strategy for the Growling Grass Frog (DEPI 2013).

The objectives of this assessment are to:

• Review the proposed changes to the Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area within the PSP;

• Undertake a habitat assessment of all existing instream pools within Clyde Creek and other waterbodies in the PSP;

• Provide the information obtained in the habitat assessment to the GAA as a spatial file with associated attribute tables; and

• Prepare a brief report of the findings of the habitat assessment and review of the new Category 1 protection area.

1.3 Methods – habitat assessment

The methods used for undertaking the habitat assessment were consistent with the specifications in the RFQ. All accessible instream pools along Clyde Creek and waterbodies were inspected on 27 May 2013. The site IDs for each waterbody follows Ecology and Heritage Partners (2011), except for several pools along Clyde Creek, which were not identified in that report.

Estimates of aquatic vegetation cover and definition of hydroperiod for each pool or waterbody follows Heard et al. (2010). Hydroperiod was gauged from a subjective assessment of the frequency with which the waterbody or pool dries out and was informed by looking at historic air photography, information from landowners and from a review of the information contained in the report prepared by Ecology and Heritage Partners (2011).

Habitat quality was, for each pool or waterbody within the PSP, characterised as follows:

High: Hydroperiod 3 (permanent); Large (>2000 square metres)

Medium: Hydroperiod 2 (semi-permanent) (<2000 square metres)

Low: Hydroperiod 1 (ephemeral) or 0 (intermittent); generally (< 500 square metres)

It is important to note that the aquatic vegetation cover recorded in waterbodies and pools during the current assessment is likely to be lower than would be recorded during mid-summer, when aquatic vegetation cover is likely to be significantly higher. As such, for the current assessment, habitat quality was determined by the


size of the waterbody and its permanency. The larger and more permanent a waterbody is, the higher its habitat quality for Growling Grass Frog. This is consistent with the findings of Heard et al. (2010).

Aquatic vegetation cover was very low at the time of assessment, as it was undertaken outside the main growing season for majority of species. Therefore, habitat quality was based largely on the size and permanency of the waterbody.

Water quality paramaters were collected for all waterbodies and pools which contained enough water to enable data to be collected.

The presence of fish in each site was noted if they were observed during the habitat assessment.

Clyde

CITY OFCITY OFCASEYCASEY

Clyde

Creek

Western Contour Drain

Ballarto Road

Valet

taStr

eet

BakersRoad

Ridgw

ay Ro

ad

Smith

s Lan

e

Railway Road

Beechers Road

Pound Road

Camp

bells

Road

Grah

am Ro

ad

Derri

cks Ro

ad

Tucke

rs Ro

ad

Bells

Road

Moores Road

Wilta

ra Ro

ad

Mudd

y Gate

s Lan

e

Hardys Road

Yallambee Road

Pattersons Road

BALLARTO ROAD

BERW

ICK-CR

ANBO

URNE

ROAD

TWYFORD RD

Acknowledgement: VicRoads© State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2007

Matter: 16071,Date: 30 May 2013,Checked by: DCG, Drawn by: JMS, Last edited by: jshepherdLocation:P:\16000s\16071\Mapping\

LegendStudy Area

Scale 1:25,000 @ A4, GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

0 250 500 750 1,000

MetresBiosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Figure 1: Location of the Study Area Victoria

Melbourne

Dandenong

Frankston

Lilydale

Pakenham


2 Results

2.1 Habitat quality

A total of 11 waterbodies and eight instream pools along Clyde Creek were identified and mapped during the habitat assessment and these are shown together with the existing Category 1 protection area (Figure 2). The habitat attributes of each pool and waterbody are summarised in Appendix 1.

Other waterbodies and pools occur within the PSP but these could not be assessed due to access constraints, as shown on Figure 2.

The majority of waterbodies were classified as medium or low quality habitat for Growling Grass Frog. Sites D1, D3 and D9 were classified as high quality habitat. All sites had unrestricted access by cattle and this has resulted in significant pugging around the margins of all waterbodies. Grazing by these animals is probably also the reason for the low cover of emergent aquatic vegetation observed at all sites (Appendix 1). Most sites, except D3 were visibly turbid. Most waterbodies were relatively small (<1000 m2) and were classified as being semi-permanent or ephemeral. Water levels in sites D4, D5, D6 and D7 were very low compared to water levels in September 2011, when they were assessed by Ecology and Heritage Partners. Their assessment was undertaken during a particularly wet year and this is likely to have resulted in increased water levels. For example, sites D2 and D10, both ephemeral wetlands, contained water during their assessment but were completely dry during the current assessment.

All of the dams assessed are potential breeding habitat for Growling Grass Frog and all may be occupied by the species at different times depending on water levels and aquatic vegetation cover. All are in close proximity to each other and to other occupied habitat outside the PSP.

Many of the pools along Clyde Creek were considered to be ephemeral and most were either dry or virtually dry during the current assessment. The pools have very little vegetation other than introduced pasture grasses and are considered to be relatively poor Growling Grass Frog habitat. It is unlikely that the species breeds within the creek itself.

Fish were not observed in any of the waterbodies (dams) during the present assessment but Eastern Gambusia Gambusia holbrooki were observed in pool C6 in Clyde Creek. It is likely that this species and possibly other fish species occur in some of the dams on site, especially as most are online (water sourced from Muddy Gates Drain).

All wetlands assessed had a high level of connectivity, being most online and within close proximity to one another. There were no apparent barriers to dispersal, and the low, grazed nature of the pasture on the site is highly conducive to Growling Grass Frog movement.

2.2 Habitat improvement

The quality of the Growling Grass Frog in the existing farm dams within the PSP could be improved by implementing one or more of the following:

• Increasing hydroperiod (Growling Grass Frog populations are less likely to go extinct in permanent waterbodies (Heard et al. 2010)).

• Increasing the size of the waterbody. Larger waterbodies are likely to support larger population of Growling Grass Frog and are therefore less likely to go extinct. Larger waterbodies are also less likely to completely dry out during periods of below average rainfall.


• Increase the cover and diversity of aquatic vegetation (this can be achieved by planting out wetlands and excluding stock).

• Provision of additional terrestrial cover in the form of rocks and indigenous herbs and grasses. • Woody weed removal at site D9, where willows are shading the waterbody and limiting macrophyte

establishment. • Remove predatory fish (if present).

The pools identified within Clyde Creek could be widened, deepened and planted out with a variety of aquatic macrophytes to enhance their value as Growling Grass Frog habitat. Additional pools could also be created along the length of Clyde Creek to increase habitat availability. In the northern section of the creek, a large section has become choked out with dense beds of Cumbungi Typha sp. Such dense aquatic vegetation is poor habitat for Growling Grass Frog. There may be an opportunity to clear this vegetation out, deepen and remodel this section of the creek to improve its value as Growling Grass Frog habitat.

CC01

CC04

CC02

CC03

CC06

Tuck

ers R

oad

Bells

Roa

d

Pattersons Road

Clyde Creek

D1

D2M4

D9

D3

D4

D5

D8

D6

D7

D10

C1

C11

C3

C12C13

C4

C5

C6

0 60 120 180 240 300

Metres

LegendStudy AreaNo AccessGGF Wetland habitat

GGF Category 1 Habitat CorridorsProposed MetapopulationInternodal Corridors

Matter: 16071, Date: 30 May 2013, Checked by: DCG, Drawn by: JMS, Last edited by: jshepherdLocation:P:\16000s\16071\Mapping\16071_F2_GGF_Habitat

Biosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne,

Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Clyde

Scale: 1:6,000 @ A3

Figure 2: Growling GrassFrog wetland habitats

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Acknowledgements: Imagery provided by Growth Areas Authority (2007)


3 Revision of Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area

3.1 Potential benefits

The revised Category 1 habitat area is considered to be a superior conservation outcome within the PSP compared to the existing Category 1 habitat. The revised area is shown in Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6.

The original design was narrow and linear creating a large edge to area ratio and reducing the area of "interior" habitat, thereby leaving the conservation area prone to 'edge effects'. In contrast, while being the same size, the revised area is a more consolidated reserve offering greater protection for Growling Grass Frogs and their habitat. The key features of the revised design include:

• The provision of five dedicated Growling Grass Frog wetlands. • Each wetland has a minimum surface area of 0.1 ha, with one wetland (D3), having a surface area of

0.65 ha. • All dedicated Growling Grass Frog wetlands are offline and protected from overflow from Clyde Creek

and as such they are protected from the incursions of predatory fishes (such as Plague Minnow) which are likely to occur in the creek.

• All wetlands are protected against all floods and stormwater feed is guaranteed via initial treatment followed by biofiltration.

• Unlike the existing habitat (farm dams), which rely on manual pumping for their water source, each dedicated Growling Grass Frog wetland has a permanent water supply and wetland permanency has been shown to improve the likelihood of persistence of Growling Grass Frog populations (Heard et al. 2010).

• All dedicated wetlands are in close proximity (increasing the likelihood of all sites being colonised). • All dedicated wetlands are buffered by at least 25 m of public open space, in addition to being

buffered by at least 25 m of terrestrial habitat within the conservation area.

Other features that augment the core habitat include:

• Three large, permanent stormwater treatment wetlands co-located within the Category 1 habitat area, providing additional wetland habitat that may be used for breeding, foraging and overwintering.

3.2 Trade offs

The revision has necessitated some compromises to the existing habitat features within the PSP as follows:

• Wetlands D1 and D3 are wetlands that have been 'relocated' south of their existing locations and as such the existing D1 and D3 will be removed.

• Existing Wetlands D2, D4, D8, D9, D10 and M4 will be removed (however, D8, D9 and D10 were not included in the original Category 1 habitat area and would most likely have been removed regardless.

• There has been a reduction in the surface area of D1 (existing 0.27 ha, new 0.2 ha) and D3 (existing 0.76 ha, new 0.65 ha)

• Losses of existing habitat have been offset by the increased surface area of wetlands D5 (existing 0.04 ha, new 0.1 ha), D6 (existing 0.02 ha, new 0.01 ha) and D7 (existing 0.04 ha, new 0.1 ha) as well as by their increased connectedness and permanency.


4 Conclusion

Existing Growling Grass Frog habitat within PSP 54 is comprised of a number of wetlands, principally farm dams, which vary in quality. This habitat is augmented by pools within Clyde Creek, however, the creek itself is not likely to constitute important breeding habitat.

The existing Category 1 habitat within the PSP comprised a long, linear reserve to try to incorporate wetlands where the species had been previously recorded (wetlands D2 and D3). However, incorporating this design into the urban context is considered impractical in terms of managing the quality of the habitat, the inclusion of drainage infrastructure and urban landscape design.

The revised Category 1 provides for a consolidated reserve with five dedicated Growling Grass Frog wetlands with a guaranteed water source, co-located with drainage infrastructure. This infrastructure will augment the dedicated habitat.

Forward planning will be required to ensure that created wetlands are available for and colonized by Growling Grass Frogs prior to the removal / relocation of existing habitat. All wetlands will need to designed carefully to ensure they provide the best possible habitat for Growling Grass Frog and should be designed using the principles outlined in Heard et al. (2008).


Figure 3 Revised Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection area.

Figure 4 Proposed Category 1 habitat, wetlands and interface with surrounding environment


Figure 5 Proposed Category 1 habitat and wetlands ( eastern detail)

Figure 6 Proposed Category 1 habitat and wetlands (western detail)


5 References

DEPI 2013. Sub-regional Species Strategy for the Growling Grass Frog. Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries. (2011, October 14). Victoria's Geomorphological Framework. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from Victorian Resources Online: http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/map_documents.nsf/pages/grg_vic_tier1

Department of Environment and Primary Industries. (2013, April 26). GeoVic-Explore Victoria Online. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from Interactive Maps: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/about-dse/interactive-maps

Paterson, S. (2008). Euroa Water Managment Scheme Castle Creek Levee Upgrade Euroa, Northeast Victoria. Cultural Heritage Managment Plan 10477. Malvern: Sinclair Knight Mertz.

Syme, L., Michaels, A., & Drury, K. (2011). Grand Strzelecki Track Cultural Heritage Managemnet Plan 11378. North Melbourne: Kayandel Archaeological Services.

Zola, N., & Gott, B. (1992). Koorie Plants, Koorie People. Traditional Aboriginal Food, Fibre and Healing Plants of Victoria. Melbourne: Koorie Heritage Trust.

Heard, G.W., Scroggie, M.P., and Clemann, N 2010. Guidelines for managing the endangered Growling Grass Frog in urbanising landscapes. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 208. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.


6 Appendices

Notes to tables:

Hydroperiod: 0 = fills only in years with above average rainfall 1 = fills and dries out annually with average rainfall 2 = dries out only during years of below average rainfall 3 = never dries out, regardless of rainfall

Aquatic vegetation cover Mean percentage of water surface area covered by the foliage of emergent, submergent and floating aquatic plants, where each may range from 0-100%: = SUM (% emergent + % submergent + % floating)/3

Definition of vegetation types Emergent vegetation is any aquatic macrophyte rooted below the water with foliage emerging above the water surface, submergent vegetation is any aquatic macrophyte rooted below the surface with foliage below the water surface, and floating vegetation is any rooted or unrooted aquatic macrophyte or alga with foliage floating on the water surface.

Habitat quality High: Hydroperiod 3 (permanent); Large (>2000 square metres)

Medium: Hydroperiod 2 (semi-permanent) (<2000 square metres)

Low: Hydroperiod 1 (ephemeral) or 0 (intermittent); generally (< 500 square metres)

GGF Record Records of Growling Grass Frog from Ecology and Heritage Partners 2011

Barriers to dispersal Barriers to dispersal include road, and buildings


Appendix 1: Waterbody and instream pool habitat attributes

Table A1.1. Waterbody and instream pool habitat attributes, Clyde Creek and surrounds. Site IDs follows Ecology and Heritage Partners 2011.

Site Type Surface

Area (m2)

GGF

Record

Habitat

Value

Hydro-

period

Emergent

Vegetion

(%)

Submergent

Vegetation

(%)

Floating

Vegetation

(%)

Aquatic

Vegetation

Cover (%)

Dominant

Aquatic

Vegetation

Barriers

to

dispersal

Notes Habitat

improvement

C1 Pool 568 No Medium 2 5 0 20 8.3 Cotula spp;

grass;

Potamogeton

spp;

Filamentous

algae

None Shallow, wide,

pugged, excreta,

lots of sediment

but water quite

clear

Deepen pool, increase

hydroperiod; remove

grazing, stabilise

banks; increase

aquatic vegetation

cover

C3 Pool 27.68287 No Low 1 20 10 10 13.3 Cotula spp;

grass;

Potamogeton

spp;

None shallow, narrow,

pugged, grazed,

very little water


hydroperiod; remove

grazing, stabilise

banks; increase

aquatic vegetation

cover

C4 Pool 193.6152 No Low 1 5 5 5 5 Cotula sp;

grass;

Potamogeton

spp;


pugged, grazed,

very little water


hydroperiod; remove

grazing, stabilise

banks; increase

aquatic vegetation

cover

C5 Pool 202.7158 No Low 1 40 5 0 45 Grass,

Eleocharis acuta


pugged, grazed,


hydroperiod; remove


Site Type Surface

Area (m2)

GGF

Record

Habitat

Value

Hydro-

period

Emergent

Vegetion

(%)

Submergent

Vegetation

(%)

Floating

Vegetation

(%)

Aquatic

Vegetation

Cover (%)

Dominant

Aquatic

Vegetation

Barriers

to

dispersal

Notes Habitat

improvement

very little water grazing, stabilise

banks; increase

aquatic vegetation

cover

C6 Pool 198.2867 No Low 1 10 30 5 45 Potamogeton

spp; Cotula

spp;

None Grazed, eroded

banks, Gambusia

present; Hawthorn

and other weeds

along banks

Remove grazing,

enlarge and deepen

pool; remodel banks;

provide terrestrial

shelter sites; increase

diversity of and cover

of aquatic vegetation;

remove weedy shrubs

that shade waterbody

C11 Pool 16.01574 No Low 1 0 0 0 0 N/A None shallow, narrow,

pugged, grazed,

very little water

Deepen, enlarge,

increase hydroperiod;

remove grazing,

stabilise banks;

increase aquatic

vegetation cover


pugged, grazed,

very little water

Deepen, enlarge,


remove grazing,

stabilise banks;

increase aquatic

vegetation cover


Site Type Surface

Area (m2)

GGF

Record

Habitat

Value

Hydro-

period

Emergent

Vegetion

(%)

Submergent

Vegetation

(%)

Floating

Vegetation

(%)

Aquatic

Vegetation

Cover (%)

Dominant

Aquatic

Vegetation

Barriers

to

dispersal

Notes Habitat

improvement


pugged, grazed,

very little water

Deepen, enlarge,


remove grazing,

stabilise banks;

increase aquatic

vegetation cover

D1 Dam 2763.992 No High 3 0 10 0 3.3 Pasture grass

(inundated);

Potamogeton

spp.

None Heavily grazed,

pugged, no fringing

vegetation, very

little terrestrial

cover, turbid

Remove grazing;

increase aquatic

vegetation; provide

terrestrial shelter

sites; remodel banks

D2 Ephemeral

Wetland

152.5331 Yes Low 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A None Dry at time of

assessment.

Heavily grazed,

pugged, very little

terrestrial cover

Remove grazing;

increase permanency;

enlarge waterbody;

remove grazing

D3 Dam 7639.307 No High 3 0 10 0 3.3 Potamogeton

spp.

None Farm dam. Heavily

Grazed to edge. No

terrestrial cover.

No fish observed.

Clear water

Remove grazing;

increase aquatic

vegetation; provide

terrestrial shelter


D4 Dam 375.5681 Yes Medium 2 0 0 0 0 None None Heavily grazed,

pugged, no fringing

vegetation, very

Remove grazing;

increase aquatic

vegetation; provide


Site Type Surface

Area (m2)

GGF

Record

Habitat

Value

Hydro-

period

Emergent

Vegetion

(%)

Submergent

Vegetation

(%)

Floating

Vegetation

(%)

Aquatic

Vegetation

Cover (%)

Dominant

Aquatic

Vegetation

Barriers

to

dispersal

Notes Habitat

improvement

little terrestrial

cover, turbid;

eutrophic

terrestrial shelter

sites; remodel banks;

enlarge; increase

permanency

D5 Dam 406.3049 No Low 1 0 0 0 0 None None Heavily grazed,

pugged, no fringing

vegetation, very

little terrestrial

cover, turbid;

eutrophic

Remove grazing;

increase aquatic

vegetation; provide

terrestrial shelter

sites; remodel banks;

enlarge; increase

permanency

D6 Dam 206.8182 No Medium 2 0 0 0 0 N/A None Turbid, heavily

grazed, stock

access, eutrophic,

very little terrestrial

cover

Remove grazing,

enlarge and deepen


provide terrestrial




increase permanency

D7 Dam 449.9561 Yes Medium 2 30 10 0 13.3 Eleocharis

acuta;

Potamogeton

spp.

None Turbid, heavily

grazed, stock

access, eutrophic,

very little terrestrial

cover

Remove grazing,

enlarge and deepen


provide terrestrial




Site Type Surface

Area (m2)

GGF

Record

Habitat

Value

Hydro-

period

Emergent

Vegetion

(%)

Submergent

Vegetation

(%)

Floating

Vegetation

(%)

Aquatic

Vegetation

Cover (%)

Dominant

Aquatic

Vegetation

Barriers

to

dispersal

Notes Habitat

improvement


increase permanency

D8 Ephemeral

Wetland

2959 No Low 1 10 50 0 20 Grasses

(inundated);

Eleocharis spp.;

Juncus spp.)

None Water clear,

sourced from local

runoff and rain;

submerged plants

include pasture

weeds and grasses

Remove grazing;

increase permanency;

establish diverse

aquatic vegetation

D9 Dam 1677.826 No High 3 0 0 0 0 N/A None Turbid, pugged,

eroding banks,

grazed, likely to

have predatory

fish, willows shade

water, no

terrestrial cover

Remodel banks,

removing grazing,

remove willows,

remove fish (if

present), establish

aquatic vegetation

D10 Ephemeral

Wetland

197.3786 No Low 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A None Ephemeral, dry at

time of

assessment.

Pugged, grazed


hydroperiod; remove

grazing, increase

aquatic vegetation

cover


Site Type Surface

Area (m2)

GGF

Record

Habitat

Value

Hydro-

period

Emergent

Vegetion

(%)

Submergent

Vegetation

(%)

Floating

Vegetation

(%)

Aquatic

Vegetation

Cover (%)

Dominant

Aquatic

Vegetation

Barriers

to

dispersal

Notes Habitat

improvement

M4 Dam 286.8082 No Medium 2 5 5 0 3.3 Potamogeton

spp.; Eleocharis

acuta

None Turbid. Heavily

grazed. Pugged.

Eutrophic. No

terrestrial cover.

Some Hawthorn.

No fish observed

Remove grazing;

increase aquatic

vegetation; provide

terrestrial shelter



Table A1.2. Water quality attributes within the waterbodies and instream pools within the study area. Note that for some pools, there was insufficient water to enable a water quality reading to be taken and these are marked as N/A.

Site ID Temp (oC) pH Conductivity

(mS/cm)

Turbidity (NTU) TDS (g/L) DO (mg/L) DO (%)

C11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A


C3 13.68 8.01 5.37 16 3.38 10.25 102


D2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

C4 14.4 8.16 3.43 16.6 2.2 11.05 111.9

D10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

C6 12.12 7.76 2.58 20.1 1.65 7.4 71.1

C5 14.44 8.23 3.69 21.7 2.36 10.51 106.4

D6 13.8 7.98 3.24 64.8 2.07 16.98 169.5

M4 12.26 7.77 2.28 13.3 1.46 8.06 77.7

D4 13.13 9.33 4.16 Beyond

Instrument

Capability

2.66 18.52 182

D5 12.72 8.58 2.25 Beyond 1.44 9.21 89.7


Site ID Temp (oC) pH Conductivity

(mS/cm)

Turbidity (NTU) TDS (g/L) DO (mg/L) DO (%)

Instrument

Capability

D7 13.4 9.18 2.93 58.2 1.87 16.27 161


D9 12.74 8.01 2.28 16.1 1.46 13.26 129.3

D1 12.39 8.05 2.21 34.1 1.42 10.6 102.5

D8 13.5 7.93 2.7 7.3 1.7 9.39 93.2

D3 12.04 9.01 2.78 Beyond

Instrument

Capability

1.78 13.81 132.5

Review of the Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection · PDF fileaccess to the Victorian...

Documents

Transcript of Review of the Growling Grass Frog Category 1 protection · PDF fileaccess to the Victorian...