pacific highway upgrade: woolgoolga to ballina · the sampling regime was consistent with the...

PACIFIC HIGHWAY UPGRADE: WOOLGOOLGA TO BALLINA

Sections 3 to 8 Green-thighed Frog Construction Monitoring: Year 1

November 2018

WOOLGOOLGA TO BALLINA: SECTION 3-8 GREEN-THIGHED FROG MONITORING: YEAR 1 DURING CONSTRUCTION

2921718-BDL-Ver3 Page i

Commercial in Confidence This ecological report is copyright to Lewis Ecological Surveys (LES) and its licensed use is restricted explicitly to the RMS. Beyond this, persons, organisations and government may only use information contained within this report following written consent by LES. The report must not be provided to any third party without the written consent of LES who reserves all legal rights and remedies regarding any infringement of its rights with respect to this report. Lewis Ecological Surveys acknowledges that the report will be made publicly available on the internet in accordance with the Ministers Conditions of Approval.

Disclaimer

The client (RMS) may only use this document for the purposes for which it was commissioned. This report relies upon data, surveys, measurements and results based on a short-term objective study in response to a Lewis Ecological Surveys advising RMS – PacificComplete and their representatives (Amanda Leonard, Chris Greenaway, Mat Neeson). Although conclusions have been based on the available data at that time, some professional judgement has been applied in reaching these conclusions due to the temporal limitations arising from the dynamic nature of available information, legislation, schedules, individual species and associated habitats. Every attempt has been made to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the report’s findings, conclusions and recommendations. Lewis Ecological Surveys does not accept responsibility for its use beyond the scope of works.

…………………………. Ben Lewis (B. Applied Science Hons) …6th November 2018………

Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ben Lewis (Lewis Ecological Surveys) – Field Surveys, Report Author and Report Review.

Adrian Vanesse (Geoview) – GIS and map production.

Simon Wilson (Pacific Complete) – Project Management.

Mat Neeson (Pacific Complete) – Project Management.

Shayne Walker (Roads and Maritime Services) - Review

Photography - Lewis Ecological Surveys © else stated

Title Page – Green-thighed Frog from BACI Site 9A. Report to be cited as: Lewis, B.D. (2018). Woolgoolga to Ballina: Green-thighed Frog Monitoring for Sections 3 to 8: Year 1. Report prepared for Roads and Maritime Services and Pacific Complete by Lewis Ecological Surveys. © Project Number: 2921617


2921718-BDL-Ver3 Page ii

Document Control:

Date Status No. Copies

Format Dispatched Client Client Contact

11/05/2018 Vers 1 1 PDF Via email Pacific Complete Simon Wilson

11/05/2018 Vers 1 1 PDF Via email Roads and Maritime Services Scott Lawrence





Revision History

Date Status Author Reviewer Organisation

18/05/2018 Vers 1 Ben Lewis Shayne Walker Roads and Maritime Services

18/05/2018 Vers 1 Ben Lewis Simon Wilson Roads and Maritime Services

06/11/2018 Vers 2 Ben Lewis Simon Wilson Roads and Maritime Services


2921718-BDL-Ver3 Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND TO THIS MONITORING ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 UPDATES AND ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM YEAR 1 MONITORING .................................................................... 2 1.3 SUBJECT SPECIES – GREEN-THIGHED FROG (LITORIA BREVIPALMATA) ............................................................................ 2

1.3.1 Description ................................................................................................................................ 2 1.3.2 Distribution ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.3 Habitat and Ecology ................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 SURVEY METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 SITE SELECTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 TIMING OF SURVEYS .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 ABIOTIC DATA ........................................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 MONITORING RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 FROG SURVEYS ......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Stage 1 Surveys - Calling Intensity and Spotlighting .................................................................... 7 3.1.3 Stage 2 Surveys – Post Breeding Counts of Tadpoles and Froglets .............................................. 10

3.2 SEASONAL RAINFALL AND ASSOCIATED SURVEY CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 10

4.0 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

5.0 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ................................................................................................. 12

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 16

7.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 17

8.0 APPENDIX A – GREEN-THIGHED FROG SURVEY SUMMARY DATA & SEASONAL RAINFALL CONDITIONS .................... 19


2921718-BDL-Ver3 Page iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Summary of the Green-thighed Frog surveys for BACI Sites 6-10. ............................................................................................ 9

Table 5-1. Performance indicators and corrective actions from the Threatened Frog Species Management Plan (RMS 2015). .............. 13

Table 6-1. W2B Year 1 Sections 3-8 recommendations and RMS responses. .......................................................................................... 16

Table A1. Summary of Green-thighed Frog surveys in Sections 3-7: Year 1 (2017). ................................................................................ 19

Table A2. Rainfall recorded between October 2016 and May 2017 from New Italy station (058097) (BoM 2017). ................................... 20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1a. Locations of Green-thighed Frog BACI Sites 1-7 between ch.11800–40000. ......................................................................... 4

Figure 2-1b. Locations of Green-thighed Frog Control and Impact sites between ch. 57500–118500........................................................ 5

Figure 3-1. The number of calling male Green-thighed Frogs between the baseline surveys and during construction for Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring. ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3-2. The number of Green-thighed Frogs observed between the baseline surveys (shaded) and Year 1 data compiled by Lewis (2015). .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1-1. Green-thighed Frog (ad + juv). ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Plate 3-1. Green-thighed Frogs recorded from Site 9B adjacent to ch. 111500 with male (left) calling and female (right). ........................ 8


2921718-BDL-Ver3 Page v

Executive Summary

Year 1 monitoring for the Green-thighed Frog (Litoria brevipalmata) was performed at five paired

BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) sites (n=10) located in Sections 3 (ch.37400; 64700), 6 (ch.

102500) and 7 (ch. 118500) of the Woolgoolga to Ballina Upgrade. Surveys were initially triggered

by localised thunderstorm activity in the Tyndale, Tabbimoble and New Italy on the 6th January

which delivered around 75 mm of rain across sites 8-10. Follow up tropical low pressure systems

in March delivered well in excess of 100mm rainfall events and provided additional opportunities

to survey these sites as well as surveys Site 6 and 7 located around Grafton Airport and Glenugie

State Forest.

The sampling regime was consistent with the Threatened Frog Management Plan (RMS 2015) in

that breeding or calling surveys were undertaken during a period of intense rainfall and this was

followed up by post breeding surveys of the ponds 41-50 days later to determine the overall

success of the breeding event. During the field surveys, checks as to the presence of temporary

frog fencing were performed and notes taken with regard to its integrity and extent relevant to the

Threatened Frog Management Plan.

Green-thighed Frogs were recorded at 6 (40%) of the 10 sites and specifically at Site 6B, 7A, 7B,

8B, 9A and 9B. Sampling could not be undertaken at Site 6A (ch. 35200) due to ongoing access

constraints. Between 6-18 males were heard calling at both impact and control sites whilst the post

breeding surveys performed in late February and again in late April recorded froglets at three sites

around Grafton airport and Glenugie State Forest. The earlier post breeding surveys at Sites 8-10

were performed in February and found no sign of breeding success and all ponds had dried out.

Further additional sampling opportunities would benefit the monitoring program.

The implications of the findings and how these compare with performance measures outlined in

the Threatened Frog Management Plan (RMS 2015) are discussed.


2921718-BDL-Ver3 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview and Background to this Monitoring

The Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway Upgrade comprises approximately 155 km of highway to achieve a four-lane

divided road extending north of Woolgoolga at the northern extent of Sapphire to Woolgoolga Upgrade to south of Ballina

where it ties into the southern extent of the Ballina bypass. The project includes grade separated interchanges, service

roads and upgrades to local road connections and has the potential to be staged in 11 sections. The State Minister for

Planning and Environment approved the project on 24th June 2014. On 14th August 2014, the Federal Minister for the

Environment Greg Hunt approved the project in accordance with Part 9 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act (1999).

In order to enable commencement of construction in mid-2015, some key preconstruction survey tasks were to be

undertaken as a priority. During preconstruction, baseline and targeted surveys of threatened species will enable the

establishment of the monitoring program to be implemented on an ongoing basis to help manage and mitigate any

potential impacts of the project on threatened species. Requirements for monitoring and mitigation measures throughout

various stages of the project are outlined in a series of threatened species management plans.

The Threatened Frog Management Plan (RMS 2015) addresses the impacts of the upgrade and proposed mitigation on

a number of threatened frog species including the Wallum Sedge Frog (Litoria olongburensis), Giant Barred Frog

(Mixophyes iteratus) and Green-thighed Frog (Litoria brevipalmata). This management plan identifies both areas of

known and potential habitat throughout the Project corridor and proposes a number of management actions to ensure

the long-term survival of these species in the area of the project. In order to gauge the performance of these management

actions a pre-construction baseline monitoring survey was undertaken by Lewis Ecological Surveys in February, March

and April 2015 (Lewis 2015). The results of this survey would then provide a comparable data set from which successive

monitoring events could be compared.

With construction commencing in Sections 3, 6 and 7 in mid 2016, PacificComplete engaged Lewis Ecological Surveys

in December 2016 to implement Year 1 during construction surveys of the five paired sites (n=10) in Sections 3, 6 and 7.

The following reports on these findings.



1.2 Updates and Adoption of Recommendations from Year 1 Monitoring

The following recommendations were adopted following Year 1 monitoring in the southern Sections 1 and 2 for

Woolgoolga to Ballina and are considered applicable to this monitoring event:

1. Update aspects of the Threatened Frog Species Management Plan (RMS 2015) and with that the following

changes:

a. The frog counts be the total number of Green-thighed Frogs recorded during Stage 1 surveys.

1.3 Subject Species – Green-thighed Frog (Litoria brevipalmata)

1.3.1 Description

The Green-thighed Frog is a small to medium sized (max. 47 mm) hylid frog (Barker et al. 1995; Cogger 1995; Murphy

and Turnbill 1999; Lemckert et al. 2006). It is a relatively distinct species with a prominent white upper lip, armpits and

groin marked in lime green with black markings (Barker et al. 1995; Lemckert et al. 2006).

Plate 1-1. Green-thighed Frog (ad + juv).

1.3.2 Distribution

The Green-thighed Frog is distributed in coastal

and sub coastal areas from near Bundaberg

(Cordalba) in the north to Ourimbah (i.e. central

coast NSW) in the south (Barker et al. 1995;

Lemckert et al. 2006). Despite this relatively wide

distribution, it is known from few areas (see

Ehmann 1997).

1.3.3 Habitat and Ecology

The cryptic habits of the Green-thighed Frog

ensured it remained unknown to science until 1972

(Tyler et al. 1972). The main habitat requirement

of this species is warm temperate lowland forest,

although more recent records have indicated other habitat types including dry sclerophyll forest, heathland and swamp

forest are used (Nattrass and Ingram 1993; Lemckert 1999; Murphy and Turnbill 1999; Lewis 2000; Lewis 2006). The

Green-thighed Frog is most often detected during breeding events between October and April when males congregate

around flooded depressions and call from either the ground or low fallen branches or vegetation (Barker et al. 1995;

Ehmann 1997; Lemckert et al. 2006). Typically, calling events occur when the breeding site has received at least 75 mm

in 24 hours or around 150 mm over a 72 hour period (B. Lewis unpublished data).



2.0 SURVEY METHODS

Field surveys were performed in accordance with the Threatened Frog Species Management Plan (RMS 2015). The

following details the areas surveyed along with the timing of field surveys and how the data were treated or analysed.

2.1 Site Selection

The location of BACI sites 6 to 10 in Section 3-7 were already identified from a selection of known Green-thighed Frog

sites (Lewis 2015). Their distribution across the study area is shown in Figure 2-1ab.

2.2 Timing of Surveys

Weather patterns were constantly monitored between December 2016 through to May 2017 for the suitability of

implementing field surveys during or immediately after a rainfall event delivering >75 mm in 24 hours, or alternatively 150

mm over 72 hours (Table A1). Thunderstorm activity and the development of low pressure systems including ex tropical

cyclone Debbie enabled stage one sampling to occur on the 6th and 7th January, 16th to 18th March and on the 31st March

2017. Most of the sampling was confined to the 6th and 7th of January for Sites 8-10 and mid March for Sites 6-7. Some

follow up cursory surveys in response to ongoing rainfall were performed in mid March and late March to enable further

distillation on the data being collected.

During stage one calling surveys, each site was visited and an initial five minute listening survey was performed to identify

calling individuals. This was followed by a search of any flooded habitat to visually identify any non-calling individuals

present in and around the flooded areas. At each site, the following were recorded: time at start and end of survey for

each survey site, conditions during the survey (including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, relative wind intensity and

rainfall) and species of frogs calling (see Section 2.3).

The second round or post breeding surveys were used to measure the breeding success at each site and these were

performed on the 26th February and 27th April or around 41-50 days after the potential breeding event. A slightly shorter

interval was used to account for the warmer air temperatures and the ephemeral nature of ponds at most of the sites.

During the post breeding surveys, a fine scale mesh net (400 mm diameter) was used to sweep any of the residual water

body. In an attempt to standardise this method, a minimum of 10 sweeps was undertaken per 25m2 of water body. Any

tadpoles captured were examined to determine if they were hylids representative of Green-thighed Frog, and if so, a

sample was taken for further identification. The bank area within 5-10 m was also traversed to visually search for

metamorphosed froglets over a set 20 minutes per site and the number of frogs recorded.



Figure 2-1a. Locations of Green-thighed Frog BACI Sites 1-7 between ch.11800–40000.



Figure 2-1b. Locations of Green-thighed Frog Control and Impact sites between ch. 57500–118500.



2.3 Abiotic Data

The following abiotic variables were collected during the survey:

Air temperature (°C) measured with a thermometer at the start and finish of the frog survey and averaged;

Relative humidity (%) measured with wet/dry bulb thermometer at the start and finish of the frog survey and

averaged;

Prevailing cloud cover was expressed as a percentage (%) coverage of the sky;

Wind speed measured using a subjective scale (0 = no wind, 1 = light rustles of leaves on trees, 2 = leaves and

branches moving and 3 = whole canopy moving); and

Rain fall was also measured in a subjective scale (0 = no rain in past 24 hours, 1 = rain within 24 hours and 2 =

rain during survey).

Seasonal rainfall data was also collated for the period between September 2015 and July 2016 to assess when

the surveys were performed and how they compared to other rainfall events within the perceived breeding

period. The data were collated from Grafton Airport (058161).



3.0 MONITORING RESULTS

3.1 Frog Surveys

3.1.2 Stage 1 Surveys - Calling Intensity and Spotlighting

Green-thighed Frogs were recorded at 6 (60%) of the 10 sites and were absent from Site 8A (Tyndale Crown ch. 64700),

10A (Tabbimoble north ch. 118500) and 10B (Glencoe Road ch. 114000; Figure 3-1). No surveys were conducted at Site

6A due to access restrictions.

Frogs were recorded from two (20%) of the impact sites and from four (80%) of the control sites. Frogs comprised both

calling and non-calling males as well as female frogs (Table 3-1). Amplecting or mating frogs were recorded from Site 6B

and 7A on the 17th of March whilst an amplecting pair of frogs were recorded from Site 9B on the 7th January 2017. Count

sizes were highly variable with up to 18 individuals but generally in the order of 1-10 individuals.

Figure 3-1. The number of calling male Green-thighed Frogs between the baseline surveys and during construction for Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring.

Figure 3-2. The number of Green-thighed Frogs observed between the baseline surveys (shaded) and Year 1 data compiled by Lewis (2015).

0

5

10

15

20

6A (35200) 6B (38000) 7A (37400) 7B (35000) 8A (64700) 8B (57500) 9A (102500) 9B (111500) 10A(118500)

10B(114000)

Num

ber

of c

allin

g m

ale

frog

s

BACI Monitoring Site and Adjacent Chainage

Calling/chorusing Surveys

2015 Baseline Calling Males 2017 Year 1 Calling Males

0

10

20

30

40

50

6A (35200) 6B (38000) 7A (37400) 7B (35000) 8A (64700) 8B (57500) 9A (102500) 9B (111500) 10A(118500)

10B(114000)N

umbe

r of

frog

s ob

serv

ed

BACI Monitoring Site and Adjacent Chainage

Spotlighting

2015 Baseline Frogs Observed 2017 Year 1 Frogs Observed



Plate 3-1. Green-thighed Frogs recorded from Site 9B adjacent to ch. 111500 with male (left) calling and female (right).



Table 3-1. Summary of the Green-thighed Frog surveys for BACI Sites 6-10. Stage 1 – Calling/Breeding Surveys Stage 2 – Post Breeding Follow-up

Survey

BACI Site Date No. Calling Males (chorusing intensity)

No. Frogs Spotlighted

Date SA Juv Tads Frog Management Mitigation Observed or Recorded

General Comments Presence of Green-thighed Frogs

Confirmed in 2015

6A (35200) No data No data No data No data No data

No data

No data

No access was permitted due to heritage investigations future access will be investigated.

No access permitted to this area. Likely to have successfully bred at this monitoring location given the results from the surrounding sites.

Yes

6B (38000) 17.03.2017 18 15 27.04.2017 0 23 0

Outside works footprint but close to Airport Road.

Site immediately adjacent to Airport Road which continuously provides a good barometer of local Green-thighed Frog activity.

Yes

7A (37400)

17.03.2017 12 14 27.04.2017 0 3 0

i. Temporary frog fencing recorded in the form of geo textile fabric. ii. Clearing has extended to around 150 m south of Old Six Mile Lane Road

Potential breeding area is not well defined but numbers of frogs suggest this area as a ‘hotspot’ in 2015 (Lewis 2015).

Yes

7B (35000)

17.03.2017 0 1 27.04.2017 0 4 0

Outside works footprint. Site logistically difficult to access during rainfall events. Frogs are likely to have congregated here either just before or after stage 1 surveys as successful breeding was recorded.

No

8A (64700)

7.1.2017 0 0 26.02.2017 0 0 0

i. Geotextile fabric used as temporary frog fence. ii. Access road graded which has reduced suitability to frogs based on past observations.

Frogs at this site appear to vary their breeding location based on extent of rainfall. Frogs have been heard calling from a number of locations including adjacent private property where access now restricted.

No

8B (57500)

7.1.2017 0 1 26.02.2017 0 0 0

Outside works footprint. Site is seasonally grazed by cattle. Frogs likely to vary their calling breeding site depending on extent of rainfall. Breeding suspected to have shifted around 300 m to north in drainage line now that ephemeral ponds appear to dry rapidly within a few weeks.

9A (102500) 7.1.2017 8 8

26.02.2017 0 0 0

i. No frog fencing observed. ii. Surveys performed just prior to clearing works.

Site was progressively cleared from February 2017 onwards. Some frog fencing noted during later stage 2 surveys and in months thereafter.

No

9B (111500) 7.1.2017 6 7

26.02.2017 0 0 0

Outside works footprint. Frogs are generally scattered throughout this section of Glenugie State Forest. Two breeding sites identified. Not really considered Year 1 during construction survey when nothing has changed.

10A (118500) 7.1.2017 0 0

26.02.2017 0 0 0

i. No clearing works at present.

Not really considered Year 1 during construction survey when nothing has changed.

Yes

10B (114000) 7.1.2017

0 0

26.02.2017 0 0 0

Outside works footprint Calling or breeding location are highly dependent on prevailing rainfall conditions and are likely to select particular areas based on the rainfall event and associated runoff.

No



3.1.3 Stage 2 Surveys – Post Breeding Counts of Tadpoles and Froglets

Tadpoles or juvenile frogs were recorded at 3 (30%) of the monitoring sites (Table 3-1). At Site 6B, 23 juvenile froglets

were recorded during post breeding surveys on the 27th April which equates to around 41 days from the initial Stage 1

survey in mid March. Neighbouring sites of 7A and 7B also recorded froglets with both treatments recording three and

four respectively.

Although no Green-thighed Frog tadpoles were captured during the standardised 10 sweeps, other species of tadpole

were identified including Broad-palmed Frog (Litoria latapalmata), Bleating Tree Frog (Litoria dentata), Tyler’s Tree Frog

(Litoria tyleri)and/or Perons Tree Frog (Litoria peronii) and some ground dwelling species, presumably Striped Marsh

Frog (Limnodynastes peroni) and Ornate Burrowing Frog (Platyplectrum ornatum). No froglets or tadpoles were recorded

at the northern sites of 8-10. Following the storm event on the 6th January, there was little follow up rain and all ponds

dried out over a number of weeks (Plate 3-2).

Plate 3-2. Breeding ponds at Site 10A (top left), 10B (top right), Site 9A (bottom left) and 9B (bottom right) during follow up

post breeding (stage 2 surveys) in late February.

3.2 Seasonal Rainfall and Associated Survey Conditions

Suitable seasonal conditions in the form of heavy rainfall events exceeding 50 mm in 24 hours or cumulative tallies

exceeding 150 mm in 72 hours occurred on a few occasions (Table A-2). Rainfall events exceeding 50 mm in 24 hours

occurred on the 3rd January (76 mm) and on a number of days in mid March (14th – 20th) with two very large 24 hour

events on the 19th March (248 mm) and 31st March (287 mm). Stage 1 sampling took place on the 6th into the 7th January

when just over 100 mm was recorded over a 48 hr period. Consequently, only some sporadic breeding may have occurred

over the broader area. Sampling in the south coincided with mid March rainfall events.



4.0 DISCUSSION

Year 1 sampling recorded frogs from six of the nine sites sampled whilst Site 6A remains restricted access. The number

of sites that recorded frogs is lower than the baseline survey when apart from Site 8B (Pine Brush State Forest), frogs

were recorded at all monitoring sites. The explanation for this year to year variability probably relates more to the

prevailing conditions at the time surveys were conducted as habitat disturbance associated with construction had no yet

commenced (i.e. Site 10) or was irrelevant in the case of the control sites.

Opportunities to sample for the Green-thighed Frog in Year 1 became available in mid summer (early January) following

localised thunderstorm activity and again during early autumn (i.e. mid March) as part of multiple low pressure systems

moving across the study area including ex tropical cyclone Debbie. Based on 24 hour rainfall tallies, three potential

breeding events occurred over the study area in the 2016/17 season. In theory, surveys should have recorded Green-

thighed Frogs at all sites yet difficulties arise when trying to conduct surveys following the first suitable rainfall event.

Such an event may occur as a localised thunderstorm meaning some, but not all of the sites have received the required

rainfall, and in some cases this may extend to within site treatments. This is thought to have occurred at Sites 8-10 during

early January sampling when frogs were active and calling at both treatments at Site 9 (ch. 102000-112000) yet no frogs

were heard or seen at either Site 10 treatment (ch.114000-119000) located a further 5-7 km north. Predicting how

widespread such a rainfall event may be is difficult at this locality as the nearest Bureau of Meteorology station is located

nearby at New Italy (ch. 120000), however, it only updates daily at 0900 hrs but it does tend to provide a more accurate

indication of rainfall received then the neighbouring coast stations at Evans Head and Yamba which tend to receive far

greater amounts and create false survey triggers. Only the installation of site specific weather stations would alleviate

this and until such time, constant forecast updates and reviewing of BOM radar coverage will provide a coarse guide to

initiating a survey. Sampling at the southern sites and the reliance on the Bureau of Meteorology station at Grafton Airport

continues to prove more reliable for Sites 6 and 7.

Sampling Sites 6 and 7 in mid March proved effective with calling frogs and amplecting pairs in response to the hundreds

of millimetres. The fact that no calling frogs and only one individual was spotlighted at Site 7B probably reflects frogs

using a neighbouring location on this occasion or the frogs themselves holding off until the later low pressure system in

late March as a result of ex tropical cyclone Debbie. The difference between the two locations is not more than 5-6 km

yet the calling and breeding periods appear to have differed at Site 7 on this occasion. Multiple sampling events are

required to improve the accuracy of one off monitoring surveys.

Year 1 sampling coincided with construction works at Sites 7A, 8A and 9A. All three locations were found to contain

temporary frog fencing constructed from geo textile fabric and apart from some minor breaches it was considered

functional. How the data compares or performs against the prescriptions outlined in the Threatened Frog Management

Plan is outlined in the following section.



5.0 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

A series of performance indicators and corrective actions have been outlined in Section 7.2.3 of the Threatened Frog

Species Management Plan (RMS 2015). This plan states that should it become clear that sites that were occupied prior

to road construction (i.e. established impact monitoring sites) have become unoccupied, or abundance (estimated using

the transect counts) has declined beyond the identified thresholds (i.e. 25%) relative to control/reference sites, corrective

actions must be implemented in accordance with those provided in Table 7-1.

Year 1 monitoring is mainly tied into the population monitoring component outlined in Table 5-1 as the culverts,

compensatory ponds and revegetation works are not yet complete. The performing factor for the population monitoring

is the number of male frogs during the Stage 1 survey, although recommendations in Lewis 2017 have allowed for this

to be updated to the number of frogs recorded. With this, the numbers or actual counts of frogs had more than doubled

at Site 6B as did calling males, declined sharply at Site 7A, down from 49 individuals to just 14 individuals yet they were

similarly down at the paired treatment from 25 individuals in the baseline survey to just one on this occasion. At Site 8A

(Tyndale Crown), frogs were absent compared to the one individual observed during the baseline survey. Conversely,

one individual was observed at the paired treatment Site 8B (Pine Brush State Forest) compared to no frogs during the

baseline survey. At Site 9A, there was a fourfold increase in the numbers of frogs and similarly, the paired treatment of

Site 9B recorded a seven fold increase. Site 10 recorded an absence of frogs from both treatments when the baseline

survey had recorded two and three individuals respectively.

The timing of the surveys and the variability of rainfall across the monitoring sites is thought to have had the greatest

influence in the Year 1 monitoring results. This was best illustrated at the northern sites where both greater calling intensity

and numbers of frogs were recorded at both Site 9 treatments yet several kilometres away at Site 10 no frogs were heard

or seen and neither had received any habitat disturbance associated with construction for the Upgrade.

Opportunities to investigate how effective some of the other frog mitigation tools including pre clearing surveys is not yet

available but should be forthcoming as part of Year 2 monitoring and reporting. As for other mitigation and associated

performance measures, they are similarly not relevant to Green-thighed Frog monitoring at this point in time. The

underpass structures themselves are not yet installed and still yet to receive frog fencing treatments. The compensatory

ponds should now be finalised so that is accords with the commitments identified in the TFMP, that being “where breeding

habitat will be directly impacted by the project or changed hydrological patterns have the potential to affect the suitability

of breeding habitat areas adjacent to the corridor”. As the ponds nor monitoring sites occur in riparian areas, the riparian

habitat revegetation parameters appear irrelevant at this time.



Table 5-1. Performance indicators and corrective actions from the Threatened Frog Species Management Plan (RMS 2015). Triggers for corrective actions Corrective actions Relevance to Year 1

Green-thighed Frog

Monitoring

Results of Year 1 Green-

thighed Frog Monitoring

Potential Contributing Factors Corrective Action Required

Population Monitoring

The absence of threatened frogs at impact sites identified as occupied in the baseline monitoring surveys. A relative decline in abundance of 25% or more at an impact site than its relative control site over 3 consecutive monitoring periods. Frog abundance determined by standardised transect counts:

• Number of Wallum Sedge Frogs per 100 m2 of habitat;

• Number of Giant Barred Frogs per 500 m of habitat;

• Number of adult male Green-thighed Frogs per Stage 1 survey (breeding survey) (as outlined in Section 4.3).

Review monitoring methods immediately, considering further monitoring and assessment if there is a decline in population abundance. Investigate effectiveness of frog exclusion fencing immediately. Closely monitor habitat conditions over a period of three months to ensure they are suitable, in particular hydrology (hydro-period), water quality and vegetation. Assess the requirement for additional offsets where a threatened frog population is no longer present in a previously occupied area, and this habitat is deemed unsuitable for the target species.

Relevant Green-thighed Frogs recorded from Ste 6B, 7A, 7B, 8B, 9A and 9B. Green-thighed Frogs absent from Site 8A, 10A, 10B. Although some declines and absences, tied more to variability in survey conditions than any real decline. For example, no works/habitat removal had occurred at the time surveys were undertaken at Site 10.

Variability in results influenced by prevailing weather conditions at the time of sampling.

Wait until third monitoring event before determining the requirements for any corrective actions.

Underpass Structure Monitoring

The use of the structure by less than 1% of the estimated population size. Connectivity structures not maintained (i.e. culverts clogged with debris or sedimentation). Frog exclusion fencing damaged or ineffective.

Review monitoring methods where goals are not achieved, by increasing frequency, intensity and duration, to ensure individuals are identified. Survey habitat adjoining the connectivity structures and undertake Landscape improvement (planting, weed removal) to improve habitat functionality. Survey and monitor crossing structures and frog fencing to ensure they are functional (i.e. are adequately maintained, including fencing is not damaged, and connectivity structure is operating correctly). Monitor twice per year. Assess the need for offsets if connectivity structures are identified as ineffective over three consecutive monitoring periods.

No relevant at this point in time. Structures are not operational.

Not Applicable Not applicable Not Applicable



Triggers for corrective actions Corrective actions Relevance to Year 1

Green-thighed Frog

Monitoring




Constructed Pond Monitoring

Absence of threatened frogs and metamorphs at the compensatory ponds after three years since construction.

Investigation be undertaken to determine why there may be a lack of success and, as where recommended, changes be made to the habitat and monitored for effectiveness (i.e. 3 more years of monitoring) Review monitoring methods, considering timing and weather conditions to ensure individuals are identified. Review location of the compensatory pond and consider moving, and/or modifying or constructing additional ponds. Investigate habitat adjoining the upgraded highway and consider improving habitat condition and connectivity.

No relevant at this point in time. No ponds had been constructed at the time sampling was undertaken.

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Water pH exceeds 5.5 for Wallum Sedge Frog

Investigate ways to reduce pH of water. Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

Visual water quality of the compensatory pond is not similar to nearby unimpacted and/or similar wetlands or is unsuitable for frog occupation.

Complete site specific investigation to identify the causes of the unsuitable hydrological conditions or water quality.

Not relevant at this point in time.


No persistent water present in ponds (negative hydroperiod) despite recent rainfall.

Assess possible causes for water draining from the pond and apply physical corrective actions



Mosquito Fish present and threatened frogs / tadpoles absent.

Draining pond to remove Mosquito Fish and allow pond fill at the next rain event.

No relevant at this point in time.


Constructed habitat un-suitable for frogs (e.g. wetlands have un-suitable hydro-period (as determined from monitoring events), water quality or associated vegetation) as detailed in section 5.4.4.

Undertake revegetation maintenance, i.e. replanting, erosion control, weed control.



Revegetated native habitat in poor condition (e.g. >30% cover died, plant dieback).

Ensure wetlands are functioning as designed and present suitable habitat in terms of water quality and hydro-period.





Triggers for corrective actions Corrective actions Relevance to Year 1

Green-thighed Frog

Monitoring




Frog absence confirmed following monitoring surveys (it should be noted that a pond may be suitable for frogs, but not colonised).



Riparian Habitat Revegetation

Greater than 10% of riparian plants have died after first 12 months of maintenance. Greater than 20% of riparian plants have died after three years of maintenance. Total weed coverage is more than 30% in revegetation areas. Bank erosion causes unforeseen revegetation area instability.

Review maintenance schedule for revegetated areas immediately after trigger. Replace dead plants within one month of issue being identified. Increase weed control if required as soon as practicable or review control methods being used. Install physical measures to halt bank erosion within one month of issue being identified.

Not relevant at this point in time. Landscape and habitat rehabilitation is expected to commence during Year 3 of the Green-thighed Frog monitoring program




6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Year 1 monitoring surveys were undertaken during a series of staggered rainfall events resulting from mid summer

thunderstorms in January and some prominent tropical low pressure systems in mid March and later from ex tropical

cyclone Debbie in late March. This produced a number of suitable rainfall events which resulted in stage one calling

surveys being conducted between early January and late March. As a consequence, calling male frogs were recorded at

four sites and observed at another two sites whilst the follow up post breeding surveys confirmed breeding had been

successful at a few sites around Grafton airport and Glenugie State Forest.

The performance indicators of the monitoring program have been recently updated to reflect the actual number of frogs

recorded rather than relying on the numbers of calling males. With this in mind, there had been a recorded decline at Site

8A but this was by a number of one frog, and this is likely to change when surveys coincide with other suitable rainfall

events. Declines were similarly recorded at Site 10, however, the simple fact that no habitat disturbance had taken place

illustrates there are other contributing factors, namely localised thunderstorms make it difficult to standardise and

implement a sampling strategy when rainfall differs over a few kilometres.

In light of the Year 1 findings, the following recommendations have been outlined in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. W2B Year 1 Sections 3-8 recommendations and RMS responses.

ID No Recommendation Roads and Maritime Response 1 The calling/breeding survey should occur twice within any

given season so that it can accommodate for localised rainfall events and improve the opportunity to records frogs.

Not Adopted – Monitoring to continue in accordance with the baseline surveys and approved Threatened Frog Management Plan.

2 The compensatory Green-thighed Frog breeding ponds be identified. The TFMP currently notes “These will be constructed where breeding habitat will be directly impacted by the project (Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-3) or changed hydrological patterns have the potential to affect the suitability of breeding habitat areas adjacent to the corridor”.

Noted – Compensatory breeding ponds will be installed in accordance with the Threatened Frog Management Plan.

3 Access be obtained for any construction related automated weather station located between the following chainages: a. Ch.55000-75000; and

b. Ch. 95000-123000.

Adopted - RMS has provided the author with access to the projects automated weather stations

4 Ensure Year 2 monitoring provides a review of the targeted pre clearing survey results for Green-thighed Frog surveys.

Pre-clearing survey results form part of a separate report with associated review of results, and if required, recommendations for consideration for future pre-clearing surveys.



7.0 REFERENCES

Anstis, M. (2002). Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia. A guide with keys. Sydney, NSW: Reed New Holland. Barker, J; Grigg, G; and Tyler, M.J. (1995). A field guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beauty and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW. Cogger, H.G. (1995). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. 5th edition. Reed Books, Sydney. BoM (2016/2017). New Italy & Grafton Airport NSW. Daily weather observation. Bureau of Meteorology. Accessed 1st June 2015. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201404/html/IDCJDW2043.201404.shtml DEC (2004). Threatened biodiversity survey and assessment: Guidelines for developments and activities. Working Draft. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation. November 2004. DECC (2008). Hygiene protocol for the control of disease in frogs. NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change. April 2008. Ehmann, H. (1997). Threatened Frogs of New South Wales. Habitats, Status and Conservation. Green-thighed Frog. Published by Frog and Tadpole Study Group of NSW Inc, PO Box A2405, Sydney South 2000. Lemckert, F.L. & Slatyer, C. (2002). Short-term movements and habitat use of the green-thighed frog, Litoria brevipalmata (Anura: Hylidae). Australian Zoologist 32:56-61. Lemckert, F., Mahony, M., Brassil, T. & Slatyer, C. (2006). The biology of the threatened Green-thighed Frog Litoria brevipalmata (Anura: Hylidae) in the central and mid-north coastal areas of New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 33:337-344. Niche (2014). Woolgoolga to Ballina Upgrade Green-thighed Frog Baseline Surveys Baseline Monitoring Survey Report prepared for the RMS by Niche Pty Ltd. Lewis, B.D. (2000). Record of the green-thighed frog (Litoria brevipalmata) from north-east New South Wales. Herpetofauna 30 (2): 7-9. Lewis, (2013a) Pacific Highway Upgrade: Arrawarra to Halfway Creek targeted frog survey. Report prepared for PB-ARUP Joint Venture by Lewis Ecological Surveys, April 2013. Lewis, (2013b) Pacific Highway Upgrade: Halfway Creek to Glenugie targeted frog survey. Report prepared for PB-ARUP Joint Venture by Lewis Ecological Surveys, April 2013. Lewis, B.D. (2015). Woolgoolga to Ballina: Green-thighed Frog 2015 Pre-construction Baseline Monitoring Report. Report prepared for the NSW Roads and Maritime Services by Lewis Ecological Surveys. © Lewis, B.D. (2017). Woolgoolga to Ballina: Giant Barred Frog Year 1 Monitoring Report for Sections 1 and 2. Report prepared for the NSW Roads and Maritime Services by Lewis Ecological Surveys. © Murphy, M.J and Turnbill, J. 1999. A new locality for the threatened Green-thighed Frog (Litoria brevipalmata) in coastal north-east New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 31 (1) 225-9. Nattrass, A.E.O & Ingram, G.J. (1993). New records of the rare Green-thighed Frog. Mem. Qld Mus. 33 (1):348.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201404/html/IDCJDW2043.201404.shtml



RMS (2015). Threatened Frog Species Management Plan. Woolgoolga to Ballina – Pacific Highway Upgrade. Report prepared by the NSW Roads and Maritime Services, Aurecon and Sinclair Knight Merz, AMEC Foster-Wheeler. March 2013.



8.0 APPENDIX A – GREEN-THIGHED FROG SURVEY SUMMARY DATA & SEASONAL RAINFALL CONDITIONS

Table A1. Summary of Green-thighed Frog surveys in Sections 3-7: Year 1 (2017).

BACI Site

Adjacent Chainage

Site Name Easting Northing

Stage 1 Survey

Date

Time (24hr)

AT oC

Hum %

Wind Rain CC

No. Calling Males

(chorusing intensity)

No. Frogs Spotlighted

Stage 2 Survey

Date

Days After

Chorusing

No. Sub

Adults

No. Juv

No. Tads

Breeding Confirmed

Comments

6A 35200 Pheasant Creek

E:502672 N:6704172 no data No access permitted at this time

6B 38000 Airport Road

E:501766 N:6706969

17.03.2017 0300-0330 21 87 0 1 90 18 15 27.04.2017 41 0 23 0 yes

Stage 1 calling survey had four amplecting pairs and this probably reflected in number of juveniles recorded

7A 38000 Old Six Mile Lane

E:503837 N:6706546

17.03.2017 0349-0417 21 83 0 1 90 12 14 27.04.2017 41 0 3 0 yes

Sporadic use of small pools often where trees had blown over.

7B 35000 Glenugie East

E:505733 N:6703338

17.03.2017 2130-2155 21 85 0 1 80 0 1 27.04.2017 41 0 4 0 yes

Breeding likely to have been successful given the follow up rain events. Calling/breeding more likely to have happened at the end of March rather than time of mid March survey.

8A 64700

Tyndale Crown Reserve

E:513362 N:6727361

7.1.2017 0340-0410 22.2 88 0 2 100 0 0 26.02.2017 50 0 0 0 no

Ponds were dry at time of post breeding survey

8B 57500

Pine Brush State Forest

E:517300 N:6719708 7.1.2017

0425-455 22 85 0 1 80 0 1 26.02.2017 50 0 0 0 no

Ponds were dry at time of post breeding survey

9A

102500 JackyBulbin E:520731

N:6758742 7.1.2017

0240-310

22 85 0 1 80 8 8

26.02.2017 50 0 0 0 no

Ponds were dry at time of post breeding survey. Surveys in March and post breeding thereafter likely to yield differing results.

9B

111500 Tabbimoble East

E:525262 N:6767265

7.1.2017 0120-150

22 85 0 1 90 6 7

26.02.2017 50

0 0 0 no

Ponds were dry at time of post breeding survey. Surveys in March and post breeding thereafter likely to yield differing results.

10A

118500 Tabbimoble North

E:527238 N:6772864

7.1.2017 0000-0020

22.3 88 0 1 80 0 0

26.02.2017 50

0 0 0 no

Ponds were dry at time of post breeding survey. Surveyed again in mid March and late March 2017 but still no frogs.

10B

114000 Glencoe Road

E:524143 N:6769665

7.1.2017 0040-0100

22.3 88 0 1 80 0 0

26.02.2017 50

0 0 0 no

Ponds were dry at time of post breeding survey. Surveyed again in mid March and late March 2017 but still no frogs.

WOOLGOOLGA TO BALLINA: SECTION 3-8 GREEN-THIGHED FROG MONITORING: YEAR 1

2921617-BDL-Vers3 Page 20

Table A2. Rainfall recorded between October 2016 and May 2017 from New Italy station (058097) (BoM 2017). Red shaded area reflects likely breeding/calling event.

Station New Italy Number: 58097 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Graph

1st 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

2nd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3rd 0 0 0 76 0 0 2 0

4th 5.2 0 18.2 0 0 0 4.2 2

5th 0 0 0 0 0 5.4 9 15

6th 0 0 22 67.2 0 2.4 15 3

7th 0 0 1 33.4 0 0 0 3.2

8th 0 0 8 0 0 0 15.2 0

9th 0 0 28 0 5.6 0 1.8 0

10th 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 13.4

11th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

12th 0 0 0 24.4 0 0 0 0

13th 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2.6

14th 0 0 0 4 0 12.2 0 3.2

15th 0 0.6 0 0 0 37.6 0 0

16th 0 1.8 0 0 0 89.4 0 0

17th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

18th 5 0 4 0 0 83.2 0 0

19th 0 0 0 0 0.4 248 5.6 0

20th 0 0 0 0 3.2 35.4 4 17.6

21st 0 0 0.6 24 5.4 1.2 3 0

22nd 0 0 0 1.6 0 4 3.6 0

23rd 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24th 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0

25th 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

26th 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 0

27th 0 0 15.2 8 9.6 0 0 0

28th 7.2 0 0 6.6 74.6 0 0 0

29th 12.2 17 0 0 0 0 2.6

30th 0 0 0 36 0 0

31st 0 0 0 287.2 0

Highest Daily

12.2 18 28 76 74.6 287.2 15.2 17.6

Monthly Total

33.6 37.4 97 249.2 98.8 863 65.6 70.6

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataDGraph&p_stn_num=058097&p_nccObsCode=136&p_month=01&p_startYear=2017








pacific highway upgrade: woolgoolga to ballina · the sampling regime was consistent with the...

Documents