Download Construction Environment Management Plan

Appendix C
Species Description
41/24401/15358
Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A (Cooroy Southern Interchange - Sankeys Road)
Job No. 263/10A/12, Invitation No. NCHD-2454
Construction Environment Management Plan - Giant Barred Frog and Mary River Cod
C1
Maccullochella mariensis (Mary River Cod)
C1.1 Description
Maccullochella mariensis (Mary River Cod) is a yellowish to pale green fish that grows up to 20 kg and
70 cm (Simpson & Jackson 2000); however this species generally grows up to 5 kg. It has dark heavily
reticulated mottling on the back and sides, sometimes extending onto the belly. The belly is grey-green to
whitish. The fins are clear to dark with grey-green mottling on the bases, with whitish margins (McDowall
1996).
C1.2 Status
This species is listed as Endangered under the Commonwealth’s EPBC Act.
C1.3 Ecology
The Mary River Cod occurs mainly in pools within relatively undisturbed tributaries (Wager & Jackson
1993). They prefer relatively large, deep (0.8 to 3.2 m) and shaded pools with abundant woody debris
and slow flowing water (Simpson & Jackson 2000; EES 2003). However, they are also known to use
smaller tributary streams during late winter when they migrate from their main home range (Merrick &
Schmida 1984). Another study reports that adult Cod can move in excess of 30 km either upstream or
downstream during high stream flows at any time of year (Simpson & Jackson 2000).
These Cod are ambush predators and adults mainly consume fish (DSEWPC 2010b). Submerged logs
and branches (snags) are used as cover from which to ambush prey, as resting sites, and as nesting
sites (DSEWPC 2010b). The Cod are often found within metres of woody debris structures (Simpson &
Mapleston 2002).
The Mary River Cod is territorial and between periods of movement it occupies a particular home range
between 70 m and 1 km in length for up to several years (Simpson & Mapleston 2002). Home range size
is not related to the size of the fish, and does not change seasonally (Simpson & Jackson 2000).
Spawning occurs during spring when water temperatures reach above 20 degrees Celsius (Harris &
Rowland 1996). Mary River Cod use hollow logs as spawning sites, and they deposit their eggs as a
layer, where they adhere to the hard surface inside pipes or logs (Simpson & Mapleston 2002). The
habitat of hatchlings and juveniles is poorly known however larvae of the closely-related Murray River
Cod are known to remain in the river channel and disperse widely in the currents at night (Humphries,
2005; Koehn and Harrington, 2005). Larvae appear to move into the current at night, when they drift
downstream to new pools (King 2004).
According to a radio-tracking study by Simpson and Mapleston (2002), 95% of Mary River Cod observed
were in water between 1 m and 3 m deep, with the fish strongly avoiding shallow areas (Simpson 1994).
Preliminary observations suggest that one and two-year-old fish use shallow, flowing reaches more than
adults do (Simpson & Mapleston 2002). During this study Cod were frequently found immediately
downstream of a constriction of the stream (e.g. a riffle) where food was presumably concentrated by the
water flow. The EES (2003) states that the Cod require good ecosystem health, good water quality, and
intact remnant riparian vegetation, however Simpson & Mapleston (2002) have recorded this species in a
varied range of physiochemical parameters such as pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen content and
turbidity. Simpson (1994) also found the Mary River Cod to tolerate a wide range of conditions and
Simpson & Jackson (2000) found this species to tolerate high gradient upland stream habitats as well as
slow-flowing lower reaches.
41/24401/15358
Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A (Cooroy Southern Interchange - Sankeys Road)
Job No. 263/10A/12, Invitation No. NCHD-2454
Construction Environment Management Plan - Giant Barred Frog and Mary River Cod
C1.4 Distribution
Historically, Mary River Cod were distributed throughout the Mary, Brisbane-Stanley, Albert-Logan and
Coomera River Catchments (Wagner & Jackson 1993). Now, this species is found only in the Mary River
Catchment and there are reportedly less than 600 individuals remaining (Simpson & Jackson 2000). The
distribution of the Mary River Cod has also declined within the Mary River Catchment. It is estimated that
this species now occurs in less than 30% of its original range (Simpson & Jackson 2000). Surveys
undertaken at the time of the Mary River Cod Research Plan development, indicated Mary River Cod
inhabit three main areas in Tinana-Coondoo Creek upstream from Tinana Barrage, Six Mile Creek
downstream from Lake Macdonald, and upper Obi Obi Creek (Simpson & Jackson 2000). The estimated
total length of where the species is found is within a 51 km range. Mary River Cod have been stocked in
impoundments since 1983 (including Lake Macdonald), both within and outside the Mary River
Catchment.
Six Mile Creek has also been identified as an important habitat for the Mary River Cod by Pickersgill
(1998) and Burrows (2003). At Six Mile Creek, Cod are typically found in slow moving pools with high
riparian canopy cover, typically in association with large woody debris (Simpson & Jackson 2000).
However, in the Obi Obi Creek they are found in areas with a rocky substrate, little riparian cover and
limited woody debris (DSEWPC 2010b).
More recent surveys have located significant numbers of larger Mary River Cod on the main channel of
the Mary River (SKM 2009). The Cod has also been reported from Amamoor Creek from McGills Creek
to Amamoor Yabba Creek, Kandanga Creek, Glastonbury Creek (Pickersgill 1998), and Widgee Creek
(Kennard 2003).
Potential habitat for the Mary River Cod identified in Cooroy Creek, Cudgerie Common, Skyring Creek
and Six Mile Creek West. Habitat assessments undertaken for the Significant Impact Assessment of this
species identified that the wider area of the Project provides low potential habitat for this species (GHD,
2010a). The proposed works will be undertaken in a small footprint of modified and already disturbed
aquatic habitat. Large areas of higher-value habitat is located both upstream and downstream of the
disturbance area.
C1.5 Threatening processes
The primary threats to the Mary River Cod include:
Habitat degradation – extensive land clearing and agricultural practises within the Mary River
catchment are likely to have an impact on the habitat of the Mary River Cod. A decrease in riparian
vegetation results in a reduction in areas with shade, increasing water temperature and also
exacerbating erosion and in-filling of pools, decreasing the water quality (Simpson & Jackson 2000).
Clearing of vegetation may also decrease the amount of in-stream debris necessary for the fish’s
reproductive cycle.
Overfishing during the late 1800s and early 1900s (DSEWPC 2011).
Impoundment – dams and weirs pose a significant threat to the Mary River Cod as isolation of
populations can occur due to restricted movements within the catchment. The success rate of
juveniles passing through dams and weirs is currently unknown (Simpson & Jackson 2000), which
may affect the population.
Competition with non-indigenous fish species.
41/24401/15358
Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A (Cooroy Southern Interchange - Sankeys Road)
Job No. 263/10A/12, Invitation No. NCHD-2454
Construction Environment Management Plan - Giant Barred Frog and Mary River Cod
C2
Mixophyes iteratus (Giant Barred Frog)
C2.1 Description
Mixophyes iteratus (Giant Barred Frog) is a very large, robust ground-dwelling frog up to 115 mm with a
pointed snout and well developed hind legs. The dorsal surface is dark olive to black, with darker
blotches and an irregular dark vertebral band commencing between the eyes and continuing posteriorly.
A dark stripe runs from the snout, through the eye and above the tympanum, terminating at a point above
the forelimb (Barker et al. 1995, Straughan 1968).
There are irregular dark spots or mottling on the flanks. The limbs have a series of dark and pale
crossbars of similar width. The hidden part of the thigh is black with a few large, yellow spots. The ventral
surface is white to yellow with fine mottling on the chin. The pupil is vertical, while the iris is pale silverywhite to pale gold above and darker in the lower portion. The fingers lack webbing, while the toes are
fully webbed, with only the last two joints of the fourth toe free (Barker et al. 1995; Cogger 2000;
Straughan 1968).
C2.2 Status
This species is listed as Endangered in Queensland (Nature Conservation Act 1992) and nationally
(Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). It is ranked as a medium priority under
the Department of Environment and Resource Management Back on Track species prioritisation
framework.
C2.3 Ecology
The Giant Barred Frog call is a deep guttural grunt (Barker et al. 1995). Males call from the forest floor or
from crevices under rocks, banks or overhanging tree roots (Cogger et al. 1983; Straughan 1968).
Giant Barred Frogs forage and live amongst deep, damp leaf litter in rainforests, moist eucalypt forest
and nearby dry eucalypt forest, at elevations between 100 m and 1,000 m. Breeding habitat is typically
associated with deep, slow-moving streams in lowland areas (QPWS, unpublished data) and shallow,
flowing rocky streams (Covacevich and McDonald, 1993). The species breeds between September and
April (Hines, 2002). Females lay eggs onto moist creek banks or rocks above water level, from where
tadpoles drop into the water when hatched. Tadpoles grow to a length of over 100 mm and take up to 14
months before changing into frogs (Meyer et al., 2001). When not breeding, the frogs can disperse some
distance away from streams. However the extent to which they disperse away from the stream into the
forest is poorly known. They feed primarily on large insects and spiders (DERM 2012).
Relatively little is known regarding the reproductive biology of this species. Amplexus is axillary, but egg
deposition has not been documented. A gravid female was found to carry 4,184 eggs with a mean
diameter of 1.6 mm. Larvae are present throughout the year and probably over-winter. Laboratory reared
metamorphs reach 28-30 mm (Hero & Fickling 1996; Straughan 1966).
Meyer et al., (2001) has described the tadpole as large and of lotic form, with suctorial mouth, muscular
tail and reduced fins. They are deep-bodied, ovoid; tail length twice that of body; eyes dorsolateral;
yellow-brown above with dark spots/ splotches and dark patch at base of tail; underside silver-white;
intestinal mass obscured, heart and lungs visible from below (except near metamorphosis); tail thick and
muscular; low-finned; fins opaque with dark flecking (except anterior half of ventral fin); tail musculature
41/24401/15358
Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A (Cooroy Southern Interchange - Sankeys Road)
Job No. 263/10A/12, Invitation No. NCHD-2454
Construction Environment Management Plan - Giant Barred Frog and Mary River Cod
with dark flecking/spots and/or splotches; spiracle sinistral, opening lateroventrally; vent tube opening
dextral; oral disc surrounded by papillae; labial tooth row formula: 6(3-6)/3 (1).
C2.4 Distribution
The distribution of Mixophyes iteratus is known from Belli Creek, near Eumundi in south-east
Queensland to Warrimoo on the mid-coast of New South Wales (Hines et al., 1999). In recent decades
the species has experienced dramatic declines in the southern parts of its range (Hines, 2001). In southeast Queensland, the species is only known from a few scattered locations in the Mary River catchment
downstream to about Kenilworth, Maroochy River, Upper Stanley River, Caboolture River, Burpengary
Creek and Coomera River (Hines, 2001).
The Giant Barred Frog has been recorded at local tributaries south of the project area, including Skyring
Creek and Belli Creeks, and on the main channel of the Mary River (Ecotone Environmental Services
2007).
C2.5 Threatening processes
Upstream clearing, changes in water flow regimes, degradation of water quality, disturbance to riparian
vegetation, feral animals, domestic stock and weed invasion have been identified as potential threats to
the Giant Barred Frog (DSEWPC 2012).
Disturbance to riparian vegetation is particularly important as many populations of the Giant Barred Frog
in south-east Queensland, and some populations in north-east NSW such as the Tweed Valley, occur
along narrow remnant riparian vegetation on private lands which are readily exposed to such
disturbances (DSEWPC 2012). Damage from feral pigs (Sus scrofa) has increased greatly overtime in
the Conondale Range (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002) and possibly in other areas occupied by the species.
While there is potential for direct predation by pigs, the greatest impact is likely to be from increased silt
on embryos and tadpoles. Similarly, trampling by domestic stock is also likely to have deleterious
impacts on oviposition sites of the species (Knowles et al., 1998).
Chytridiomycosis (a chytrid fungus) is an infectious disease affecting amphibians worldwide. This highly
virulent pathogen of amphibians is capable, at the minimum, of causing sporadic deaths in some
populations, and 100% mortality in other populations (AGDEH 2006). Chytrid fungus has been identified
in individuals of the Giant Barred Frog (Speare & Berger 2000).
Individuals of the Giant Barred Frog have sometimes been killed in the mistaken belief that they are the
introduced cane toad (Rhinella marina) (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002).
Populations of the Giant Barred Frog now exist in small, isolated patches of forest. The effect that this
may have on genetic variation within populations, the general health of individuals and the species'
response to identified threats is unknown (DSEWPC 2012).
41/24401/15358
Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A (Cooroy Southern Interchange - Sankeys Road)
Job No. 263/10A/12, Invitation No. NCHD-2454
Construction Environment Management Plan - Giant Barred Frog and Mary River Cod
C3
References
Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (AGDEH) (2006). Threat
Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis. [Online].
Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid.html.
Barker, J, Grigg, GC and Tyler, MJ (1995) A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty & Sons,
Chipping Norton, NSW.
Burrows, D (2003). Vegetation of Noosa Shire – Edition 2: Noosa Council Environmental Services.
Cogger, HG (2000) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney.
Covacevich, JA & McDonald, KR (1993) Distribution and conservation of frogs and reptiles of
Queensland rainforests, Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, vol. 34, pp. 189-99.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) (DSEWPC)
Mixophyes iteratus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:36:17 +1100.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011) (DSEWPC).
Neoceratodus forsteri in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:39:47 +1100.
Ecotone Environmental Services (EES) (2003). Fauna & Its Associated Biodiversity Values in Noosa
Shire. Noosa Council Environmental Services Section. Noosa Council, Queensland.
GHD (2010a) Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A (Cooroy Southern Interchange to
Sankeys Road) Job No. 128/10A/901, Invitation No. NCHD2267 Significant Impacts Assessment (GHD).
Hero, JM and Fickling, S (1996) Reproductive characteristics of female frogs from mesic habitats in
Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 39: 306.
Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT) (2002). Recovery
plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005. [Online]. Report to Environment Australia,
Canberra. Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/stream-frogs/index.html.
Kennard, MJ. (2003). Appendix H: Freshwater Fish. IN: Brizga et al., Mary Basin Draft Water Resource
Plan: Environmental Conditions Report. Final Report, v2. Dept Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane.
King, A.J. (2004). Ontogenetic patterns of habitat use by fishes within the main channel of an Australian
floodplain river. Journal of Fish Biology 65: 1582-1603.
Knowles, R., H.B. Hines, K. Thum, M. Mahony & M. Cunningham (1998). Oviposition of the barred-frogs
(Mixophyes species) in southeastern Australia with implications for management.
McDowall, R.M. editor (1996). Freshwater Fishes of South-Eastern Australia. Reed Books: Chatswood,
Sydney.
Merrick, J. R., Schmida, G.E. (1984). Australian Freshwater Fishes: Biology and Management. Griffen
Press Limited: Netley, South Australia.
41/24401/15358
Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A (Cooroy Southern Interchange - Sankeys Road)
Job No. 263/10A/12, Invitation No. NCHD-2454
Construction Environment Management Plan - Giant Barred Frog and Mary River Cod
Meyer, E., Hines, H., and Hero J-M. (2001) Wet forest frogs of south-east Quensland. Griffth University,
Brisbane.
Pickersgill, G. (1998) 'Conserving and Rehabilitating Mary River Cod Habitat: Mapping and Extension,
Final Report (July 1997-July 1998). .' Report to World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Brisbane, Brisbane.
Straughan, IR (1968) A taxonomic review of the genus Mixophyes (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Proceedings
of the Linnean Society of N.S.W. 93:52-59.
Simpson, R. (1994). An investigation into the habitat preferences and population status of the
endangered Mary River Cod (Maccullochella peelii mariensis) in the Mary River System, south-eastern
Queensland. Department of Primary Industries: Brisbane.
Simpson R., and Jackson P. (2000) The Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan. Environment
Australia Endangered Species Program. Environment Australia: Canberra.
Simpson, RR & Mapleston, AJ (2002) 'Movements and habitat use by the endangered Australian
freshwater Mary River Cod Maccullochella peelii mariensis', Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 65, pp.
401-10.
SKM (2009) Traveston Crossing Dam EIS. Response to Reviewer Reports. QWI September 2009.
Speare R. and Berger L. (2005) Chytridiomycosis status of wild amphibians in Australia (online) Available
from http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm.PHTM.frogs/chy-au-status.htm.
Wager R. and P. Jackson (1993) The Action Plan for Australian Freshwater Fishes. Australian Nature
Conservation Agency: Canberra, Australia.
41/24401/15358
Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A (Cooroy Southern Interchange - Sankeys Road)
Job No. 263/10A/12, Invitation No. NCHD-2454
Construction Environment Management Plan - Giant Barred Frog and Mary River Cod