Giant Burrowing Frog)

Consultation Document on Listing Eligibility and Conservation Actions

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog)

Heleioporus australiacus (Image: D. Hunter, NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment)

You are invited to provide your views and supporting reasons related to:

1) the eligibility of Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) for inclusion on the EPBC Act threatened species list in the Endangered category; and

2) the necessary conservation actions for the above species.

Evidence provided by experts, stakeholders and the general public are welcome. Responses can be provided by any interested person.

Anyone may nominate a native species, ecological community or threatening process for listing under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) or for a transfer of an item already on the list to a new listing category. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) undertakes the assessment of species to determine eligibility for inclusion in the list of threatened species and provides its recommendation to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment.

Responses are to be provided in writing either by email to: [email protected] or by mail to:

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation document Page 1 of 33

The Director Marine and Freshwater Species Conservation Section Biodiversity Conservation Division Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment PO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601

Responses are required to be submitted by Friday 22 January 2021. Contents of this information package Page General background information about listing threatened species 3 Information about this consultation process 4 Draft information about the common name and its eligibility for listing 5 Conservation actions for the species 19 Collective list of questions – your views 23 References cited 28

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 2 of 33

General background information about listing threatened species The Australian Government helps protect species at risk of extinction by listing them as threatened under Part 13 of the EPBC Act. Once listed under the EPBC Act, the species becomes a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and must be protected from significant impacts through the assessment and approval provisions of the EPBC Act. More information about threatened species is available on the department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened.

Public nominations to list threatened species under the EPBC Act are received annually by the department. In order to determine if a species is eligible for listing as threatened under the EPBC Act, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) undertakes a rigorous scientific assessment of its status to determine if the species is eligible for listing against a set of criteria. These criteria are available on the Department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/d72dfd1a-f0d8-4699-8d43- 5d95bbb02428/files/tssc-guidelines-assessing-species-2018.pdf.

As part of the assessment process, the Committee consults with the public and stakeholders to obtain specific details about the species, as well as advice on what conservation actions might be appropriate. Information provided through the consultation process is considered by the Committee in its assessment. The Committee provides its advice on the assessment (together with comments received) to the Minister regarding the eligibility of the species for listing under a particular category and what conservation actions might be appropriate. The Minister decides to add, or not to add, the species to the list of threatened species under the EPBC Act. More detailed information about the listing process is at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nominations.

To promote the recovery of listed threatened species and ecological communities, conservation advices and where required, recovery plans are made or adopted in accordance with Part 13 of the EPBC Act. Conservation advices provide guidance at the time of listing on known threats and priority recovery actions that can be undertaken at a local and regional level. Recovery plans describe key threats and identify specific recovery actions that can be undertaken to enable recovery activities to occur within a planned and logical national framework. Information about recovery plans is available on the department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery-plans.

Privacy notice The Department will collect, use, store and disclose the personal information you provide in a manner consistent with the Department’s obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Department’s Privacy Policy.

Any personal information that you provide within, or in addition to, your comments in the threatened species assessment process may be used by the Department for the purposes of its functions relating to threatened species assessments, including contacting you if we have any questions about your comments in the future.

Further, the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have agreed to share threatened species assessment documentation (including comments) to ensure that all States and Territories have access to the same documentation when making a decision on the status of a potentially threatened species. This is also known as the ‘common assessment method’. As a result, any personal information that you have provided in connection with your comments may be shared between Commonwealth, State or Territory government entities to assist with their assessment processes.

The Department’s Privacy Policy contains details about how respondents may access and make corrections to personal information that the Department holds about the respondent, how respondents may make a complaint about a breach of an Australian Privacy Principle, and how

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 3 of 33

the Department will deal with that complaint. A copy of the Department’s Privacy Policy is available at: http://environment.gov.au/privacy-policy .

Information about this consultation process Responses to this consultation can be provided electronically or in hard copy to the contact addresses provided on Page 1. All responses received will be provided in full to the Committee and then to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment.

In providing comments, please provide references to published data where possible. Should the Committee use the information you provide in formulating its advice, the information will be attributed to you and referenced as a ‘personal communication’ unless you provide references or otherwise attribute this information (please specify if your organisation requires that this information is attributed to your organisation instead of yourself). The final advice by the Committee will be published on the department’s website following the listing decision by the Minister.

Information provided through consultation may be subject to freedom of information legislation and court processes. It is also important to note that under the EPBC Act, the deliberations and recommendations of the Committee are confidential until the Minister has made a final decision on the nomination, unless otherwise determined by the Minister.

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 4 of 33

Heleioporus australiacus

Giant Burrowing Frog

Taxonomy Conventionally accepted as Heleioporus australiacus (Shaw & Nodder 1795).

There is an unresolved question regarding the taxonomy of the species, as there is evidence that H. australiacus is a composite of two species, with the genomic split being located in the Kiama region. Therefore, it is understood that the northern and southern populations may be distinct species (Hunter et al. 2018; Mahony M. pers comm, 2020). However, the southern taxon is yet to be formally described in published literature (Mahony M. pers comm, 2020).

Species/Sub-species Information

Description The Giant Burrowing Frog is a large (snout-to-vent length of males to 78 mm, females to 97 mm), rotund, slow-moving frog, belonging to the family Limnodynastidae. Colour varies from dark brown-grey to black on the limbs and upper body and paler on the sides, with a white belly. The body has numerous warts, with some along the flanks being creamy white to canary yellow. It has prominent, large eyes with a vertical pupil and silvery iris. The tympanum is large and distinct. Adult males have enlarged forearms compared to females, and large black spines on the first three fingers. The fingers are unwebbed and the toes have a trace of webbing at the base (Anstis 2017).

Males call from in or adjacent to breeding sites in burrows in the banks of small creeks or in the open, mainly in late spring to autumn, usually after rain. The call is a low pitched and plaintive owl-like ‘oop oop oop oop’ in rapid succession (Cogger 2014).

Tadpoles are large (up to 80 mm), often very plump and the dorsum is very dark grey-brown to black. The blue-grey ventral surface of the tadpoles allows them to be readily distinguished from tadpoles of other species (Anstis 2017).

Distribution The Giant Burrowing Frog occurs in New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria along the coast and adjacent ranges. It has been found near sea level on the coast and almost 100 km inland along the escarpment of the Great Dividing Range, up to 1000 m above sea level. (Gillespie and Hines 1999). It occurs in two disjunct populations: a northern population largely confined to the sandstone geology of the Sydney Basin, where most records exist (Gillespie and Hines 1999); and a southern population occurring from north of Narooma, NSW, through to Walhalla, Victoria (Gillespie 1990; OEH 2017). Records are sparse throughout the southern part of the range (Penman et al. 2004), with the exception of the Eden district (Hunter et al. 2018). Despite considerable searching, only a few records have been located in southern NSW in recent decades (Bilney 2015; ALA 2020) and only one extant population has been found in Victoria (Hunter et al. 2018). However, the number of populations in Victoria is not known with certainty and it is likely higher than this (Clemann N. pers comm. 26 June 2020). While the number is almost certainly low (Clemann N. pers comm. 26 June 2020), a lack of detection does not mean absence even when surveys have been conducted.

In NSW, where the majority of the Giant Burrowing Frog populations are found, 45% of the species’ distribution occurs in reserved areas (NSW National Parks and Wildlife estate) (OEH 2017). In Victoria, most records of the Giant Burrowing Frog are located within the East Gippsland Forest Management Area (DSE 2003). Significant areas of potential habitat are located within parks and reserves in Gippsland; however, only two of the known records are within formal reserves (Snowy River and Coopracambra National Parks) (DSE 2003). In Victoria the species has been considered rare and threatened since the 1980’s (Gillespie 1990; Gillespie Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 5 of 33

et al. 2014; 2016; 2018) but the population status has not been properly assessed and systematic monitoring has not been established (Scheele & Gillespie 2018; Gillespie et al. 2018).

A distinct disjunction of 100 km occurs in the distribution of records between Ulladulla and Narooma (Lemckert et al. 1998; Gillespie and Hines 1999; Hunter et al. 2018). There is genetic evidence that H. australiacus comprises two distinct species, with the taxonomic split being in the Kangaroo Valley region: the northern populations (including the Central Coast and Sydney basin) and the southern populations (south of Kiama with the Shoalhaven being the major catchment) (Penman et al. 2004, 2005b; Hunter et al. 2018; Mahony M. pers comm. 21 June 2020). However, although a taxonomic revision is currently in preparation, the question of taxonomy has not yet been formally resolved (Mahony M. pers comm. 21 June 2020). The resolution of the taxonomy of this species would likely elevate its threatened and conservation status (Hunter et al. 2018). In addition, there are differences in habitat use between the two populations (Penman et al. 2006a).

Relevant Biology/Ecology Habitat The Giant Burrowing Frog occurs in areas of native vegetation (Penman et al. 2004) and is believed to be dependent upon forested habitat, having not been recorded from cleared land (Gillespie 1990; Penman et al. 2004). The species can be found in heath, woodland, and open dry sclerophyll forest on a variety of soils, except clay-based soils (OEH 2017). There are no records from rainforest or ash-dominated montane forest. Breeding habitat is generally soaks or pools within first or second order streams (Penman et al. 2004, 2008b), but the species has also been recorded breeding in small permanent creeks (Bilney 2015).

In the northern portion of its range, the Giant Burrowing Frog occurs in hanging swamps on sandstone shelves and beside perennial creeks (Daly 1996; Webb 1993). In the Watagan Mountain area (NSW Central Coast) the species is associated with sandy soil on sandstone ridges that support heath vegetation (Mahony 1994). It occurs in semi-permanent to ephemeral sand or rock-based streams, and infrequently in semi-permanent to permanent constructed dams. It is also found in ephemeral to permanent artificial drainage ditches and culverts on roadsides (with a rock or sand/clay base) (Stauber 2006; Rescei 1997).

In the southern portion of its range, the Giant Burrowing Frog has been found in a wide range of forest communities including montane sclerophyll woodland, montane riparian woodland, as well as wet and dry sclerophyll forest (Gillespie 1990; Lemckert et al. 1998; Penman et al. 2005b). In Victoria, four individuals have been located at dams within forests, but it is not known whether dams are used as breeding sites (DSE 2003).

Several threatened ecological communities that provide Giant Burrowing Frog habitat across its range are listed nationally under the EPBC Act. These are the Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone, the Turpentine-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion and the Upland Basalt Eucalypt Forests of the Sydney Basin Bioregion ecological communities. These ecological communities are threatened by land use and high rates of clearing.

Breeding Individuals move to breeding sites immediately before, or following, heavy rain and occupy these sites for up to 10 days (Penman 2005a). This species breeds mainly in autumn but has been recorded calling throughout the year (Gillespie 1997). Egg masses are laid in burrows or crevices (Gillespie 1990) or under vegetation in small pools. Terrestrial egg masses are thick and foamy and clutches contain from 700–1200 eggs (Anstis 2017). After rain, tadpoles are washed into larger pools where they complete their development in ponds. Tadpole development takes between 3-12 months with late developing tadpoles overwintering and completing development when warmer temperatures return (OEH 2017).

Behaviour The Giant Burrowing Frog spends more than 95 percent of the time in forested non-breeding Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 6 of 33

habitats (Lemckert & Brassil 2003; Penman 2008a,b). Penman et al. (2008a) found frogs up to 300 m from stream breeding sites, while radio-tracking in Yambulla and Olney State Forests found the species on the mid and upper slopes of ridges, 50–500 m away from streams (Lemckert & Brassil 2003). While in these areas, individuals burrow below the soil surface or in the leaf litter. Individual frogs use a series of burrow sites, mainly located in shaded areas, some of which are used repeatedly (Penman et al. 2008a; OEH 2017).

Adult Giant Burrowing Frogs prefer to eat ants (Gillespie 1990) but will predate on other ground-dwelling invertebrates, such as beetles, spiders, scorpions, centipedes and cockroaches, with the occasional moth found in the stomach contents (Penman et al. 2004). The diet of the tadpole is not known but its mouthparts indicate that it is likely to feed on algae and bacteria on the pond base or attached to submerged objects (Penman et al. 2004).

Threats Table 1: Threats impacting the Giant Burrowing Frog in approximate order of severity of risk, based on available evidence

Threat factor Threat type and Evidence base status Habitat loss and fragmentation Vegetation Known current Habitat loss, through forestry operations, clearing for clearance/habitat agriculture (particularly in the southern part of the fragmentation range) and urban development (particularly in the northern part of the range) (Penman et al. 2004), is considered to be the highest threat to the Giant Burrowing Frog.

Roads can act as barriers by restricting the movement of individuals, negatively impacting gene flow among populations (Stauber 2006). Particularly in urbanised areas, roads often fragment the landscape, which has been shown to negatively impact on flora and fauna, including amphibians (Stauber 2006). Populations of Giant Burrowing Frog are known to be negatively affected by traffic (Mahony 1994), with mortality observed to increase with traffic volume (Fahrig et al. 1995).

The Giant Burrowing Frog is one of the most susceptible frog species to logging impacts in Victoria (Mazzer 1994; Hollis 2004; DEPI 2014;). Forest disturbance associated with forestry operations is known to cause the following impacts on the species: disturbance and compaction of areas used for burrowing (Penman et al. 2005); loss of vegetation, particularly the understorey, that reduces microhabitat shading (Penman 2005); and vehicle strike (Lemckert et al. 1998). If erosion control measures fail, increased loads of sediment entering water bodies following logging and associated road construction and maintenance, can fill and destroy frog oviposition sites and adversely affect the growth and development of tadpoles of many frog species (Gillespie 2002).

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 7 of 33

While logging is nominally excluded from the species' known breeding habitat in Victoria (Penman et al. 2005; DSE 2003), it is potentially occurring within forest blocks where recently recorded extant populations occur (Clemann N. pers comm. 25 May 2020). Special Protection Zones are designated around recent records, which are usually calling males or tadpoles (Clemann N. pers comm. 25 May 2020); however this protection may be limited to breeding habitat and leave other parts of the species range, such as areas used for shelter and foraging, vulnerable to logging. Current logging exclusion buffer zones on streams do not adequately protect the shaded non-breeding forest habitat where the Giant Burrowing Frog spends over 95% of its time (Penman et al. 2008a; Clemann N. pers comm. 25 May 2020).

Altered hydrology Known current Upstream clearing of habitat, and disturbances such and water quality as timber harvesting and urban development, may reduce water quality and flow regimes. Increased sedimentation in streams can result in filling of crevices in stream substrates, reducing the availability of suitable oviposition sites or refugia for tadpoles (Welsh & Ollivier 1998; Gillespie 2002).

Urban development, such as roads, cause structural changes to the local hydrology, including impeded or increased flow to wetlands (Stauber 2006) and may increase erosion and sedimentation in waterways (Stauber 2006).

Longwall coal mining is the most common underground coal extraction method in Australia and is used in the peat swamp areas of the Sydney Basin, which overlaps with the Giant Burrowing Frog distribution range.

Subsidence from longwall coal mining can alter local topography and impact surface runoff following rainfall events, which may reduce and alter hydrology (DOE 2015), thereby altering the areas and hydroperiods of breeding sites for the Giant Burrowing Frog. Other hydrological impacts include:

• increasing rates of sediment deposition • ponds drying prior to tadpoles reaching metamorphosis • chemical pollution of breeding sites (DSE, 2003), which has been observed to detrimentally impact breeding of the sympatric red-crowned toadlets (Pseudophryne australis) (Thumm & Mahony 1999) • blanketing of tadpole food sources (Green et al. 2004) • altered water pH (Green et al. 2004).

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 8 of 33

The application of fungicides, fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides to land adjoining known frog populations poses the risk of these entering and contaminating habitat areas or causing direct harm to individual animals. The impacts of agricultural chemicals on this species are unknown. However frog species are known to be sensitive to commonly used agricultural chemicals (Mann et al. 2009)

Climate change Increased Known current Climate change is expected to cause a pronounced temperature increase in extinction risk for anuran species over intensity/frequency the coming century (Pearson et al. 2014). Climate and change to projections for eastern Australia include reduced precipitation rainfall, increased average temperatures, and more patterns frequent droughts (CSIRO 2007; CSIRO & Bureau of Meteorology 2015).

A study by Penman et al. (2015), modelling metapopulation viability under a climate change scenario, suggests a reduction in suitable habitat will have the greatest impact on the viability of the Giant Burrowing Frog. The models predict that by 2100, suitable habitat for the species will be confined to a small area in the southern portion of the species range with the northern populations likely becoming extinct (Penman et al. 2015). This study predicts expected minimum abundances to decline by 66 (moderate emissions scenario) to 87% (high emissions scenario) by 2100 under global climate models appropriate to the region (in the absence of fire.

Given the dependence of the Giant Burrowing Frog on small low-order streams for reproduction, and the association with heavy rain events for becoming active (Penman et al. 2006a), it is likely that this species would be significantly and adversely affected by drought and increased temperatures. These factors would result in reduced reproductive success (due to reduced availability and persistence of suitable breeding habitats) and possibly mortality of adults (due to heat or potential desiccation stress), eventuating in a decline in abundance and contraction of distribution to the most optimal refugia within the species’ range.

Increased Known current Localised extinction of frogs has been observed intensity/frequency through wildfire events. Many frog species have little of wildfire defence against fire. They are slow and unable to flee and have a low tolerance of extreme temperatures and desiccation (Gillespie et al. 2016). Penman et al. (2006a) observed that temperate Australian frog species generally have a critical thermal limit of 34−38 ºC. However, as a burrowing

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 9 of 33

species, the Giant Burrowing Frog has been found buried at depths of 1 cm through to 30 cm (Penman et al. 2006b) and this may provide a buffer against increased temperatures; although, how well these different burrow depths provide protection from wildfire has not been tested (Penman et al. 2006b).

While the direct impacts of climate change on habitat suitability are thought to be the highest threat to Giant Burrowing Frogs, an increased frequency of high intensity wildfires under climate change further reduces the expected minimum abundances by up to an additional 40% (Penman et al. 2015).

Wildfire can adversely affect stream breeding habitat: by increasing water temperature, altering water chemistry (Lyon & O’Connor 2008), and creating sediment/ash runoff ‘slugs’ that can form in waterways following rainfall (Lyon & O’Connor 2008; Alexandra & Finlayson 2020). These slugs can fill in crevices in stream substrates, reducing the available reproductive habitat and the availability of refugia for tadpoles (Welsh & Ollivier 1998), and promote toxic algal blooms (Alexandra & Finlayson 2020) that can deoxygenate the water and cause egg and tadpole death. Sediment slugs are known to impact aquatic ecosystems up to 80 km downstream of burnt areas (Lyon & O’Connor 2008), greatly increasing the impact to stream dependent species outside of the immediate burnt area. Following the 2006-07 fires in Victoria (which burnt over 32% of the Gippsland Lakes’ catchment), rains washed an extremely high nutrient load into the lakes, which prompted a Synechococcus algal bloom that persisted until the winter of 2008 (Alexandra & Finlayson 2020).

Changes to invertebrate assemblages (Penman et al. 2006) brought about by increased fire frequency will also likely impact the Giant Burrowing Frog. Invertebrates dominate the diet of this species and reduced nutritional intake as a result of these assemblage changes may reduce survival and reproductive output (Penman et al. 2005). In the aftermath of a fire, impacts by predators (Leahy et al. 2015; McGregor et al. 2015; Hradsky et al. 2017) increase where habitat has been modified through frequent or intense burning.

In 2019-20, following years of drought (DPI 2020), catastrophic wildfire conditions culminated in fires that covered an unusually large area of eastern and southern Australia. In many places, the fires burnt with high intensity. The full impact of the 2019-20 bushfires has yet to be determined. The bushfires will not have impacted all areas equally: some areas burnt at very high intensity whilst other areas burnt at lower intensity, potentially even leaving patches unburnt within the fire footprint. However, an initial Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 10 of 33

analysis estimates that 46% of the distribution range of the Giant Burrowing Frog was impacted. The southern populations had most of the range severely affected by fires in East Gippsland, southern NSW and the Shoalhaven regions. Similarly, the northern populations had a large proportion of their distribution in the Wollemi National Park impacted (Mahony M. pers comm. 21 June 2020). This type of event is increasingly likely to reoccur as a result of climate change.

Disease Chytridiomycosis Known current Chytridiomycosis is an infectious disease caused by caused by chytrid the amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium fungus dendrobatidis (Bd)) that affects amphibians worldwide, causing mass die-offs and some species extinctions (DOEE 2016). Mortality associated with Bd erodes the capacity of subpopulations to sustain loss of recruitment associated with drought and reduces resilience to climate change (Scheele et al. 2016).

Individual Giant Burrowing Frogs have been found infected with Bd at various locations (DEH 2006). At one site 24% of late-stage tadpoles were found infected with Bd (M. Mahony unpubl. data). Skerratt et al. (2016) identified the Giant Burrowing Frog as having a moderate threat of extinction from Bd. However, it is difficult to know what influence the pathogen is having without recorded mortalities, and noting that some species of frog have been shown to persist despite high rates of chytrid infection (Retallick et al. 2004; Riley et al. 2013).

Eradicating Bd has never been achieved in wild populations. Some amphibian species are reasonably tolerant, acting as a natural reservoir, spreading the pathogen (Brannelly et al. 2018). There is no evidence that Bd has disappeared from any location in eastern Australia (Voyles et al. 2009). Although adaptive immune responses have been proposed as a possible reason for anuran species recovery, acquired immunity towards Bd in vivo has not been demonstrated and frogs have been shown to become reinfected even after multiple exposures (Murray et al. 2009; Cashins et al. 2013; Berger et al. 2016).

Invasive species Habitat damage known Disturbance and alteration of the habitat have by domestic current occurred from grazing by introduced livestock and livestock and feral deer (Penman et al. 2006a). By grazing on native animals vegetation, these introduced species may alter the floristics of the habitat and encourage weeds to establish. Also, trampling at the edges of ponds and streams contributes to erosion, thereby degrading

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 11 of 33

water quality and increasing sediment load (DSEWPC 2011).

Predation by suspected Terrestrial predators such as foxes and feral cats introduced current have been shown to prey on frogs and are thought to species, including be impacting the Giant Burrowing Frog (Hunter et al. feral cats (Felis 2018), although the population-level impacts have catus) and not yet been quantified (Hunter et al. 2018). European red fox However, a study by Woinarski et al. (2020) (Vulpes vulpes) indicated that nearly 100 million frogs are killed annually in Australia by the feral cat. Compounding this predation rate, in the aftermath of a fire, survivors are far easier to catch by predators (Leahy et al. 2015; McGregor et al. 2015), and the number of predators attracted to the area (Hradsky et al. 2017) and predator activity (Leahy et al. 2015), increase where habitat has been modified through frequent or intense burning.

Human disturbance Recreational suspected The breeding habitat of the Giant Burrowing Frog is activity current ponds and slow-moving streams in forests or heaths. This habitat is attractive to off-road vehicles, trail bike riders and hikers. This increases the chance of human disturbance and may reduce the reproductive success of the species. Camping activities and horse riding may lead to pollution of aquatic habitats and result in disturbances to vegetation and other habitats along the banks of streams. Recreational off-road vehicles can increase erosion and sedimentation of streams and tributaries, and may result in pollutants, such as fuel and oil entering streams.

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 12 of 33

Assessment of available information in relation to the EPBC Act Criteria and Regulations

Criterion 1. Population size reduction (reduction in total numbers) Population reduction (measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations) based on any of A1 to A4 Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Very severe reduction Severe reduction Substantial reduction A1 ≥ 90% ≥ 70% ≥ 50% A2, A3, A4 ≥ 80% ≥ 50% ≥ 30% A1 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or suspected in the past and the causes of the reduction (a) direct observation [except A3] are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased. A2 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred (b) an index of abundance appropriate to or suspected in the past where the causes of the the taxon reduction may not have ceased OR may not be based understood OR may not be reversible. (c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent on any of occurrence and/or quality of habitat A3 Population reduction, projected or suspected to be of the met in the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) [(a) followin (d) actual or potential levels of exploitation cannot be used for A3] A4 An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or (e) the effects of introduced taxa, suspected population reduction where the time period hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, must include both the past and the future (up to a competitors or parasites max. of 100 years in future), and where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible.

Evidence: The Giant Burrowing Frog is thought to be a slow growing and long-lived species, living up to 10 years of age and possibly longer (OEH 2017), but this has not been confirmed in any scientific study. Age to sexual maturity for the species is three years (Penman et al. 2015). Therefore, the potential generation length is approximately six to seven years, but this should be adjusted as ecological knowledge of the species improves. This gives a timeframe of approximately 18 to 21 years for this criterion.

The population size of the Giant Burrowing Frog is not known with certainty (Gillespie & Hines 1999; Penman et al. 2004). Historically, it was considered to have been locally common in the Sydney region (Barker and Grigg 1977, Hunter et al 2018) and choruses of the species were reported as “common” after summer rain storms, particularly in and around Royal National Park, NSW, and other fringes of suburban Sydney in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Lee pers. comm. in Gillespie 1990; Grigg, Dept. Zoology, University of Queensland, pers comm.). However, the species is now rare (Gillespie 1990; Rescei 1997; Webb 1987; Gillespie & Hines 1999; Gillespie et al. 2014; 2016; 2018) and populations appear to have declined, with the species sparsely distributed over a moderate geographical range (Bilney 2015; Hunter et al. 2018). With few exceptions, recent records of this species have been of a single individual or few individuals (Gillespie 1990; Daly 1996; Hunter et al. 2018). A total of just 1326 records of the Giant Burrowing Frog exist in the Atlas of Living Australia (as of 23 April 2020), with the majority (473) recorded in the decade 2000-2009 (ALA 2020).

The limited records and absence of any systematic population monitoring limits assessment of population trends and effective conservation and recovery for this species (Gillespie & Hines 1999; Robinson et al. 2018; Gillespie et al. 2018; Scheele & Gillespie 2018). The Giant Burrowing Frog is usually only detected at night after heavy rain (Gillespie 1990: Daly 1996) and this characteristic has hampered the detection of the species during fauna surveys and assessments of relative abundance. This characteristic also makes rigorous assessment of changes in local abundance or population trends difficult (Gillespie & Hines 1999; Penman et al 2004). The burrowing habit and slow movements of this species makes individuals difficult to

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 13 of 33

detect, even when active (Penman et al. 2004). While adults are difficult to survey, the tadpoles are distinctive and occur in ponds and streams for up to several months after breeding occurs.

A complex range of threatening processes operate across the range of the Giant Burrowing Frog, disturbing and degrading its habitat, including timber harvesting, cattle grazing, fuel reduction burning, introduced species and various disturbances resulting from urbanisation (Gillespie 1990; Gillespie 1997b; Recsei 1997; Hunter et al. 2018). It is also likely that European red foxes and feral cats directly prey on the Giant Burrowing Frog (Hunter et al. 2018; Woinarski et al. 2020). Individuals have been found infected with Bd at various locations (DEE 2016). At one site 24 percent of late-stage tadpoles were found infected with Bd (Mahony unpubl. data; DEE 2016), but how this translates into demographic impacts of this disease on populations is unknown. Lack of systematic monitoring limits the understanding of how this complex suite of threats interact and therefore also constrains the development of targeted and effective management actions for the species (Gillespie et al. 2018; Scheele & Gillespie 2018).

Historically the species was known from the Sydney-Hawkesbury sandstone region that occurs on the periphery of the Cumberland Plain on which Sydney occurs. Urban development extends to these sandstone ridges and plateaus and the entire area has been described as “among the most extensively and irrevocably altered landscapes in Australia”, with around 94 percent of native vegetation cleared (Siversten 1995). Declines have been reported in key populations of the Giant Burrowing Frog throughout NSW and Victoria, especially in areas where habitat fragmentation and loss, caused by forestry, agriculture and increased urbanisation, has occurred (Gillespie & Hines 1999; Mahony 1996). Recsei (1997) also reported that the species has declined throughout many parts of the Sydney-Hawkesbury sandstone region with local declines occurring mostly in areas which have suffered habitat fragmentation, along with direct and indirect impacts from urbanisation, which is placing increasing pressure upon many remaining populations in the region.

The changes and disturbances within streams and catchments are likely to be complex. Assessment of these impacts upon frog populations is likely to be further complicated by interactions with other stochastic environmental processes. The persistence of populations in streams affected by timber harvesting or some other disturbance process does not mean that they have not been significantly adversely impacted upon. Many of these processes may serve only to reduce the ability of populations to cope with other catastrophes or environmental loads (Gillespie and Hines 1999; Hunter et al. 2018).

The full impact of the 2019-20 bushfires on the Giant Burrowing Frog has yet to be determined but the population is likely greatly reduced. The fires may have accelerated any population decline, with 46 percent of the Giant Burrowing Frog’s distribution range overlapping with the fire-affected areas. These fires covered an unusually large area and, in many places, burnt with an unusually high intensity. Its pre-fire imperilment, together with the extent of potential mortality as a result of fire and the unfavourable post-fire conditions (loss of shelter, increased susceptibility to predators, and loss of food), as well as a reduction in future recruitment (egg and tadpole death), has led to the Giant Burrowing Frog being identified as one of the highest priority species for urgent management intervention by the wildlife and threatened species bushfire recovery Expert Panel.

It is unknown how the Giant Burrowing Fog responds to fire events. Subsequently, a precautionary approach on the extent of the population reduction has been taken as on-ground surveys following the 2019-20 bushfires still have to be conducted and baseline data are missing on population size, distribution and density throughout the range of the Giant Burrowing Frog. The majority of species records are from the Sydney Basin Bioregion, which was extensively burnt (DPIE 2020). Therefore, the species is assumed to have likely experienced significant impacts from the fires to greater than 50 percent of the population, which will continue to have a detrimental impact over the next one to three generations. This meets the Endangered threshold under subcriterion A4(c).

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 14 of 33

Compounding the impact from the 2019-20 bushfires, the Giant Burrowing Frog has physiological and ecological traits that confer both low resistance and low resilience to climate change (Pearson et al. 2014; Penman et al 2015), and therefore a likelihood of being severely impacted. In particular, the species’ specialised breeding requirements may be impacted by reduced rainfall and increased temperatures (Penman et al. 2006; Lemckert & Penman 2012), whilst an increased frequency and intensity of bushfires pose both a direct and indirect threat to the species (Penman et al. 2015). Modelling by Penman et al. (2015) showed a higher probability of a decreasing population under increasing severity of climate change, with suitable habitat for the species confined to a small area in the southern portion of the species range with the northern populations likely becoming extinct by 2100.

Therefore, the Committee has inferred a significant cumulative population decline of at least 50 percent over three generations (including the past and into the future), caused by a complex range of threats: ongoing habitat decline (including the extent of the Giant Burrowing Frog’s distribution range affected by the 2019-2020 bushfires); combined with the climate change models showing severe impacts to the species by 2100.

The data presented above appear to demonstrate that the species is eligible for listing as Endangered (A4(c)) under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Criterion 2. Geographic distribution as indicators for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy Critically Endangered Vulnerable Endangered Restricted Limited Very restricted B1. Extent of occurrence (EOO) < 100 km2 < 5,000 km2 < 20,000 km2 B2. Area of occupancy (AOO) < 10 km2 < 500 km2 < 2,000 km2 AND at least 2 of the following 3 conditions indicating distribution is precarious for survival: (a) Severely fragmented OR Number = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10 of locations (b) Continuing decline observed, estimated, inferred or projected in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals (c) Extreme fluctuations in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) number of locations or subpopulations;( iv) number of mature individuals

Evidence: The Giant Burrowing Frog occurs in NSW and Victoria along the coast and adjacent ranges in two disjunct populations. Based on the mapping of point records for a 20-year time period (2000-2020) (obtained from state governments, museums and CSIRO) the Extent of Occurrence (EOO) has been estimated at 89 510 km2, and the Area of Occupancy (AOO) at 868 km2. The EOO was calculated using a minimum convex hull, and the AOO calculated using a 2x2 km grid cell method, based on the IUCN Red List Guidelines 2014. The AOO meets the threshold for listing as Vulnerable under sub criterion B2.

The Giant Burrowing Frog is not evenly distributed throughout its range and a range disjunction is observed between Ulladulla and Narooma (Lemckert et al. 1998; Gillespie and Hines 1999; Hunter et al. 2018). The majority of species records are from the northern end of the range, around the Sydney Basin Bioregion on the Hawkesbury sandstone formation (Gillespie & Hines 1999). Elsewhere, particularly in the southern part of the range of the species, only one or a few adults have been located at any one time (Gillespie 1990; Daly 1996). In south-eastern NSW and Victoria, the Giant Burrowing Frog has only been detected infrequently, the most individuals located together were four (Gillespie & Hines 1999). A frog survey in East Gippsland, targeting Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 15 of 33

areas where the Giant Burrowing Frog had been found historically, only detected one individual (Osborne and Holloway, unpubl data cited in Gillespie & Hines 1999). Many other sites in Victoria at which the species had previously been recorded have been revisited, in some cases on numerous occasions, without relocating the species (Gillespie pers obs. cited in Gillespie & Hines 1999; Holloway and Osborne 1996 unpubl.). According to the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas there have been only 72 confirmed observations of the frog in Victoria since 1907 and just 13 of those were this century (DELWP 2019). Despite considerable searching, there are only a few records in southern NSW in recent decades (Bilney 2015; ALA 2017) and in recent years only one population has been recorded in Victoria (Hunter et al. 2018) although more may exist (Clemann N. pers comm. 26 June 2020).

The number of locations is identified as less than ten (likely six), meeting the threshold for listing as Vulnerable under subcriterion (a). A location is defined as “a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present” (IUCN 2019). The locations in NSW are considered to be: the Sydney Basin Bioregion, where the majority of records occur; the Wollongong to Jervis Bay region; Eden to the NSW/Victorian border, containing only scattered and infrequent records and a range disjunction between Jervis Bay and the Narooma district (Lemckert et al. 1993); the Snowy River National Park, containing a few restricted sites. In Victoria there are considered to be two locations for this species: the three most westerly records (museum specimens from south of Walhalla in 1966, a museum specimen from 1973, approximately 10 kilometres north of Lake Glenmaggie, and a record of a calling male in the summer of 1997-8 just north of Lake Glenmaggie); and east Gippsland (Clemann N. pers comm. 15 May 2020). The 2019-20 bushfires burned from north- west of Bairnsdale almost to the tip of Cape Howe, providing recent, strong evidence of a single event affecting almost all of the east Gippsland (and adjoining parts of New South Wales) location for this species (Clemann N. 2020 pers comm. 15 May 2020). Given the extent of the 2019-20 bushfires, which are believed to have impacted 46 percent of the distribution range of the Giant Burrowing Frog, many populations could rapidly be affected by a single bushfire event.

As outlined in the Threats table above, ongoing logging operations remain a primary threat to the Giant Burrowing Frog. In Victoria, individual locations of the Giant Burrowing Frog within State Forests are given some protection from logging operations through the establishment of buffer zones (DSE 2003). However, there is a high probability of non-detection of this species (Gillespie et al. 2018; Hunter et al. 2018) and there is significant potential to impact individuals that may occur beyond these buffers (Penman et al. 2005). Rare or declining species are those most likely to remain undetected (even when present) during pre-impact assessments (MacKenzie et al. 2005), especially when those species are active only during certain seasons and specific weather conditions. Reliance on detection-based protection of habitat can result in important habitat being destroyed under the assumption that it is unoccupied. Forest habitat for threatened species can be clear-felled if a pre-logging survey does not detect the species (Powell and Sedunary 2013). Owing to difficulties in detection, Penman et al. (2008b) caution that conservation management prescriptions for the Giant Burrowing Frog in forests should be independent of detection. Fraser et al. (2003) suggest that inappropriate methods are sometimes applied during pre-impact assessments: some involve inexperienced staff and some are conducted at inappropriate spatial scales (Powell and Sedunary 2013) or during weather conditions or at times of the year when detection of key species is sub-optimal.

Based on ongoing threats, the Giant Burrowing Frog population is projected to continue to decline in EOO, AOO, extent and quality of habitat, number of locations or subpopulations, and number of mature individuals, thereby meeting sub criterion (b)(i,ii,iii,iv,v). Many complex threatening processes operate across the range of the Giant Burrowing Frog, including timber harvesting, agriculture, fuel reduction burning, introduced species and various disturbances resulting from urbanisation (Gillespie 1990; Gillespie 1997b; Recsei 1997) (as identified in Criterion 1).

Climate change is already thought to have impacted the population. Population modelling (Penman et al. 2015) showed a higher probability of a decreasing population under increasing severity of climate change, with suitable habitat for the species confined to a small area in the

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 16 of 33

southern portion of the species range with the northern populations likely becoming extinct by 2100. Impacts from the 2019-20 bushfires are suspected, with 46 percent of the Giant Burrowing Frog’s distribution range overlapping with the fire-affected areas (DAWE 2020).

The data presented above appear to demonstrate that the species is eligible for listing as Vulnerable (B2(a)(b)(i, ii, iii, iv, & v)) under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Criterion 3. Population size and decline

Critically Endangered Vulnerable Endangered Low Limited Very low Estimated number of mature individuals < 250 < 2,500 < 10,000 AND either (C1) or (C2) is true C1 An observed, estimated or projected Very high rate High rate Substantial rate continuing decline of at least (up to 25% in 3 years or 1 20% in 5 years or 2 10% in 10 years or 3 a max. of 100 years in future) generation generation generations (whichever is longer) (whichever is (whichever is longer) longer) C2 An observed, estimated, projected or inferred continuing decline AND its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival based on at least 1 of the following 3 conditions: (i) Number of mature individuals in ≤ 50 ≤ 250 ≤ 1,000 each subpopulation (a) (ii) % of mature individuals in one 90 – 100% 95 – 100% 100% subpopulation = (b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals

Evidence: The population size of the Giant Burrowing Frog is not known (Gillespie & Hines 1999) but information indicates that the species is now rare (Gillespie 1990; Rescei 1997; Webb 1987; Gillespie et al. 2018). A total of 1326 records of the Giant Burrowing Frog are recorded in the Atlas of Living Australia (as of 23 April 2020), with the majority (473) recorded in the decade 2000-2009 (ALA 2020). Recent records of this species have been of a single individual or few individuals (Gillespie 1990, Daly 1996). Therefore, a small population size is suspected and considered likely under 10 000 mature individuals, meeting the threshold for listing as Vulnerable.

Following the recent 2019-20 bushfires, and into the immediate future (within three generations), a substantial population reduction of at least 50 percent is projected (as identified in Criterion 1). The direct and indirect impacts of climate change and the bushfires are the primary factors in this decline, with the surviving population further fragmented and less likely to recover from future extreme events, such as those from increasing climate change impacts and disease (Penman et al. 2015). This level of decline exceeds the threshold for listing as Vulnerable under sub criterion C1.

A precautionary approach on the extent of the population reduction has been taken as on-ground surveys following the 2019-20 bushfires have to be conducted and baseline data is missing on population size and distribution density throughout the range of the Giant Burrowing Frog (Gillespie & Hines 1999). Therefore, the Committee has inferred a significant cumulative decline of at least 50 percent over three generations, in-line with the extent of the Giant

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 17 of 33

Burrowing Frog’s distribution range overlapping with the fire-affected areas, ongoing loss of habitat due to disturbance and clearing, combined with the species’ low resistance and resilience to anticipated climate change, and ongoing susceptibility to Bd.

The data presented above appear to demonstrate that the species is eligible for listing as Vulnerable (C1) under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Criterion 4. Number of mature individuals

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Extremely low Very Low Low (Medium-term future)1

Number of mature individuals < 50 < 250 < 1,000

D21 Only applies to the Vulnerable category Restricted area of occupancy or D2. Typically: area of number of locations with a plausible - - occupancy < 20 km2 or future threat that could drive the number of locations ≤ 5 species to critically endangered or Extinct in a very short time

1 The IUCN Red List Criterion D allows for species to be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion D2. The corresponding Criterion 4 in the EPBC Regulations does not currently include the provision for listing a species under D2. As such, a species cannot currently be listed under the EPBC Act under Criterion D2 only. However, assessments that demonstrate eligibility for listing under other criteria may include information relevant to D2. This information will not be considered by the Committee in making its assessment of the species’ eligibility for listing under the EPBC Act, but may assist other jurisdictions to adopt the assessment outcome under the common assessment method.

Evidence: The population size of the Giant Burrowing Frog is not known (Gillespie & Hines 1999) but is considered likely greater than 1000 mature individuals (see Criterion 1). In addition, the AOO is greater than the threshold under subcriterion D2, and so the Giant Burrowing Frog does not meet the requirements for listing under this criterion.

The data presented above appear to demonstrate the species is not eligible for listing under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 18 of 33

Criterion 5. Quantitative Analysis

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Immediate future Near future Medium-term future ≥ 50% in 10 years or ≥ 20% in 20 years or Indicating the probability of extinction in 3 generations, 5 generations, ≥ 10% in 100 years the wild to be: whichever is longer whichever is longer (100 years max.) (100 years max.)

Evidence: Modelling of the impacts of climate change on the Giant Burrowing Frog was undertaken by Penman et al. (2015). This study predicts expected minimum abundances to decline by 66 percent (moderate emissions scenario) to 87 percent (high emissions scenario) by 2100 under global climate models appropriate to the region. However, the probability of extinction in the wild over a 3 generation timeframe has not been calculated. Therefore, the species is not eligible for listing under this criterion. The purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Conservation Actions

Recovery Plan A decision about whether there should be a recovery plan for this species has not yet been determined. The purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to help inform this decision.

Primary Conservation Actions 2019-20 bushfire response

• Survey known populations during the 2020-21 breeding season to monitor ongoing impacts from the bushfires. • In the aftermath of the bushfires, manage unburnt areas within or adjacent to recently burnt areas to reduce risks from future bushfires, in order to provide refuge sites, as well as managing unburnt areas that are not adjacent to burnt areas. • Control of introduced predators may support the recovery of populations affected by fires, or populations near areas that have been affected by fire. • Control of introduced herbivores may support the regeneration of forest habitat at some localised sites. • Implement weed control and habitat restoration works to support the regeneration of forest habitat at some localised sites. Note that herbicide formulations can be toxic to frogs and tadpoles, particularly if they contain glyphosate and surfactants (Mann et al. 2003). • Establish the impact of fire retardants, used to fight bushfires, on frog populations.

Conservation and Management priorities Habitat loss disturbance and modifications • Ensure that adequate protection measures are in place to protect the viability of populations in areas subjected to forestry and associated management activities (this includes logging, road construction, coupe burning etc.). Given the lack of robust information about the impacts of logging on the species, stringent protection measures

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 19 of 33

should be adopted, such as increasing the current timber harvesting protection zone around sightings of the species in Victoria from 50 hectares to 150 hectares and the waterway protection zone to 500 m wide on each side of the waterway and 5 km in either direction (Lemckert & Brassil 2003; Clemann N. pers comm. 15 May 2020).

• Use species distribution and habitat modelling to identify habitat critical to survival (high probability/high quality for the species) and key population areas. Ensure this habitat is protected from disturbances that undermine its suitability for the species. • Encourage landholders to enter land management agreements, particularly in-perpetuity covenants that promote the protection and maintenance of key population areas. • Identify and conserve landscape characteristics that facilitate movement between subpopulations. • Investigate options for enhancing the resilience of the species’ current habitat to climate change and options for new areas of habitat that would be suitable for the species under climate change scenarios. Invasive species (including threats from grazing, trampling, predation) • In areas burnt by bushfires, control of introduced predators may be required to support population recovery, and control of introduced herbivores will aid habitat recovery. • Weed control and habitat restoration may be needed in localised areas to support habitat regeneration. Note that herbicide formulations can be toxic to frogs and tadpoles, particularly if they contain glyphosate and surfactants (Mann et al. 2003). • Develop and implement longer-term strategies and eradication programs to control invasive predators. • Use fencing, or other measures where applicable, to reduce the access of domestic stock to stream banks. Disease • Ascertain the impact of Bd on Giant Burrowing Frog populations. In particular:

o To what extent does BD reduce survivorship and therefore impact population dynamics?

o What environmental and ecological factors exacerbate or ameliorate this? o Investigate availability of Bd refuge sites, either within or outside of the natural known range of the species. • Minimise the spread of Bd.

o implement suitable hygiene protocols (Murray et al. 2011) to protect priority populations as described in the threat abatement plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis (DOEE 2016).

o Provide disease identification and prevention protocols (methods of handling, diagnostic keys, etc.) to researchers and land managers for use in the field.

Stakeholder Engagement • Educate landowners and managers of the importance of maintaining riparian and lentic habitat, and the integration of habitat protection into land management regulations. • Liaise with councils responsible for areas of habitat in urban areas, to promote water- sensitive design that minimises run-off containing phosphates or other pollutants into Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 20 of 33

known populations or habitat. Raise awareness among residents in relevant suburbs adjacent to known populations or habitat, about the importance of minimising the amount of pollutants (e.g. pesticides, herbicides, cleaning products) that go into stormwater. • Liaise with mining companies in habitat areas to avoid impacts of mining on streams and swamps. Avoid diversion of surface water to the sub-surface so that hydrological regimes are maintained and water flows and water quality around the upper reaches of streams and swamps are protected. • Provide input into the various impact assessment and planning processes on measures to protect the Giant Burrowing Frog and its habitat. These include water resource plans, park management plans and environmental impact assessments. • Provide advice to private land holders and community groups on how to protect and restore habitat and to ameliorate the impacts of introduced species. • Engage interested nature conservation, land management, and land holder groups in conservation management activities and citizen science projects, such as non-invasive monitoring through the FrogID project. Activities need to be carefully managed to prevent disturbance to frogs (particularly in breeding season) and participants should be made aware of the need to follow correct field practices and hygiene protocols to mitigate the risks of trampling and disease transmission. If necessary, use workshops to aid stakeholders in developing the skills and knowledge required to manage threats to this species while undertaking these activities. • Work with outdoor recreational activity associations to raise awareness about the potential damage to habitat from off-road vehicles and camping in particularly sensitive locations.

Survey and Monitoring priorities • Using well designed survey methods and modelling, identify with more precision the current distribution and habitat associations of the species. • Design and implement a fit-for-purpose monitoring program for the Giant Burrowing Frog to evaluate population trends, impacts of established threats (e.g. forestry) and emerging threats (e.g. changing fire regimes and climate change) and population responses to management interventions (Gillespie et al. 2018). Monitoring of occurrence could best rely on searches for tadpoles (Mahony M. pers comm, 2020) or eDNA could be used to search for presence or absence of individuals. • Conduct targeted survey, fine-scale habitat mapping and monitoring of breeding and non-breeding activity to inform an assessment of the cumulative impacts of longwall mining (e.g. subsidence, stream pollution) on habitat, survival and reproduction, in affected locations. • Broad scale regular monitoring should be undertaken over the species’ known range. Sites should span the altitudinal and latitudinal range and a range of other habitat characteristics. These data will be used to assess the species’ status and assess further declines or re-establishment/recovery of subpopulations. • Survey sites within the known range of the species where the environment is considered likely to be suitable for the species to identify whether subpopulations exist that are previously unknown.

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 21 of 33

Information and Research priorities • Collect tissue samples from southern populations for genetic analyses to clarify taxonomy. • Determine the geographic extent and connectivity of subpopulations, and the amount of habitat required to maintain their viability, which will then be used to inform the establishment of Special Protection Zones and buffers from logging and other disturbance processes.

• Trial stream remediation targeted at streams with breeding habitat for this species that have been impacted by longwall mining.

• Identify all potential threatening processes that may have affected the species distribution and abundance, then evaluate their relative contribution to the decline and impediment to recovery. In particular:

o Assess the effects of fire on survival and reproduction, including: . The impact of altered environmental attributes, such as sediment loads, stream hydrological regimes and riparian vegetation structure and composition. . The species’ long-term response to major fire events or altered fire regimes, through identifying those parts of its range that are most vulnerable, or conversely, where there are opportunities to enhance refuges from fire.

o Improve understanding of the extent and impact of infection by Bd on the Giant Burrowing Frog to better inform how to apply existing or new management actions relevant to the recovery.

o Understand the potential influence of climate change on the long-term survival prospects of the species, due to altered temperatures, rainfall patterns, bushfires, environmental stressors and diseases.

• Investigate options for reintroductions or assisted colonisation if necessary. Reintroductions should only be based on genetic and ecological similarity between source and target subpopulations.

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 22 of 33

Collective list of questions – your views SECTION A GENERAL

1. Is the information used to assess the nationally threatened status of the species robust? Have all the underlying assumptions been made explicit? Please provide justification for your response.

2. Can you provide additional data or information relevant to this assessment?

3. Have you been involved in previous state, territory or national assessments of this species/subspecies? If so, in what capacity?

PART 1 – INFORMATION TO ASSIST LISTING ASSESSMENT

SECTION B DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ECOLOGY OR BIOLOGY OF THE SPECIES? (If no, skip to section C)

Biological information

4. Can you provide any additional or alternative references, information or estimates on longevity, average life span and generation length?

5. Do you have any additional information in the ecology or biology of the species not in the current advice/plan?

SECTION C ARE YOU AWARE OF THE STATUS OF THE TOTAL NATIONAL POPULATION OF THE SPECIES? (If no, skip to section D)

Population size

6. Has the survey effort for this taxon been adequate to determine its national adult population size? If not, please provide justification for your response.

7. Do you consider the way the population size has been derived to be appropriate? Are there any assumptions and unquantified biases in the estimates? Did the estimates measure relative or absolute abundance? Do you accept the estimate of the total population size of the species? If not, please provide justification for your response.

8. If not, can you provide a further estimate of the current population size of mature adults of the species (national extent)? Please provide supporting justification or other information.

If, because of uncertainty, you are unable to provide a single number, you may wish to provide an estimated range. If so, please choose one of the ranges suggested in the table below of possible subspecies numbers, and also choose the level of confidence you have in this estimate:

Number of mature individuals is estimated to be in the range of: □ 1–50 □ 51–250 □ 251–1000 □ >1000 □ >10 000

□ 51–95% - reasonably certain, information suggests this range □ 95–100% - high level of certainty, information indicates quantity within this range □ 99–100% - very high level of certainty, data are accurate within this range

SECTION D ARE YOU AWARE OF TRENDS IN THE OVERALL POPULATION OF THE SPECIES? (If no, skip to section E)

9. Does the current and predicted rate of decline used in the assessment seem reasonable? Do you consider that the way this estimate has been derived is appropriate? If not, please provide justification of your response.

Evidence of total population size change

10. Are you able to provide an estimate of the total population size in 2008-2010 (at or soon after the start of the most recent three generation period)? Please provide justification for your response.

Number of mature individuals is estimated to be in the range of: □ 1–50 □ 51–250 □ 251–1000 □ >1000 □ >10 000

Level of your confidence in this estimate: □ 0–30% - low level of certainty/ a bit of a guess/ not much information to go on □ 31–50% - more than a guess, some level of supporting evidence □ 51–95% - reasonably certain, information suggests this range □ 95–100% - high level of certainty, information indicates quantity within this range □ 99–100% - very high level of certainty, data are accurate within this range

11. Are you able to comment on the extent of decline in the species/subspecies’ total population size over the last approximately 10 years? Please provide justification for your response.

If, because of uncertainty, you are unable to provide an estimate of decline, you may wish to provide an estimated range. If so, please choose one of the ranges suggested in the table below of ranges of decline, and also choose the level of confidence you have in this estimated range.

Decline estimated to be in the range of: □ 1–30% □31–50% □51–80% □81–100% □90–100%

Level of your confidence in this estimated decline: □ 0–30% - low level of certainty/ a bit of a guess/ not much information to go on □ 31–50% - more than a guess, some level of supporting evidence

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 24 of 33

□ 51–95% - reasonably certain, suggests this range of decline □ 95–100% - high level of certainty, information indicates a decline within this range □ 99–100% - very high level of certainty, data are accurate within this range

12. Please provide (if known) any additional evidence which shows the population is stable, increasing or declining.

SECTION E ARE YOU AWARE OF INFORMATION ON THE TOTAL RANGE OF THE SPECIES? (If no, skip to section F)

Current Distribution/range/extent of occurrence, area of occupancy

13. Does the assessment consider the entire geographic extent and national extent of the species/subspecies? If not, please provide justification for your response.

14. Has the survey effort for this species/subspecies been adequate to determine its national distribution? If not, please provide justification for your response.

15. Is the distribution described in the assessment accurate? If not, please provide justification for your response and provide alternate information.

16. Do you agree that the way the current extent of occurrence and/or area of occupancy have been estimated is appropriate? Please provide justification for your response.

17. Can you provide estimates (or if you disagree with the estimates provided, alternative estimates) of the extent of occurrence and/or area of occupancy?

If, because of uncertainty, you are unable to provide an estimate of extent of occurrence, you may wish to provide an estimated range. If so, please choose one of the ranges suggested in the table below of ranges of extent of occurrence, and also choose the level of confidence you have in this estimated range.

Current extent of occurrence is estimated to be in the range of: □ <100 km2 □ 100 – 5 000 km2 □ 5 001 – 20 000 km2 □ >20 000 km2

Level of your confidence in this estimated extent of occurrence □ 0–30% - low level of certainty/ a bit of a guess/ not much data to go on □ 31–50% - more than a guess, some level of supporting evidence □ 51–95% - reasonably certain, data suggests this range of decline □ 95–100% - high level of certainty, data indicates a decline within this range □ 99–100% - very high level of certainty, data is accurate within this range

If, because of uncertainty, you are unable to provide an estimate of area of occupancy, you may wish to provide an estimated range. If so, please choose one of the ranges suggested in the table below of ranges of area of occupancy, and also choose the level of confidence you have in this estimated range.

Current area of occupancy is estimated to be in the range of:

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 25 of 33

□ <10 km2 □ 11 – 500 km2 □ 501 – 2000 km2 □ >2000 km2

Level of your confidence in this estimated extent of occurrence: □ 0–30% - low level of certainty/ a bit of a guess/ not much data to go on □ 31–50% - more than a guess, some level of supporting evidence □ 51–95% - reasonably certain, data suggests this range of decline □ 95–100% - high level of certainty, data indicates a decline within this range □ 99–100% - very high level of certainty, data is accurate within this range

SECTION F ARE YOU AWARE OF TRENDS IN THE TOTAL RANGE OF THE SPECIES? (If no, skip to section G)

Past Distribution/range/extent of occurrence, area of occupancy

18. Do you consider that the way the historic distribution has been estimated is appropriate? Please provide justification for your response.

19. Can you provide estimates (or if you disagree with the estimates provided, alternative estimates) of the former extent of occurrence and/or area of occupancy?

If, because of uncertainty, you are unable to provide an estimate of past extent of occurrence, you may wish to provide an estimated range. If so, please choose one of the ranges suggested in the table below of ranges of past extent of occurrence, and also choose the level of confidence you have in this estimated range.

Past extent of occurrence is estimated to be in the range of: □ <100 km2 □ 100 – 5 000 km2 □ 5 001 – 20 000 km2 □ >20 000 km2

If, because of uncertainty, you are unable to provide an estimate of past area of occupancy, you may wish to provide an estimated range. If so, please choose one of the ranges suggested in the table below of ranges of past area of occupancy, and also choose the level of confidence you have in this estimated range:

Past area of occupancy is estimated to be in the range of: □ <10 km2 □ 11 – 500 km2 □ 501 – 2000 km2 □ >2000 km2

Level of your confidence in this estimated extent of occurrence:

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 26 of 33

□ 0–30% - low level of certainty/ a bit of a guess/ not much data to go on □ 31–50% - more than a guess, some level of supporting evidence □ 51–95% - reasonably certain, data suggests this range of decline □ 95–100% -high level of certainty, data indicates a decline within this range □ 99–100% - very high level of certainty, data is accurate within this range

PART 2 – INFORMATION FOR CONSERVATION ADVICE ON THREATS AND CONSERVATION ACTIONS

SECTION G DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON THREATS TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES? (If no, skip to section H)

20. Do you consider that all major threats have been identified and described adequately?

21. To what degree are the identified threats likely to impact on the species/subspecies in the future?

22. Are the threats impacting on different populations equally, or do the threats vary across different populations?

23. Can you provide additional or alternative information on past, current or potential threats that may adversely affect the species/subspecies at any stage of its life cycle?

24. Can you provide supporting data/justification or other information for your responses to these questions about threats?

SECTION H DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON CURRENT OR FUTURE MANAGEMENT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE SPECIES? (If no, skip to section I)

25. What planning, management and recovery actions are currently in place supporting protection and recovery of the species/subspecies? To what extent have they been effective?

26. Can you recommend any additional or alternative specific threat abatement or conservation actions that would aid the protection and recovery of the species/subspecies?

27. Would you recommend translocation (outside of the species’ historic range) as a viable option as a conservation actions for this species/subspecies?

SECTION I DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON STAKEHOLDERS IN THE RECOVERY OF THE SPECIES?

28. Are you aware of other knowledge (e.g. traditional ecological knowledge) or individuals/groups with knowledge that may help better understand population trends/fluctuations, or critical areas of habitat?

29. Are you aware of any cultural or social importance or use that the species has?

30. What individuals or organisations are currently, or potentially could be, involved in management and recovery of the species/subspecies?

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 27 of 33

31. How aware of this species are land managers where the species is found?

32. What level of awareness is there with individuals or organisations around the issues affecting the species/subspecies?

a. Where there is awareness, what are these interests of these individuals/organisations?

b. Are there populations or areas of habitat that are particularly important to the community?

PART 3 – ANY OTHER INFORMATION

33. Do you have comments on any other matters relevant to the assessment of this species?

References cited in the advice Alexandra J & Findlayson M (2020). Floods after bushfires: rapid responses for reducing impacts of sediment, ash and nutrient slugs. Australasian Journal of Water Resources. DOI: 10.1080/13241583.2020.1717694. Anstis M (2017). Tadpoles and Frogs of Australia 2nd Edition. New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd, Australia. Barker, J. and Grigg, G. (1977) A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, NSW. Berger L, Roberts AA, Voyles J, Longcore JE, Murray KA & Skerratt LF (2016). History and recent progress on chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Fungal Ecology 19(2016), 89–99. Bilney, R. (2015). Observations of Giant Burrowing Frogs Heleioporus australiacus (Limnodynastidae) in the Mitchell River catchment, East Gippsland, Victoria. Victorian Naturalist 132, 128–133. Brannelly LA, Webb RJ, Hunter DA, Clemann N, Howard K, Skerratt LF, Berger L, & Scheele BC (2018). Non‐declining amphibians can be important reservoir hosts for amphibian chytrid fungus. Animal Conservation 21(2), 91-101. Cashins SD, Grogan LF, McFadden M, Harlow PS, Berger L & Skerratt LF (2013). Prior Infection does not improve survival against the amphibian disease chytridiomycosis. Public Library of Science 8(2), 1–7. Coughran J & Daly G (2012). Potential threats posed by a translocated crayfish: the case of Cherax destructor in coastal drainages of New South Wales, Australia. Crustacean Research 7, 5–13. Daly G (1996). Observations on the eastern owl frog Heleioporous australiacus (Anura: Myobatrachidae) in southern New South Wales. Herpetofauna. 26:33-42. Fahrig L, Pedlar JH, Pope SE, Taylor PD & Wegner JF (1995). Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 73, 177-182. Fraser JL, Thompson GG & Moro D (2003). Adequacy of terrestrial fauna surveys for the preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments in the mining industry of Western Australia. Ecological Management and Restoration 4:187-192. Gillespie GR (1990). The distribution, habitat and conservation status of the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) (Myobatrachidae) (Shaw) in Victoria. Victorian Naturalist 107, 144-153. Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 28 of 33

Gillespie GR (1997). Survey design and management prescriptions for the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) and the stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus). Arthur Rylah Institute, Victoria. Gillespie GR (2002). Impacts of sediment loads, tadpole density, and food type on the growth and development of tadpoles of the spotted tree frog Litoria spenceri: an in-stream experiment. Biological Conservation 106:141-150. Gillespie GR & Hines HB (1999). The current status of temperate riverine frog species in south- eastern Australia. In: A. Campbell (Ed.), Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra. pp. 109-130. Gillespie GR, Hunter D, Hollis G, Scheele BS & West M (2018). A tale of threatened frogs: demonstrating the value of long-term monitoring. Chapter 12 in: Legge, S., Lindenmayer, D.B., Robinson, N.M., Scheele, B.C., Southwell, D.M., Wintle, B.A. (Eds) (2018). Monitoring threatened species and ecological communities. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South. Gillespie GR, McNabb E & Gaborov R (2016). The biology and status of the Large Brown Tree Frog, Litoria littlejohni, in Victoria. The Victorian Naturalist 133(4):128-138. Green M, Thompson MB & Lemckert FL (2004). The effects of suspended sediments on the tadpoles of two stream-breeding and forest dwelling frogs, Mixophyes balbus and Heleioporus australiacus. In: Lunney D (ed.) Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna (second edition). Pp 713-720. Hero J-M, Lemckert F, Gillespie G, Robertson P & Littlejohn M (2004). Heleioporus australiacus. In: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2013). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available on the Internet at: www.iucnredlist.org Hollis, G (2004). Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act Action Statement for the Baw Baw Frog Philotis frosti. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. Hradsky BA, Mildwaters C, Ritchie EG, Christie F & Di Stefano J (2017) Responses of invasive predators and native prey to a prescribed forest fire. Journal of Mammalogy 98, 835-847. Hunter D, Clemann N, Coote D, Gillespie G, Hollis G, Scheele B, Phillips A & West M (2018). Frog declines and associated management response in South-eastern mainland Australia and Tasmania. In: Vol. 11: Amphibian Biology, H. Heatwole and J. Rowley (Eds) Amphibian Conservation in Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Baulkham Hills, NSW, Australia. Jansen, K.P., Summers, A.P., Delis, P.R., 2001. Spadefoot Toads (Scaphiopus 706 holbrookii holbrookii) in an Urban Landscape, Effects of Non-natural Substrates on 707 Burrowing in Adults and Juveniles. Journal of Herpetology 35, 141-145. Leahy L, Legge SM, Tuft K, McGregor HW, Barmuta LA, Jones ME, & Johnson CN (2015). Amplified predation after fire suppresses rodent populations in Australia’s tropical savannas. Wildlife Research 42, 705-716. Lemckert FL & Brassil T (2003). Movements and habitat use of the endangered giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus), and its conservation in forestry areas. Amphibia-Reptilia 24: 207-211. Lemckert FL, Brassil T & McCray K (1998). Recent records of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) from the far south coast of New South Wales. Herpetofauna. 28(1):32-39. Lemckert FL & Penman TD (2012). Climate change and Australia's frogs: how much do we need to worry? in D Lunney & P Hutchings (eds) Wildlife and climate change: towards robust conservation strategies for Australian fauna. Mosman, New South Wales. pp 92- 98. Lyon JP & O’Connor JP (2008). Smoke on the water: can riverine fish populations recover following a catastrophic fire-related sediment slug? Austral Ecology 33(6): 794-806

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 29 of 33

MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Sutton N, Kawanishi K & Bailey LL (2005). Improving inferences in population studies of rare species that are detected imperfectly. Ecology 86:1101-1113. Mahony MJ (1994). The status of frogs in the Watagan Mountains area the Central Coast of New South Wales. In Herpetology in Australia: a diverse discipline. Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Sydney pp 257-264. Mahony MJ (1996). The decline of the Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea viewed in the context of declines and disappearances of other Australian frogs. Australian Zoologist 30, 237-247. Mann RM, Bidwell JR & Tyler MJ (2003). Toxicity of herbicide formulations to frogs and the implications for product registration: a case study from Western Australia. Applied Herpetology 1, 13–22. Mann RM, Hyne RV, Choung CB & Wilson SP (2009). Amphibians and agricultural chemicals: Review of the risks in a complex environment. Environmental Pollution 157,2903-2927. Mazzer T (1994). Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act Action Statement for the Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. McDonald-Madden E, Runge MC, Possingham HP & Martin TG (2011). Optimal 746 timing for managed relocation of species faced with climate change. Nature Clim. 747 Change 1, 261-265. McGregor H, Legge S, Jones ME, & Johnson CN (2015) feral cats are better killers in open habitats, revealed by animal-borne video. PLoS ONE 10, e0133915. Murray KA, Skerratt LF, Speare R & McCallum H (2009). Impact and dynamics of disease in species threatened by the amphibian chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Conservation Biology 23(5), 1242-1252. Pearson RG, Stanton JC, Shoemaker KT, Aiello-Lammens ME, Ersts PJ, Horning N, Fordham DA, Raxworthy CJ, Ryu HY, McNees J & Akçakaya HR (2014). Life history and spatial traits predict extinction risk due to climate change. Nature Climate Change 4. pp 217– 221. Penman T, Lemckert F & Mahony M (2004). Two hundred and ten years of looking for the giant burrowing frog. Australian Zoologist. 32(4):597-604. Penman TD (2005). Applied Conservation Biology of a Threatened Forest Dependent Frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Newcastle. Penman TD, Mahony MJ & Lemckert FL (2005a). Soil disturbance in integrated logging operations and the potential impacts on a fossorial Australian frog. Applied Herpetology 2:415-424. Penman TD, Mahony MJ, Towerton AL & Lemckert FL (2005b). Bioclimatic analysis of disjunct populations of the giant burrowing frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Journal of Biogeography 32:397-405. Penman T, Lemckert F, Slade C & Mahony M (2006a). Non-breeding habitat requirements of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) in south-eastern Australia. Australian Zoologist 33:251-257. Penman TD, Lemckert FL & Mahony MJ (2006b). A preliminary investigation into the potential impacts of fire on a forest dependent burrowing frog species. Pacific conservation Biology, 2006 78-83 CSIRO. Penman TD, Lemckert FL & Mahony MJ (2006c). Meteorological effects on the activity of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) in south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Research. 33:35-40. Penman TD, Lemckert FL & Mahony MJ (2008a). Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions. Wildlife Research 56, 179-186

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 30 of 33

Penman TD, Lemckert FL & Mahony MJ (2008b). Applied conservation management of a threatened forest dependent frog, Heleioporus australiacus. Endangered Species Research 5:45-53. Penman TD, Keith DA, Elith J, Mahony MJ, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB & Regan TJ (2015). Interactive effects of climate change and fire on metapopulation viability of a forest dependent frog in south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 190 (2015) 142-153. Powell CJ & Sedunary DN (2013). Development of a threatened fauna management framework across Victoria’s state forests. Australian Forestry 76(1):10-15. Rescei J (1997). The giant burrowing frog Heleioporus australiacus. In: Threatened frogs of New South Wales: Habitats, Status and Conservation. Pp. 56-65. Retallick RWR, McCallum H & Speare R (2004). Endemic infection of the amphibian chytrid fungus in a frog community post-decline. PLoS One 2,1965-1971. Riley K, Berry OF & Roberts JD (2013). Do global models predicting environmental suitability for the amphibian fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, have local value to conservation managers? Journal of Applied Ecology 50,713-720. Robinson NM, Scheele BM, Legge S, Southwell DM, Carter O, Lintermans M, Radford JQ, Skroblin A, Dickman CR, Koleck J, Wayne AF, Kanowski J, Gillespie GR & Lindenmayer DB (2018). How to ensure threatened species monitoring leads to threatened species conservation. Ecological Management and Restoration, 19(3), 222-229. Scheele BC & Gillespie GR (2018). The extent and adequacy of monitoring for Australia’s threatened frogs. Chapter 4 In: S. Legge, D.B. Lindenmayer, N.M. Robinson, B.C. Scheele, D.M. Southwell and B.A. Wintle (Eds.) Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South, Australia. Scheele BC, Hunter DA, Banks SC, Pierson JC, Skerratt LF, Webb R, & Driscoll DA (2016). High adult mortality in disease-challenged frog populations increases vulnerability to drought. J Anim Ecol 85, 1453–1460. Siversten D (1995). Habitat loss – its nature and effects (including case studies from New South Wales). In Conserving biodiversity: threats and solutions, pp 29-42. Skerratt LF, Berger L, Clemann N, Hunter DA, Marantelli G, Newell DA, Philips A, McFadden M. Hines HB, Scheele BC, Brannelly LA, Speare R, Versteegen S, Cashins SD & West M (2016). Priorities for management of chytridiomycosis in Australia: saving frogs from extinction. Wildlife Research 43, 105–120. Stauber AG (2006). Habitat requirements and habitat use of the Red-crowned toadlet Pseudophryne australis and the Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus in the Sydney Basin. PhD thesis. Thumm K & Mahony M (1999). Loss and degradation of red-crowned toadlet habitat in the Sydney Region. In: Campbell A (ed.). Declines and disappearances of Australian frogs. Canberra: Environment Australia. Voyles J, Young S, Berger L, Campbell C, Voyles WF, Dinudom A, Cook D, Webb R, Alford RA, Skerratt LF & Speare R (2009) Pathogenesis of Chytridiomycosis a cause of catastrophic amphibian declines. Science 326(5952), 582–585. Webb GA (1987). A note on the distribution and diet of the Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus. Herpetofauna, 14: 87-91 Webb G (1993). Significance of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporous australiacus) in the Bomaderry Creek Reserve. Submission to Land & Environment Court. Welsh HH & Ollivier LM (1998). Stream amphibians as indicators of ecosystem stress: a case study from California’s redwoods. Ecological Applications 8(4), 1118–1132. Woinarski JCZ, Legge SM, Woolley LA, Palmer R, Dickman CR, Augusteyn J, Doherty TS, Edwards G, Geyle H, McGregor H, Riley J, Turpin J, Murphy BP (2020). Predation by

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 31 of 33

introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed. Wildlife Research

Other sources cited in the advice ALA (Atlas of Living Australia) (2020). Heleioporus australiacus. Accessed: 23 April 2020 Available at: https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=lsid:urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.tax on:20119b25-a27c-4174-b3e0-8639e8a21131#tab_chartsView Clemann N (2020) Personal communication, 15 May 2020. Program Leader - Threatened Fauna Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Clemann N (2020) Personal communication, 25 May 2020. Program Leader - Threatened Fauna Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Clemann N (2020) Personal communication, 26 June 2020. Program Leader - Threatened Fauna Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning CSIRO (2007). Climate Change in Australia. Viewed: 26 February 2020 Available at: http://www. climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/ CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (2015). Climate Change in Australia Information for Australia’s Natural Resource Management Regions: Technical Report, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Australia. DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) (2020). Wildlife and threatened species bushfire recovery research and resources. Viewed: 18 May 2020 Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/bushfire-recovery/research-and-resources Department of the Environment and Energy (2016). Threat abatement plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis, Commonwealth of Australia 2016. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/infection- amphibians-chytrid-fungus-resulting-chytridiomycosis-2016 DELWP (Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning) (2019). Protecting the elusive Giant Burrowing Frog. Viewed 28 April 2020. Available at: https://www2.delwp.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/giant-burrowing-frog DEPI (Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries) (2014). Management Standards and Procedures for timber harvesting operations in Victoria’s State forests, 2014. Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne. DOE (Department of the Environment) (2015). Monitoring and management of subsidence induced by longwall coal mining activity. Accessed: 27 February 2020 Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/8a22c56a-3c83-4812-aa2f- 9d0bc40ac718/files/monitoring-management-subsidence-induced-longwall-coal-mining- activity.pdf DPI (NSW Department of Primary Industries) (2020). Drought in NSW. Viewed: 13 February 2020. Available at: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/climate-and- emergencies/droughthub/drought-in-nsw DPIE (NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment) (2020). Burnt Area Map. Viewed: 1 June 2020 Available: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/parks- reserves-and-protected-areas/fire/park-recovery-and-rehabilitation/recovering-from-2019- 20-fires/understanding-the-impact-of-the-2019-20-fires DSE (Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment) (2003). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement – Giant Burrowing Frog. Victorian Government, Melbourne. Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 32 of 33

Viewed: 8 May 2020. Available at: https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/32438/Giant_Burrowing _Frog-Heleioporus-australiacus.pdf DOEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2019). Area of Occupancy and Extent of Occurrence for Heleioporus australiacus. Unpublished report, Australian Government Department of the Environment, Canberra. DSEWPC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2011). Feral Deer. Viewed: 03 March 2020 Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/c6679b32-5f03-4839-aa57- 9c5723153b0f/files/fs-feral-deer.pdf Gillespie GR (2010). Expert Witness Report (Giant Burrowing Frog). Online and dated 23 October 2010. Downloaded 28/4/2020. https://eastgippsland.net.au/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/Expert_Witness_Report_Giant_burrowing_frog.pdf Hero J-M, Lemckert F, Gillespie G, Robertson P & Littlejohn M (2004). Heleioporus australiacus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/41046/10393601 [Accessed: 24-Apr-2020]. Mahony M (2020). Personal communication, 21 June 2020. Professor, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle. OEH (NSW Office of Environment & Heritage) (2017). Giant Burrowing Frog – profile. NSW Government. Available from: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=10398 Southwell D (2020). Design considerations for post natural disaster (fire) on-ground assessment of status of species, ecological communities, habitats and threats. Threatened Species Recovery Hub. Viewed: 28 May 2020 Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/a8d10ce5-6a49-4fc2-b94d- 575d6d11c547/files/draft-post-fire-rapid-assessment-guide.pdf

Heleioporus australiacus (Giant Burrowing Frog) consultation Page 33 of 33